Usually it's about climate science and today it is no different:
The British investigation into charges that scientists at a leading climate-research university manipulated data is about as convincing as the "science" of global warming.Of course they found no "smoking gun" because there was none to be found. But such inconvenient truths are lost on Scaife's braintrust. The report itself explains a bit of science (pity the lesson was not absorbed by Dickie's crew) and in doing so shows why the whole "tainted email/tainted science" argument is, well, horse hockey:
After only one day of hearings Parliament's Science and Technology Committee could find no smoking gun in the "Climategate" e-mail scandal that engulfs the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and chief climate crier Dr. Phil Jones.
E-mails concerning a "trick" scientists used to "hide the (temperature) decline" got the same cursory treatment.
And from an inquiry that was only announced in January, the committee concludes that the CRU climate data square with those of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Climatic Data Center, the world's largest archive of climate information.
Climate science, like any other science, uses the scientific method to make its assessments of past and present climate and predictions about the future climate. The key characteristics of the scientific method can be described as: characterisations, hypotheses, predictions, and experiments.
• Characterisations: consideration of a problem, and examination of whether or not an explanation exists for it.
• Hypotheses: if no such explanation exists, a new explanation is stated.
• Predictions: what consequences follow from a new explanation?
• Experiments: is the outcome consistent with the predicted consequences?
Each of these is subject to peer review prior to the formal sharing of knowledge through publication. Through peer review scientists allow their views and methods to be critically appraised expertly and externally.
• Replication and verification
To have the results and conclusions survive criticism or scepticism and be part of the accepted canon of scientific knowledge, most experiments will have to be demonstrably replicable (by the same group) to pass peer review and will often need to be verified by other independent researchers taking similar approaches.
That last part is the key. Turns out that there are two other main "datasets" being worked on; NOAA and NASA. While the raw data the three use may overlap, their numbers are all "crunched" differently. And all subject to independent peer review.
Lo and behold they all come to the same conclusion. The planet is warming.
Either that or the whole British Parliament is now among the climate co-conspirators. A conspiracy only the wingnut nation sees.