Of course the “pro-science” side looks like it’s winning. One aspect of winning is the ability to have yourself declared “pro-science” and even have government agencies re-write past data to support your argument.
To get a more objective view, let’s look at past government interventions, for example, the history of government nutrition policy is full of the “pro-science” side winning with bad science and imposing it on the public.
Searching for other takes on that link shows that that rewriting of historical temperatures was announced in advance, is routinely done, and didn’t actually affect how much evidence there was for global warming in general, even if it seemed to do so in a cherry-picked case.
Of course the “pro-science” side looks like it’s winning. One aspect of winning is the ability to have yourself declared “pro-science” and even have government agencies re-write past data to support your argument.
To get a more objective view, let’s look at past government interventions, for example, the history of government nutrition policy is full of the “pro-science” side winning with bad science and imposing it on the public.
Searching for other takes on that link shows that that rewriting of historical temperatures was announced in advance, is routinely done, and didn’t actually affect how much evidence there was for global warming in general, even if it seemed to do so in a cherry-picked case.
Well that lowers how much credit I assign atmospheric science even more.
A skeptical take on that link