In my ongoing effort to understand climatology, and its limited adherence to scientific conventions, I came across the following passage from the Penn State investigation and exoneration of Michael E. Mann.
"In a follow-up question, Dr. Easterling was asked whether he saw any difference between certain kinds of experimental scientific fields and observational ones like paleoclimatology. He responded by stating that much of what we know about climate change is the result of a combination of observation and numerical modeling, making the classic idea of falsification of a hypothesis, which may be applicable to a laboratory science, of limited applicability in the study of climate change."
Well, that's good to know. Paleoclimatology is beyond hypothesis falsification!
That probably accounts for the other issues which are beyond scientific norms: e.g. basic statistical correctness, cherry picking, extreme article recycling (aka plagiarism), etc.