I read your comment both and after reading the article. Before, it seemed like a reasonable issue to raise. After, it seems like you either didn't read the arti

I read your comment both and after reading the article. Before, it seemed like a reasonable issue to raise. After, it seems like you either didn't read the article or just responded to a completely unrelated fantasy of your own making. > This is actually an excellent illustration of how organizational incentives seep into data. For that claim to be anything other than bullshit, you would need to show that they actually have seeped in. Instead, what you showed is a creative hypothesis about how that might happen, supported by no evidence, and with a glaring hole. The glaring hole in your hypothesis is that there is intense skepticism of climate change and the incentive structure you imagine simply doesn't exist. What you've written is a nice way to cast doubt on the data, which is a bit unfortunate given where the science and the politics actually stand.