[OT] How science is not done

Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on with the Climate
Change neé 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

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 neé 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

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 neé 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

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

Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

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.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

Dave,
I agree with you. Science is based on observation and experimentation... in
this case observation alone. Those who would hold back or require others to
repeat observations do so for reasons having to do with human nature which
is a whole 'nother area that deserves observation in and of itself.
Anyone secure in the conclusions they have made after observations should
be secure enough to have those conclusions questioned. Sad to say that
greed, hubris, self love, and other negative aspects of human nature have
always interferred with true discovery.

Dave


"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x °C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

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.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:16:03 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?

The harm is that others may publish findings that he is entitled to, by
virtue of the fact that he collected the data. That harm is real, and
can be career damaging. This is why scientists don't normally hand out
their raw data indiscriminately. They do provide their raw data to other
researchers, however. I don't know of any reputable journals that accept
papers without the requirement that peer reviewers be given access
(perhaps with certain non-disclosure rules) to raw data.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x �C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

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.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

Dave Typinski wrote:
Chris L Peterson wrote:

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.

I don't think an assessment of what's reasonable is clear cut. We're
not talking about meteor data or some other arcane investigation with
little immediate social and political impact. The UN isn't
recommending things based in part on your findings; the US Congress
isn't debating legislation based in part on your findings.

My point is, no matter how much we wish it didn't, science doesn't
operate in a vacuum. It exists among political and social interests.
As such, the management of a scientific investigation should take
those factors into account.

If the CRU and the IPCC want to really convince people that our
climate is changing for the warmer, putting the raw data out there for
all to see would be MUCH better than, "trust me, it's getting warmer
by x �C per decade, but I'm not going to show you my evidence."

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.

Does that matter? I ask again, what possible harm would befall Mr.
Jones and the CRU if non-bona-fide climate researchers were given
access to the source data?
--
Dave

what don't you get? The data is freely available to any who wants to
take the time to download it. In reality this has nothing to do with
science or availability of data, rather a sadsack looking to get
another 15 minutes of fame so he can get few more bucks. What's even
sorrier are those who actually think that there is vast conspiracy to
fake basic science. These people are right up there with gerald, brad,
nancy and danny

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 neé 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.