Secret science is not science.
In order for something to be scientific by definition it must be replicable. If the data are secret, they cannot be replicated. If the data cannot be replicated, it is not science.
A website called Understanding Science has this to say: “The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section, which describes exactly how the researchers performed the study. That information allows other scientists to replicate the study and to evaluate its quality, helping ensure that occasional cases of fraud or sloppy scientific work are weeded out and corrected.”
In June a study was published in the Journal Science in which National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote that the planet’s “global average surface temperature had climbed 0.2 of a degree Fahrenheit each decade since 1950, without interruption, due to the heat-trapping effects of greenhouse gases,” according to newspaper accounts. This was supposed to quash the awkward reports that there had been a 15-year or longer plateau in temperatures that none of the models predicted.
There were accusations at the time that NOAA scientists had tweaked the data to fit the global warming agenda. Some said the scientists selectively altered which temperature data to use prior to the plateau, adjusting those temperatures downward to make it look like there was a continued increase.
In July the House Science, Space and Technology committee Chair Lamar Smith of Texas asked NOAA for data and internal communications related to the study.
According to the magazine Nature, NOAA handed over publicly available data, but refused to turn over the internal communications.
“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” NOAA told Nature. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”
Smith replied, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda. The Committee intends to use all tools at its disposal to undertake its Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities.”
Smith also said in a statement, “It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get the politically correct results they want and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made.”
Remember those leaked emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that revealed how data was being manipulated to fit the global warming agenda? Might that be the real reason a federally funded agency will not explain to the people who fund it how it is arriving at its scientific conclusions?
If there is no problem, there is no funding.