I'm not sure why this would be impressive. That's how science has always worked, and scientists very often get excited when new data increases the likelihood that some previously held idea is false. In fact, more often than not what irritates scientists is when experiments increase support for existing theories since that usually means that other theories are less likely to hold (e.g., LHC and supersymmetry theories). That results in people who had invested long periods of time into work that the data now says is bogus having mild existential crises - "damnit nature - now what?".
It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories is something noteworthy.
‘We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.'
You can say what you want about the antagonistic nature of climate science (the pro-AGW site skeptical science excuses the above quotes on that basis), but I think science flourishes best when opposing viewpoints are vigorously but truthfully defended.
Indeed! And the climate-deniers being talked about are very far indeed from truthful or scientific, so there's no point in doing anything to aid their campaign of deceit. They'll lie about it either way.
Justifying bad action (hiding or misrepresenting data, allowing untruthful hyperbolic statements, ad hominem attacks) on the basis of hypothetical bad action is hardly helpful.
> climate-deniers
I've never heard anyone deny the climate.
I've never actually heard anyone deny climate change, except those who assert there was no significant change before the 19th or 20th century.
Very few even deny anthropogenic climate change - most just question the magnitude, relative attribution, or whether it will be easier to adapt rather than attempt to prevent.
You probably meant "catastrophic anthropogenic climate change denier", which is just an intentionally offensive way to say, "Someone who disagrees with the consensus position so we hope you'll ignore them".
They must be given every opportunity to criticize. They don't need to be given the same attention, but have to be allowed to criticize or else we create sacred cows.
I'm not sure of the percentages, but I would say many scientists feel pressure to publish "new groundbreaking results that fit a lofty hypothesis"
This situation is a little different because their hypothesis actually wasn't lofty, but their results were.
But it is decently undeniable in my eyes that scientists are facing pressure from the MBAs to set goals first and then brute force the results to match the goals.
"It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories is something noteworthy."
I don't think this is a problem in physics but it seems to be a problem in social sciences or economics where people get defensive when doubts arise over their theories.
It says something unfortunate about the current perception of science if people think scientists getting excited about new data contradicting theories is something noteworthy.