How a word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking
I see a large problem in the fact that (as it seems) the original data and the computer code is not published, too. This is in my opinion a contradiction to the scientific principle that any result or conclusion has to be able to verified independently as much as possible. Though not publishing data and computer programs (and ideally a virtual machine for independent execution of the program code, too) is unluckily accepted practise in science.<p>If it were otherwise any critic of the result could reapply the computer program to the non-detrended data and see that the conclusion will not change. On the other hand, if the computer program and data is not published he has to trust the conclusions that the researchers came to. So the only way for an independent person to check the result is to find indirect evidence that the conclusion could be wrong. And finding out that a different data set than (wrongly) claimed was used is exactly such indirect evidence (and in my opinion nearly as far as one is able to if one doesn&#x27;t have access to the used data and computer programs).