One of my better comments in reply to:
It’s not so much that scientific bodies are accused of fabricating data. More a case that scientific bodies can modify data according to bias. In climate science, they call much of their data modification: ‘homogenization’. It's been scientifically shown that when climate scientists homogenize data, the net result is often warmer than reality. e.g.
(1) “data homogenization for [temperature] stations moved from downtowns to suburbs can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.” – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0
(2) “the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4ºC and 0.7ºC, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data respectively” – http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/1212/2/documents/EGU2012-956-1.pdf
Homogenization can nearly double actual global warming. Anyone who believes their bias or imagination before the facts must be termed a ‘flat earther’ too. I hear you ask me: Q: ‘how are these climate scientists biased?’. A: we are all biased, but some of us have critics to moderate our worse excesses. In contrast, where they can, climate scientists drive their critics out of work. e.g. Roger J. Pielke, Peter Ridd, …
You may say that a few mistakes here and there are justified. But these 'mistakes' are systematic; almost the norm now. Any scientist who does statistics without checking for their own bias is either incompetent or does not care about bias because they believe they have an 'important narrative to tell us'. With climate scientists, I think it is probably both. I don't really think they are flat-earthers; just dangerous and out-of-control.
PS 1: My original comment edited here
PS 2: The authors of the article I wrote about are both scientists. They are projecting demons of their imagination onto their critics. Something we all do when we demonize our opponents.