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."
Sometimes People Say More Than They Mean To
As Dr Johnson almost said, a black intellectual is like a dog walking on its hind legs: it’s not done well, but you’re surprised to find it done at all. One of Britain’s most prominent black intellectuals is Trevor Phillips, the Chair of the Commission for Triangular Squares and Flying Pigs – better known as the Commission for Racial Equality. If Phillips’ intelligence matched his self-regard and self-righteousness, he’d be pushing back the frontiers of physics or computer science somewhere. But he’s black and it doesn’t, which means that he sometimes says more than he means to.
He recently wrote an article for The Independent, one of Britain’s two big liberal newspapers, arguing for the economic benefits of mass immigration and describing a recent trip he had made to the United States and Canada. One city he visited was failing, another was flourishing, and he explained the difference using immigration. The failing city hadn’t been blessed by it, the flourishing city had. This is how he put it – see if you can spot the blatantly racist conclusion he drew without realizing it:
Immigration in North America is really about economics. I spent much of last week there, starting on the banks of the Mississippi. In the small, African-American district of East St Louis, the only businesses that thrive are fast-food outlets and beauty parlours; the tax base is so low that 80 per cent of the city’s education spending comes from federal handouts. By contrast the city in which I ended my trip, Vancouver, lies at the heart of a dazzling growth surge in western Canada. One thing above all accounts for the transformation of this Pacific coast backwater into an economic success story: immigration. Nearly half of those who live in the city centre are immigrants, among them over 300,000 Chinese and 200,000 Indians.
Did you spot it? That’s right: Trevor Phillips, black head of the British Commission for Racial Equality, was complaining in one of Britain’s big liberal newspapers about lazy, dumb, good-fer-nothing niggers. A city with lots of blacks fails, because blacks are lazy and stupid and just want to fill their guts fast and look good so they can get sex. But a city with lots of Chinese and Indians flourishes, according to Phillips, because they’re clever and materialistic and work hard for themselves and for their children. And what would happen if East St Louis got lots of Chinese and Indian immigrants? The blacks would still be lazy and stupid, but now they’d have two new groups to feel envy and resentment towards, and two new groups would learn to hate and despise blacks. Something similar will already be happening in Canada: Vancouver’s surface glitter will hide a lot of racial tension, and when that glitter fades, as it inevitably will, the racial tension is going to turn nasty.
That’s a part of why White nations don’t need Chinese and Indian immigrants. Even if they “help the economy” in the short term, it’s better to be poor and racially healthy than rich and racially diseased. We can survive on our own; we cannot survive in company with other races. What Phillips and other blacks are asking us to do is build our own funeral pyre, soak it in kerosene, and then hand them the matches. Phillips & Co are on the funeral pyre too and they’re going to go up with us when they strike the match, but they’re dumb niggers and don’t quite get that part.
The people pulling their strings aren’t dumb though. White nations never voted for mass immigration and with the exception of greedy, selfish businessmen, never wanted it. Only the small Jewish minority wanted it, but Jews aren’t stupid and they got what they wanted.
You can see them regularly gloating over their success in The Independent and The Guardian, the other big liberal paper in Britain. In the latter, one David Aaronovitch wrote o
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
I suggest you try being a public liar who makes up inane quibbles and colossal lies to attack quality science in the name of paranoia and corporate profits. Then you'll find that you're not quite ignored or defined as a public liar, but that there's always a venue in public media with an audience for your lies. And a bankroll to pay you to keep up your trolling.
The reason AGW "proponents" (people demonstrating it with facts and logic) have "the upper hand" is because they're correct. The people lying to deny it shouldn't get anything but laughter and a kick in the ass. That they have any place in the public debate shows how disproportionate is their power to lie. Because it's worth so much money to the polluters and the lying media outlets that love them.
--
make install -not war
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.