Yes; I think the simplest and most likely explanation here is going to involve specific facets of the data or analysis which people won't be familiar with unless they've been studying it for several years.
That doesn't mean it isn't sloppy though, and while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies -- they aren't well-enough funded to spend their time answering the various challenges of laypeople that aren't educated enough to understand the field -- it's still a really poor choice in the longer term that's going to result in a lot of suspicion regarding their work.
Or, alternatively: we're seeing some confirmation bias at work.
"while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies " - I can't. If your results can't be reproduced independently, it's not science, it's an assertion from authority.
This is a really, really basic part of scientific research. Failing to do it should raise huge red flags.
That doesn't mean it isn't sloppy though, and while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies -- they aren't well-enough funded to spend their time answering the various challenges of laypeople that aren't educated enough to understand the field -- it's still a really poor choice in the longer term that's going to result in a lot of suspicion regarding their work.
Or, alternatively: we're seeing some confirmation bias at work.