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."
They aren't politicians -- they aren't accountable to the public, though they often do perform public services.
If they are using MY tax dollars then they damn well ARE accountable to the public.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The three inquiries into the fraudulent science by Phil Jones, Michael Mann and others have all been political whitewashes. The alleged climate scientists involved in Climategate need to spend some quality time behind bars for they have perpetrated a number of obvious frauds and continue to do so, they used political methods to silence other scientists who had different results, they pass off poor statistical correlations as settled science (no such thing) when the Natural Null Hypothesis has better statistical correlation, even worse they have unnecessarily scared the global population with their doomsday soothsaying all driven by their own political agenda to secure additional funding (which they succeed at quite well for fear works to extract money from politicians who don't think critically especially those who live life basking in the internal brain drugged up endarkened ignorance of faith based beliefs).
It is a sad era for science. Richard Feynman would be rocking in his grave if he knew about this (and if dead people could rock in their graves but unfortunately biology tells us that dead parrots stay dead, oh wait that was monty python that tells us that, anyway I digress so back to the colorful expression of dead scientists rocking in their graves at a political white wash).
Richard Feynman had this to say on the topic of integrity of scientists:
"But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves-of having utter scientific integrity-is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish it at all. That's
>>>So all of their private conversations are suddenly public record because they get paid with tax dollars?
No.
Because they have the ear of the US and EU leaders who are enforcing CO2 caps, and if these scientists' advice is to be followed rather than ignored, then they damn well better PROVE their case. "I say so and my data backs me up," is not sufficient. Show the data to other climatologists and let them confirm or refute the conclusion.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I call bullshit that boyindrag has EVER supplied a working patch.
More CO2 output = more energy retained in the atmosphere, therefore man made global warming is a fact. The exact results of that differ in the models, but denying it is equivalent to saying you're a moron...
It was only a big deal to the paid US shills
Says the paid Warmist shill (after all, if anyone who disagrees with you is paid then anyone who disagrees with them must be paid. Makes as much sense as your theory).
So rather than taking the word of you, the handsomely paid shill, ahow about we poll the public?
Oh, somebody did.
Looks like in fact public trust took a giant hit. But then as a paid shill one of your favorite past-times is "hiding the decline", apparently in any form.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Really? Parent gets "Insightful"? Overrated, Troll, Flamebait perhaps, but Insightful?
Whatever the case may be, it looks like the CRU crew has folks with slashdot moderation points in their pocket.
Ideals are just that: goals for which to strive. They are not standards expected to be met.
Right, because there should be no "standards" in science.
I've taken the liberty of correcting the rest of your post to reflect what actually happened:
"However, as we've seen with this recent hoax that was perpetrated by climate "scientists" (a field hardly yet formed) and then promoted heavily by the corporate media, there are those that would act in bad faith in order to protect their grants or political agenda, no matter the cost to the people of the world.
The least I would have expected, though, in light of the evidence showing that this climate-gate scandal was scientists trumped-up attacks on other scientists perpetrated by the alternative-energy industry and those with related financial interests, faux-conservatives and the left-wing media, was that MSM would have taken the time to clarify for their viewers the problems with scientists not allowing other scientists to review data, and the many forms that scientific "falsification" can take when you are trying to prove a pre-concieved point rather than do real scientific research. After all the air time they spent on this story trying to pretend there was no story, The MSM owes those men and women (and their own viewers) an apology for having misled them and trying to cover up the scandal as long as possible (and even now continues to make excuses for them)."
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mod parent up! These people have no interest in performing science. They only want to find something wrong with it!
From the very same article you linked to:
Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, argues the review missed the point of criticisms regarding the deletion of tree-ring data after the 1960s. "It gave the false impression that all proxy graphs follow the twentieth-century records," he says. "But given that they do not, the question is how accurate were they in tracking temperatures in past centuries -- did they miss warming in the past too?"
Couldn't you even be bothered to read to the end of the article?
If they were intentionally misleading the public, why had the same graph already been published with the missing information?
"If they were intentionally misleading the public, why would they omit the data from a later publication with much wider circulation?"
Do you realize how silly you sound when in context?
The evidence of your post tells me that the misrepresentation of facts doesn't seem to bother you at all..
Given your selective quoting of the article you gave and careful spin of publishing graphs later with important data omitted, Pot Meet Kettle is about all I have to say about you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> When you spit on the "unwashed masses" don't be surprised when they spit back.
More importantly, when so called scientists[1] behave like arrogant elitist pricks they shouldn't be suprised when those unwashed masses refuse to cede unprecedented political power to them when they cry 'DOOM!'
Because even though we aren't all scientists we do know scoundrels when we hear em and too many of these scientists sound like common con artists because they are playing in an area they are ill equipped for, politics. Even worse they let real crooked politicians hitch their wagons to their theory for their own political AND financial gain. And they are telling us we are all DOOMED unless we dismantle our entire civilization. Those are the most extraordinary claims men of science have ever made and they are doing it on some of the most incomplete evidence ever presented.
And yes, dismantling civilization as we understand it is the only solution. No 'green' energy source has ever went into large scale production (i.e. make a profit without government subsidy) without the greens turning on it. None ever will because that is the point. It isn't a question of finally finding the right engineering solution, greens object to any source of energy that will enable our current civilization to continue because IT is what they truly object to. And far too many 'scientists' are more concerned with green religion than the rational ways of science.
[1] so called because real scientists don't hide their data and they aren't afraid of somebody finding errors in their work, it is called peer review.' In the climate scam they managed to short circuit all of that, carefully rigging things so that the definition of 'climatoligist' became 'one who studies the effects of man caused global warming' and could thus ensure all potential reviewers already agreed with their central belief and was invested in preventing any break in the wall of certitude. I.e. "The science is settled. It is now time to act."
Democrat delenda est
He used the same words to continue the metaphor. Weren't you perceptive enough to get that?
Hey cocksucker, you're fucking moron. Why don't you just hang yourself and go to hell so the world can become a better place?
Add to this that the weatherman can't predict the weather tomorrow and that we're talking about prediction not 5 years out but 20 years and further.
Why the hell I should believe in modelling in a field that has never, ever been able to predict anything whatsoever is beyond me.
Scientists. Self-proved to be as low or lower than used-car salesmen and congresscritters.
Hang them all.
The problem with intellectuals, at least the more vocal ones, are that they're often hypocrites. They tell other people how to live their lives, but will never lead by example. Al Gore comes to mind. I mean, people like him (and his social bubble) are given a complete pass while he jets around the world and rides in a caravan of SUVs. Also, how much CO2 does that 9 million dollar mansion emit? Carbon neutral my ass...
The message of "do as i say not as i do" has always cast doubt into the hearts and minds of men. It's ageless.
Life is not for the lazy.
The data they used is publicly available for anyone else to analyze
Oh really? Where is it?
Link please.
Since after all, even Jones admits he lost the data. Turns out you had it all along and just were waiting for someone to ask!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley