The "there were restriction" is the usual all or nothing excuse...
in eral works there is restriction linked to business practice. real scientist respect that provided things stay honest... when you desire to refuse, you take the first excuse.
what the scientist was needing is to be able to say "it does not work" or "we cannot check enough" , and they can.
the excuse of the blackbox, or the embargo on results until the final report is not a challenge to their honesty.
I don't see what Essen and Kullander have abandonned ? they have seen it worked, they said it...
Now nobody believe them, that is deniers problem. We should not inverse the reality.
If you see something that work, assume just that you see it working, you cross check, it work ... what do you do ?
Like Lewis and Garwin, you just kept silent ?
That is your conception of honesty ? I imagine no.
That is the conception of honesty by some people I agree. Not mine.