A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] How science is not done



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 09, 02:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Dave Typinski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 778
Default [OT] How science is not done

Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.
--
Dave
  #2  
Old August 14th 09, 04:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default [OT] How science is not done

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:47:41 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.


While I agree the article makes the situation sound poor, I can't help
but to wonder how accurate it really is. There is obviously a bias
discernible in the style of writing. It is completely normal in science
to not make raw data widely or publicly available, but to release it to
researchers selectively, usually with non-disclosure agreements in
place. This article does say that the data is released to some
researchers; it doesn't make clear how many or few, or how difficult it
is for researchers with good credentials to get access.

So without better information, I'd reserve judgment on Mr Jones.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #3  
Old August 14th 09, 04:29 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 8:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. *
--
Dave


The Register is not known for accuracy in reporting and has a very
anti-global warming stance. None of the statements made in the article
are accurate. The whole article is full of ****. The only accurate
part is that Jones is indeed a scientist at CRU. Calling him an
activist is a blatant attempt to discredit him. Jones does know how
science works and is/has been willing to freely provide data and
analysis tools. Why would you need a FoIA (A US law) request to get
access to data from a British institution? Answer you don't.
Particularly since you can go to the CRU website and download the raw
data, the software CRU used to process the data, the processed data
and just about anything else you could conceivably want. Why go
through a non-existent process to get the data when you simply go to
website and get it. The same thing applies to GISS data and software,
climate models from any of the modeling groups and any other data
source, modeling and analysis effort EXCEPT, and this is a very
important exception, FROM THE DENIER COMMUNITY. The process used by
scientists is very transparent, the process used by the deniers is not.
  #4  
Old August 14th 09, 05:04 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default [OT] How science is not done

Dave Typinski wrote:

Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.


Grant funding demands observation validate theory, science demands
observation challenge theory. The Church is winning not by inflicting
its dogma but by impressing its methods.

Management is about process not product. Freedom is compliance.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #5  
Old August 14th 09, 05:22 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Dave Typinski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 778
Default [OT] How science is not done

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:47:41 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.


While I agree the article makes the situation sound poor, I can't help
but to wonder how accurate it really is. There is obviously a bias
discernible in the style of writing.


Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

It is completely normal in science
to not make raw data widely or publicly available, but to release it to
researchers selectively, usually with non-disclosure agreements in
place. This article does say that the data is released to some
researchers; it doesn't make clear how many or few, or how difficult it
is for researchers with good credentials to get access.


This ignores the political aspect of the material. If a government is
going to create legislation based on a scientific study, should the
governed not enjoy an opportunity to review the study, in full, source
data and all, *especially* if the governed paid for the study?

If the IPCC is relying on analyses from the CRU, and the CRU doesn't
publicly release source data, then on what basis should we trust their
findings and recommendations?

So without better information, I'd reserve judgment on Mr Jones.


Granted, his statement could have been made off the cuff while he was
in a bad mood and not thinking clearly.
--
Dave
  #6  
Old August 14th 09, 05:24 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Michael Toms Shidt[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default [OT] How science is not done

You cited a bad source and global warming is fallacious. Scientists should
be figuring out the extended solar cycles they know nothing about at this
time.

"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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."
*****

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."

Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works.
--
Dave


  #7  
Old August 14th 09, 05:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 8:29*am, yourmommycalled wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:47*am, Dave Typinski wrote:



Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/


*****
Professor Phil Jones, the activist-scientist who maintains the data
set, has cited various reasons for refusing to release the raw data.
Most famously, Jones told an Australian climate scientist in 2004:
"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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."
*****


"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try
and find something wrong with it."


Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. *
--
Dave


The Register is not known for accuracy in reporting and has a very
anti-global warming stance. None of the statements made in the article
are accurate. The whole article is full of ****. The only accurate
part is that Jones is indeed a scientist at CRU. Calling him an
activist is a blatant attempt to discredit him. Jones does know how
science works and is/has been willing to freely provide data and
analysis tools. Why would you need a FoIA (A US law) request to get
access to data from a British institution? Answer you don't.
Particularly since you can go to the CRU website and download the raw
data, the software CRU used to process the data, the processed data
and just about anything else you could conceivably want. Why go
through a non-existent process to get the data when you simply go to
website and get it. The same thing applies to GISS data and software,
climate models from any of the modeling groups and any other data
source, modeling and analysis effort EXCEPT, and this is a very
important exception, FROM THE DENIER COMMUNITY. The process used by
scientists is very transparent, the process used by the deniers is not.



"Particularly since you can go to the CRU website and download the
raw data, the software CRU used to process the data, the processed
data and just about anything else you could conceivably want."

I googled "CRU climate data Phil jonesw" and the first hit was the
following website:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

I do not know if this is the most recent data but some of it appears
to have been updated at the end of July, 2009.

Jon Isaacs


  #8  
Old August 14th 09, 05:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default [OT] How science is not done

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:22:28 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?


No, I don't think so. I have loads of raw meteor data, but I release it
selectively. I probably wouldn't give it to a UFO researcher, for
instance. It is perfectly reasonable for Mr Jones not to provide the raw
data to anybody who asks. The real question is whether a reasonable
number of bona fide climate researchers have access to the data, and the
article doesn't make that clear one way or the other.


This ignores the political aspect of the material. If a government is
going to create legislation based on a scientific study, should the
governed not enjoy an opportunity to review the study, in full, source
data and all, *especially* if the governed paid for the study?


Different governments have different policies on the release of data
from publicly funded research. I don't know how it works in the UK. The
situation can be more complex when you have work that is funded from a
variety of sources, both pubic and private. While the extreme openness
you propose is nice in principle, it also reduces the motivation of
scientists to do original work. That's why there is usually some kind of
balance between holding data too closely and releasing it widely. As
previously noted, most raw research is not made publicly available, but
is released to enough other specialists to ensure reasonable peer
review. Embargo times on publicly funded data in the U.S. are usually
one year, but can be longer depending on the nature of the research.


If the IPCC is relying on analyses from the CRU, and the CRU doesn't
publicly release source data, then on what basis should we trust their
findings and recommendations?


I base my level of trust on the findings of the various experts. It
isn't at all clear to me from the article that the CRU data hasn't been
made available to other researchers. Basically, it sounds like we have a
disgruntled guy who is upset _he_ didn't get to see it.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #9  
Old August 14th 09, 05:51 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
gabydewilde
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 92
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 5:09*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
It is completely normal in science
to not make raw data widely or publicly available, but to release it to
researchers selectively, usually with non-disclosure agreements in
place.


Yes, why is that? Shouldn't that depend on who paid for it?

And how does this contrast with all those scientists who love to
pretend they know everything there is to know about the workings of
the universe.

No one has access to any data but gheee they teach me I know
everything! hallelujah!

Specially where public data is used to make classified data it all
becomes a highly gay game.

Why not make everything available to everyone and use public funds to
do corporate research?

The public has to pay for it either way, so why should it be
classified?

In stead of selling some new and improved (fake) drugs in the hope to
earn back the investment why not pay them for doing the research in
the first place?

It all seems very obvious.

How can I debunk the peer reviewed lies if I cant have access?

What is that for a lame system?

___________
http://blog.go-here.nl
  #10  
Old August 14th 09, 05:55 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
yourmommycalled
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default How science is not done

On Aug 14, 11:22*am, Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:



On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:47:41 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:


Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change ne้ Global Warming political debate, the CRU's attitude about
releasing source data makes their findings as factual as the Bible.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/


Phil Jones does /not/ know how science works. *


While I agree the article makes the situation sound poor, I can't help
but to wonder how accurate it really is. There is obviously a bias
discernible in the style of writing.


Mr. Jones stated, "Why should I make the data available to you, when
your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Mr. Jones' statement rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

It is completely normal in science
to not make raw data widely or publicly available, but to release it to
researchers selectively, usually with non-disclosure agreements in
place. This article does say that the data is released to some
researchers; it doesn't make clear how many or few, or how difficult it
is for researchers with good credentials to get access.


This ignores the political aspect of the material. *If a government is
going to create legislation based on a scientific study, should the
governed not enjoy an opportunity to review the study, in full, source
data and all, *especially* if the governed paid for the study?

If the IPCC is relying on analyses from the CRU, and the CRU doesn't
publicly release source data, then on what basis should we trust their
findings and recommendations?

So without better information, I'd reserve judgment on Mr Jones.


Granted, his statement could have been made off the cuff while he was
in a bad mood and not thinking clearly.
--
Dave


No Jones didn't say "Why should I make the data available to you,
when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." The
Register said that an unidentified scientist requested through a non-
existent process data from CRU and were told that "Why should I make
the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it." Read a little further and you see that in reality
that this LIE was perpetrated by Steve McIntyre. McIntyre is famous
because he and Ross McKitrick claimed they found an error in the data
reduction process of GISS data. Turns out McIntye, a statistician, and
Ross McKitrick made an error that even a freshman statistic student
would have caught. The error McIntyre and McKitrick made removed more
than 80% data from the data set. The US National Academy of Sciences
and the US Congress, investigated McIntyre and McKitrick's claims and
found them wanting Since having they mistake pointed out by just
about every one, McIntyre has been on a tear claiming everybody is
out to get him since then. The truth is that CRU like GISS, PCMDI,
NOAA and NASA provide their raw and QC/QA data freely to anyone who
requests it. You actually might have to wait until the the first of
August to get July raw data.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as DeepUnderground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 11th 07 05:37 PM
National Science Foundation Selects Homestake Gold Mine as Deep Underground Science Site (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 July 11th 07 04:48 PM
Mainstream Science Peers Still Trying To Catch Up With Maverick AdvancedTheoretical Science Officers And Researchers nightbat Misc 4 November 11th 06 03:34 AM
Top Science Xprize For The Best and Science Team Officers Is In Order nightbat Misc 8 September 8th 06 09:50 AM
Science Names Mars Rover Mission Science Program as Breakthrough of the Year [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 16th 04 10:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ฉ2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.