In fact let me repost without any reply to anyone, because the points I made about the science apply to the entire bit of CRU nonsense and nontroversy.

It is wholly dishonest crap.

If the results of any experiment, are corraborrated by other sources - and they are in the case of CRU, you can conclude that the experiment worked.

This is basic science. This is the point of multiple independent observers. Though in this case it is more like three people worked the math and got the same answer to the same problem.

If you have a scientific claim - say about the color of an orange, and you only have one set of eyes looking at it, then sure, maybe the orange was really purple and you can go into debating if the eyes were really working properly ad nauseum - and still have some chance of maybe possibly being correct. This is true, even if unlikely, even after every eye expert out there tells you that they examined the eyes looking and found no serious fault.

But when you start getting other eyes looking and they were made and operated by others and they give the exact same result, the greatest probability is that the orange really is orange - and guess what, the original eyes that said it was orange are correct. You are then done.

All this CRU crap is perpetuating a false meme in a vain and dishonest hope of discrediting science in general.

What really annoys me is that people claim to like science even as they try to tear it down from its very principles.

And here, I do not mean AGW per se - I mean the notion of independent observation confirming results.

They would rather continue a false and bogus scandal on one set of results in order to smear all other sets.

It’s disgusting.