An interesting read ...

So the research isn't as true as we thought:

If replication is what separates the rigor of science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all these rigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which results should we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneer of the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential, because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears that nature often gives us different answers.

This article goes on about much more weighty subjects, and is interesting for that alone.

But it begs the question: What about all of these AGW experiments in which the scientists actively hide their procedures, and won't let anyone try to replicate the results? This article goes into much more than the willfulness of AGW cheerleaders, including the realization that there are unknown things that affect experiments, even when researchers try to correct for them.

h/t Ace's headlines

pm