If should just be a rule: if no one can try to replicate it, it isn't science. I don't care what kind of data you're using.
They think they've "seen" quantum fluctuations.
This seems startling and impressive.
My first reaction was that surely there must be a reasonable explanation. But then I considered the institutions involved and I think maybe not so surely.
Sabine Hossenfelder does a good job explaining in non-technical terms why radiating black holes give physicists a pain the the rear.
Interview with Carlo Rovelli whose book, Seven Brief Lessons on Physics, I read and enjoyed enough to get his most recent book, Reality is Not What It Seems.
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I'd like to believe that time exists as a physical phenomenon, independent of any observers.
"There are some who don’t like that answer, others who don’t think it even qualifies to be called an answer, and some who accept it."
Steven Weinberg discusses his concerns.
Scientific American reports on what seems like a really big development: "One of the driest countries on Earth now makes more freshwater than it needs".
I could give many more examples, but undoubtedly you are getting the picture. A reasonably intelligent person who investigates the situation will quickly find that the promoters of the global warming scare refuse to reveal their detailed methodology, refuse to allow independent researchers to try to replicate their work, and refuse to answer any and all hard questions.
Also of interest: "100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering".