Slashdot Mirror
Climategate and the Need For Greater Scientific Openness
The Guardian follows up on the recent news that CRU climate scientists were cleared of scientific misconduct with an article that focuses on how the controversy could have been avoided, and public trust retained, had the scientists made more of an effort to be open about their research. You may recall our discussion of a report from Pennsylvania State University; that was followed by another review with similar conclusions. Quoting:
"The review, led by Sir Muir Russell, does not mention the media. Instead, it examines the reaction of the scientists at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to the pressure exerted by bloggers: 'An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognize this and to act appropriately can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover-up.' The review adds: 'We found a lack of recognition of the extent to which earlier action to release information might have minimized the problems.' Pressure on the scientists, whose once esoteric work creating records of past temperatures had gained global significance, was intense. In 2005, CRU head Phil Jones replied to a request: 'We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?' But, the review implies, the more they blocked, the more the Freedom of Information requests flooded in."
Bottom line - the reviewer ignores a very important point. If you're sitting on a scandal, the last thing you want to do is release all the gory details. You may catch flak for not being 'open', but that's better than being open AND giving your critics the ammunition they need to sink you. The current state of academic research has drifted farther and farther from what we call the 'scientific method'. Peer review is often a joke, and politics has way too much to do with things. We have people in academia producing research that is beyond bogus, but so long as they can find a few other bogus researchers to pat them on the back for it, the charade continues. It gets even worse when the people doling out the money have fiercely political agendas and encourage the bullshit with a paycheck. Newton, Hooke, et al are rolling over in their graves...
None of the people who asked for the data were amateurs.
Bullshit. Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist, and neither is Anthony Watts. However they're practically the cheerleaders for the mad dog skeptic movement. Factions of the Tea Party movement practically worship the electrons they transmit their blogs through. They're not the only ones either. Now it's gotten to the point where researches who should be, you know, researching have to spend enormous amounts of their time dealing with the growing deluge of FOIA requests.
The sad part is, absolutely everything could be made 100% open and free and you would STILL have people like McIntyre and Watts claiming a world wide conspiracy.
This has never been about "openness". It's not about the quality of research. It's not about modeling errors, statistical analysis, weather station locations, or anything else. This has been, and will continue to be, about a concerted effort to undermine scientific research and results to maintain or increase profitable gain. Conspiracy? Hardly. Perhaps if this hadn't happened before, then one could call it a conspiracy. But it has. Several times. Anyone who remembers the "controversies" over acid rain, ozone depletion through CFCs, or smoking knows exactly how a well funded, well-oiled FUD machine can destroy even the best scientific research.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
~X~
Are you actually arguing that you cannot do open science in climate science because someone may actually question the results?
No, idiot. Read more carefully.
People aren't "questioning the results". They're lying, spinning, defaming, and otherwise doing whatever the fuck they can to win a PR war. In an environment like that, the scientists would be well advised to be very careful when communicating with the public, as these lying assholes will spin every comment, misquote every statement, distort every fact possible, in order to win the fight.
The fact you believe "it is the climate scientists who sounds like religious fundamentalists" just proves these fucktards are winning, which is rather sad, but inevitable when you have an undereducated populace, and a complex scientific topic where the results are annoyingly inconvenient.
Pearls before swine my friend, pearls before swine.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Ok asshole. All government data SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED. Because of YOUR ARGUMENT. People that disagree with the conclusion are amateurs and mad dog skeptics(in your fucking words).
Put up or shut up. If you don't want to share data, then nobody else should either. And your fucking opinion doesn't count worth jack shit on these other topics for the same reason that you don't consider others opinions as relevant. Its NOT YOUR FUCKING PROFESSION so you shouldn't have any input to how decisions are made. Your just a nay sayer that will find any excuse to say they are wrong. Isn't that EXACTLY what your saying with regard to this research?
God, I hate fucking hypocrites. No shit.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Policy is not politics. Just making policy on some knowledge is not politicization of it. When politicians pressure the knowledge underlying the policy using their power over the public rather than science, that's politicization.
Unless you're a Republican. Then every policy is political. Because all government is socialism, which is evil.
--
make install -not war
I can spell "denialist trash" at least. My spelling seems more accurate.
Clever signature text goes here.
There is no high priesthood of science. What you have is a number of scientists who are actual experts, and then you have a bunch of political demagogues trying to convince everyone else that the scientists are wrong because the research is contrary to the demagogues' political ideology.
Clever signature text goes here.
You've forgotten to take your pills again, haven't you?
Typical denialist nonsense. First make a completely bogus claim, then, when faced with evidence to the contrary, ignore that you were just caugt lying, and move the goalpost. Propaganda? That's what you are spewing.
Clever signature text goes here.
Christ. You denialists are always spewing the same old lies. In fact, the hockey stick was upheld by independent research. The rest of your comment is equally ignorant and dishonest.
Clever signature text goes here.