|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
[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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:34 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 09:22 PM |