And I don’t think it’s logically rude to demand that the evidence adhere to the standard safeguards against human failings.
It isn’t logically rude to criticize a science. Though in fairness to climate science I think nearly every science routinely makes errors similar to the ones you mention. That said, we shouldn’t take this information and conclude that AGW is probably false.. Scientists should be Bayesians and the fact that they’re not is evidence against what they believe… but it isn’t strong enough evidence to reverse the evidence we get from the fact that they’re still scientists.
It isn’t logically rude to criticize a science. Though in fairness to climate science I think nearly every science routinely makes errors similar to the ones you mention. That said, we shouldn’t take this information and conclude that AGW is probably false.. Scientists should be Bayesians and the fact that they’re not is evidence against what they believe… but it isn’t strong enough evidence to reverse the evidence we get from the fact that they’re still scientists.