Er, no.

I work for a full-service commercial laboratory. We are currently undergoing our fourth lab-wide audit in as many months, this time by a private accreditation organization. A team of uber lab geeks picks every nit, examines every tittle, and probes every jot of our practices and procedures to ensure that we do only that which is rigidly scientifically defensible. It’s the ultimate in peer-review – outsiders, some of whom work for our closest rivals, spending a week thumbing through our documents and grilling our staff, and we not only tolerate it, we relish it. Why?

Because it benefits us to pass such an independent examination, immeasurably increasing our ability to get and hold business. The imprimatur of the laboratory-accrediting organization is not only gratefully and graciously accepted, like a badge of courage (white, black, and teal, in this case) we wear it proudly on every marketing piece we do. While our proprietary data (and that of our customers) is kept in confidence, our procedures and policies are essentially on display for all to see.

So, if transparency is good enough for commercial laboratories, where there are very real risks to competitiveness at stake, why are the “scientists” who keep the data on global climate change so secretive? Why do they, when they think no one is looking, heap scorn on their critics, and plot to suppress or alter data which does not fit their political agenda? And most importantly, how can they claim that their work is “peer-reviewed”, when the small clique that runs the whole enterprise simply reviews each others’ massaged data, and that of others who scientifically and politically agree with them and their goals?

I’m too polite to say it.

F**K it, no I’m not. They’re crooks.