This web page asks economists for "confessional" papers about "preference falsification" they have "engaged in":
- Building models one does not really believe to be useful or relevant.
- Making simplifications that obscure or omit important things.
- Using data one does not really believe in.
- Focusing on the statistical significance of one’s findings while quietly doubting economic significance.
- Engaging in data mining.
- Drawing “policy implications” that one knows are inappropriate or misleading.
- Keeping the discourse “between the 40 yard lines” so as to avoid being outspoken; knowingly eliding fundamental issues.
- Tilting the flavor of policy judgments to make a paper more acceptable to referees, editors, publishers, or funders.
- Disguising one’s methodological or ideological views, such as by omitting revealing activities or publications from one’s vitae.
- For government, institute, or corporate economists: Having to significantly play along with things one does not believe in.
It seems to me that some of these apply to "climate" "science". Recently, it seems to me that some dendrologists are playing “between the 40 yard lines” rather than take on a powerful, vindictive clique of gov't-supported warmers. How many global circulation models are affected by items in the list? (especially the first five.)