_-_Israel.jpg){kind=link}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Should scientists share their data and method? EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stirred a hornet’s nest when he issued a demand for the end of secret science. But isn’t open sharing of data and method the way we have all been taught science is supposed to work?
Back in 2016, a team in Hungary thought they might have detected a new force of nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – so the Hungarian team published all their data and method, to assist other teams to review and try to reproduce their work.
Physicists Think They Might Have Just Detected a Fifth Force of Nature
Get ready for next-level physics.
FIONA MACDONALD 26 MAY 2016
Physics can be pretty intense at times, but one of the most straightforward aspects is that everything in the Universe is controlled by just four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic, and strong and weak nuclear forces.
But now physicists in Hungary think they might have found evidence of a mysterious fifth force of nature. And, if verified, it would mean we’d need to rethink our understanding of how the Universe actually works.
…
Evidence of this fifth force was spotted last year, when a team from the Hungarian Academy of Science reported that they’d fired protons at lithium-7, and in the fall out, had detected a brand new super-light boson that was only 34 times heavier than an electron.
As exciting as that sounds, the paper was mostly overlooked, until a team in the US published their own analysis of the data at the end of last month, on pre-print site arXiv.
The US team, led by Jonathan Feng from the University of California, Irvine, showed that the data didn’t conflict with previous experiments, and calculated that the new boson could indeed be carrying a fifth fundamental force – which is when the science world started to get interested.
That paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed as yet, so we can’t get too excited, but it was uploaded so that the other physicists could scrutinise the results and add their own findings, which is what’s happening now.
As Nature magazine reports, researchers around the world are racing to conduct follow-up tests to verify the Hungarian discovery, and we can expect results within around a year.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-think-they-might-have-just-detected-a-fifth-force-of-nature
Contrast the excitement and openness displayed by the Hungarian physics team, to the culture of secrecy which seems to prevail in the climate and environmental science communities.
… Scientists’ concerns stem from past calls for transparency that were then used against them. Epidemiologist Colin Soskolne, emeritus professor at the University of Alberta, has been on the receiving end of industry efforts to, in his words, “cast doubt and foment uncertainty.” He said scientists have good reason to be concerned about industry efforts to force publication of their raw data sets.
In the late 1970s, Soskolne found strong associations between oil refinery workers at an Exxon plant in Louisiana and incidence of throat cancer. The key connection: exposure to sulfuric acid. Exxon, which initially underwrote his work, hired a consultant to challenge his data (the consultant’s finding confirmed the cancer link, though with a lower correlation) and sent an executive to critique his work as sloppy before Soskolne’s academic advisers.
“They accused me of not being careful in doing the research,” Soskolne said. In the end, Soskolne received his doctorate, published his work and had his findings independently corroborated. But he offers this lesson to epidemiologists harassed by opponents to release their data: their findings will be twisted by corporate or ideological interests. This is the fear of science groups opposing the HONEST Act.
“The issue of sharing data has enormous implications for the researcher,” Soskolne said, “because anyone with malevolent intent can take your data, without you being party to it, and do with it what it wants.” …
Outrage at demands data be provided to “scientific competitors” is a regular theme in the climategate emails. For example, from Climategate email 1231257056.txt (Ben Santer speaking):
…
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to
FOIA requests. At LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat content changes, and so-called “cloud simulator” products suitable for comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type, altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that “there is no valid intellectual property justification for withholding this data”. I believe this argument is incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper – and the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above – are integral components of both PCMDI’s ongoing research, and of proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these datasets?
…
Read more: Climategate Archive (Wikileaks)
As far as I know the evidence for the hypothesised new force of nature is still under investigation.
My point is, nobody has the right to demand their data not be “used against them”. The Hungarian team placed the quest for truth above their personal pride; from what I have seen they behaved in an exemplary fashion, the way scientists should behave. They would rather be proven wrong, suffer a little embarrassment, than deny their fellows the information they need to properly reproduce and investigate their intriguing results – even if that means others end up using details of their own research to prove them wrong.
I told my students for years that the biggest casualty in all this CAGW nonsense is science itself. Unfortunately, many still believe that climate science as its currently being conducted is standard operating procedure in all scientific disciplines. It will take years to undo the damage.
Indeed, the entire scientific profession is damaged by “climate scientists”. If the mature sciences such as chemistry don’t publicly dissociate themselves from the climate mob they deserve our scorn. At present their silence is eloquent.
The cases are not the same. In one, we see Physicists excited, scrambling to learn something new. In the second, we see obfuscation, an attempt to cast doubt on an opposing viewpoint. Recall “tell a lie often enough and it becomes the accepted truth.” It is unfortunate that “climate scientists” rely on argumentum ad-hominem and often lies to defend their position. And the MSM accepts it.
As the late, great Dr. Richard Feynman always said, the person trying hardest to disprove your hypothesis should be you. Science has been almost irretrievably damaged by this kind of Climate “Science” malfeasance.
This reproducibility is KEY to science. If your data supports your conclusions, then the most that they could “do with it what it wants” could accomplish is to verify the initial findings. If the NEFARIOUS scientists tried to twist the data and slant the findings, their methods would also require replication prior to publishing. If their findings weren’t reproducible from the original dataset, their conclusions wouldn’t stand up.
With the “Before” delimiter the answer should be no … BUT if “Full Scientific Analysis” of the dataset isn’t “Completed” the article should not merit consideration for peer review and publication. Once the paper is submitted for review and publication there should be no applicable “Before” delimiter. Subsequent usage of the data for further papers should no longer require the dataset be kept as “intellectual property” as it has already been used for publication.
Forgot… The second point also indicated funding from publicly sourced money (tax $$$) and as such should also require it be subject to FOIA requests
“As the late, great Dr. Richard Feynman always said, the person trying hardest to disprove your hypothesis should be you.”
This comes naturally to real scientists. Only after taking a rice flail on a daily basis for extended periods to your own hypotheses do you begin to have a glimmer that there may be something in them. Moreover you know that everyone else is cranking up the chain saws and you’d better be well able to defend yourself. Modern climate science is a risible embarrassing joke.
Absolutely! The science that I that I learned was based upon the very premise that you should always question authority, that there is always room to question sacredly held beliefs and that debate on methodologies and results was necessary to empirically arrive at the “best” explanations.
Now it seems that the term “science” in the context of climate change has become short-hand for “infallible truth.” (Don’t ‘believe’ in climate change? Wham! Here is some “science!”)
We were told in paraphrase, “We do not expect you to accept what we teach. If on a sound observational basis you can disagree with what we say, we strongly encourage you to do so.”
There was never a question of providing papers and data, on request, to anyone who made a request. Everyone did it, it was unthinkable that anyone would refuse. It was the defining action of a scientist to share data, especially with people who saw things differently—that was the whole point. The whole field wanted antagonists to try to disprove all published work if they could.
I’d not even heard of a scientist refusing to share their data in support of their published papers, until some “climate science” types tried to get away with it.
If you refuse to show your work to others after publication you should not be published again, as your work is worthless if you don’t share.
The most relevant peer-review of a paper occurs after its publication. The entire process of publication is pointless if data sharing does not occur to allow the peer review and testing by anyone. Such ‘papers’ are not science, at that point … because, as per what we were trained to do:
” … If on a sound observational basis you can disagree with what we say, we strongly encourage you to do so. …”
You can’t do that if the data is not openly, quickly and freely available upon request. Every scientist knows this, hence no real scientist would even entertain the very notion of refusing. That’s just throwing a spanner in the werkes, then pretending innocent little you did nothing wrong.
That sort of individual, group or organisation must be made an example of, strongly ridiculed and rejected.
I don’t remember who said it, “the only thing that changes the old paradigm is the death of the old guard”. Three examples I could name. Continental drift, the Missoula flood which carved the dry falls and canyons of Eastern Washington, and the real cause of ulcers. It took the old guard to die off before the science of the hypotheses were accepted. I have seen it time and time again, after a person gets into middle age an intellectual laziness sets in, an unwillingness to believe that one may have been wrong.
A routine talking point is that anyone who doubts CAGW opposes “science”. That the green blob’s policies are based on irrefutable and very well established hard facts, and anyone who opposes them is cousin to a young earth creationist if not a flat earther.
That is when they are not flatly stating that you are a vendido, a paid shill for the fossil fuel companies.
You’re absolutely correct. When I was in grad school back in the sixties it would have been inconceivable that every bit of our data, methods, and conclusions of a research project wouldn’t have been freely and totally available to anyone who wanted to see it. We’d have been proud to show what we’d been doing. isn’t that the whole point of publishing an article?
The Whole point today, Allencic, is that Climate Scientists want to be “Rock Stars” published in online and antiquated print magazines, you know the full color kind, and regularly consulted on CNN. They want to travel to quarterly Big Government Climate Conferences on other peoples Dime and be introduced as session Headliner and give slide presentations riddled with might be, possibly, could be maybes. They want multi-million dollar grants handed out by faceless bureaucrats throwing around other peoples money.
They want their own science shows like that engineering hack Bill Nye the Barney Fife look alike or the sellout to the scientific Method and role model to the black community with three names I can never remember but doesn’t he look good on TV. How much better is that than some silly altruism or being proud to show your work by publishing an article in some science magazine nobody has time to read. Besides that won’t get you recognized when you walk down the street like what’s his name. Hey aren’t you that Dyson guy or Tyson somebody that I saw on Good Morning America? Can I have your autograph?
Man nothing is better than all that. Just ask that Nobel Prize winner what’s his name Mann Hansen or something like that. He is scheduled to appear on the Late show with Stephen Colbert or was it the Tonight show with Jimmy Kimmel or is it Fallon. I always get those two confused like the science guys.
Yes. Once results mattered. Now all that matters is citations with their name on it.
Your comment reminded me of something I read several years ago, paraphrased as follows:
WHEN WILL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ADMIT THEY ARE WRONG?
Demonstrably flawed models are used by our politicians and radical “Climate Scientists” in their attempt to justify the enforcement of climate policies which will cost TRILLIONS of dollars.
According to (ex) U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres, the world will need to spend NINETY TRILLION dollars ($90,000,000,000) over the next 15 years to meet her vision of a “green” energy world.
These funds will not be available to help solve or alleviate real problems causing suffering by the world’s poorest populations.
Day after day, year after year, the hole in which climate scientists have buried themselves gets deeper and deeper.
The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts are wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.
HOW DO YOU PUT A VALUE ON THE LOSS OF CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE?
What are the lost opportunities for improving the quality of life through science and technology restricted by “Climate Science” the extremism.
YES. ALL SCIENTISTS SHOULD MAKE THEIR DATA AVAILABLE SO RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS CAN BE VERIFIED.
I, for one, would never buy a used car from a scientist.
What science?
“Modern climate science” is mainly assumptions,
wild guesses, and scary predictions that never happen !
If a climate “model” makes wrong predictions,
then it is not a model of any process / system on this planet.
The current general circulation models make wrong predictions,
and have been doing so for 30 years.
When you have nothing but wrong predictions,
you are just playing computer games
— perhaps a fun way to earn a living,
but unrelated to real science.
Computer output is not real data —
they are the personal opinions of modelers
translated into a complex “formula”
to impress people.
Computer games that make wrong predictions
are not real science.
If CO2 levels controlled the average temperature,
then the “models” would have been making
right predictions for the past thirty years !
There are many people with science degrees
who are government bureaucrats,
earning a living doing work concerning the climate,
but very little real science behind the claim of
catastrophic man made global warming.
The little real science that exists
only tells us CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and many people assume
increasing CO2 levels
should cause some warming.
That remains an assumption
with no scientific proof.
Everything beyond the assumption
that CO2 should cause some warming
is wild guesses — far removed from real science.
The water vapor positive feedback claim
is just a fairy tale.
I would not buy a used car,
from a scientist !
My climate change blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
“so the Hungarian team published all their data and method”
What you have linked to is just a regular, not very long, scientific paper. There doesn’t seem to be any supplementary information, computer code etc. How would Pruitt decide whether this passed?
“How would Pruitt decide whether this passed?”
Typical Stokes.
Nice going, you may proceed to demolish your strawman.
Of course the concept that Scott Pruitt has appointed himself the final arbitrator of truth,would only occur to a practitioner of that art.
He has said that only scientific results that met certain criteria, which he specified, could be used. Someone has to be the final arbiter of whether those criteria have been met. If not Pruitt, who?
And again, how could you tell that this paper met the criteria?
“If not Pruitt, who?”
As head of the EPA I would expect Pruitt to have the authority to delegate some of its work to subordinates.
“And again, how could you tell that this paper met the criteria?”
Maybe ask the originators for the data and code and find out. But I don’t see why Eric needs to do that to write a blog post.
The 5th force of Nature is called “Wishreallyhardforitism”
Or in the interest of brevity, Magick.
If not Pruitt, who?
============
If you don’t publish sufficient information to replicate your work, the work is “not replicable”. Any work that cannot be replicated should be regarded as likely false.
Society, not any individual, or any peer reviewer then becomes the judge of scientific merit.
As I understand the EPA announcement, the EPA is to disregard any scientific work that does not have sufficient information for replication. This is a welcome change given the epidemic of false positives being uncovered almost daily in science.
This epidemic of false positives is not limited to any one branch of science. It shows clearly the problem with using Peer Review as a gold standard. Peer review has limited ability to detect false positives. That is due to the unpredictable nature of science. Replication on the other hand is well suited to detecting false positives.
“If not Pruitt, who?”
He’ll appoint Steve McKintyre to gather together a small section of appointees with himself Head of Section within current budget funding of the EPA. Steve’s an excellent statistician and overseer of the collection and use of data so you’d be happy with all that. What the Hell, make it as big a section as he likes as you can’t put a price on openness and FOI with taxpayer funded data.
An easy one Mr Stokes, Mr Pruitt requests access to data and code, if access is denied or slow to proceed the paper is excluded until independent verification has been accomplished.
“Maybe ask the originators for the data and code and find out.”
That has long been the standard approach of science. But we’re now being told that this is inadequate, and this Hungarian paper shows the “better” way. And I don’t think it does. As your suggestion conveys, it is an orthodox scientific paper.
***That has long been the standard approach of science.***
I call you bull on this one Nick. If it was the standard approach, Steve McIntyre would not have to ask for data and code.
Nick,
Genuine question: do you believe that scientist should release ALL their code and data and actively encourage others to disprove their hypotheses? If not, why not?
All is silent from Mr S
There is the question of investment. Collecting data does not come without cost or effort. Processing data does not come without cost or effort. If I had invested all this time and treasure into establishing a large data base, i might be loathe to allow my competitors access to my vaults.
HOWEVER, if the research and study has been conducted on the public dime then IP rights may be tenuous.
There is the question of investment.
============
Given the epidemic of false positives in all branches of science, it is clear that “peer review” is not working. As such, science needs to adopt a new standard. Else science will lose credibility as more and more findings are ultimately proven false.
Replication is the obvious addition to peer review, because unlike Peer Review, replication is well suited to eliminating false positives. However, replication is not possible under the current environment where findings are published, but not the data or methods.
The scientific community itself can correct this problem by adding the stamp “Not Replicated” to every scientific paper that has been published but has not been replicated. This then will serve as a warning to society at large that the paper cannot be trusted, as it may contain a false positive.
Those scientists that do not wish to publish their data and methods thus remain free to do so. However, society will at least know that their findings cannot be trusted.
@rocketscientist: does this apply to data paid for with public dollars, and research conducted at public institutions?
David – You ask whether scientists should release “ALL their code and data”? I would like to know what you
mean by “ALL their code”? If someone uses a commerical DNA sequencer do they have to release all of the code to that machine along with their own code? If they write code to transfer data from one machine to their PC before doing the analysis do they release that as well? If they use excel to analyse their data do they need to release the source code to excel? Clearly it is impossible to release ALL of the code and the researchers must make a choice. The same with their data. Experiments are not run in isolation – do you include data from test runs, runs where equipment was faulty, data that you are planning on using for your next paper etc. ALL is an impossible standard to meet.
Strawman, Germonio?
Strawmen are all he’s ever had.
Obviously, you don’t have to release the code for commercial products you have bought. You do however need to name the product and give the full release number of the version you are using.
Just like you need to give make and model numbers for any meters you are using. You should also be prepared to provide the calibration records on these as well. If you don’t have calibration records, then your results are instantly invalidated.
If the code that transfers the data from one machine to another is capable of changing anything, then yes, you need to provide it.
Mark – why don’t you need to release commerical code? If you buy a DNA sequencer the amount of
code in it is enormous all of which is necessary to produce the final sequence of letters. If you want to
claim that researchers release ALL code then why should commerical code be exempt?
This is an important issue in law as well as science. Many jurisdictions are using commerical algorithms to
decide on who gets bail who has to stay in goal, the length of prison sentences etc. How do you know you are getting a fair trial unless you can examine the code? How do you appeal against a sentence imposed by an algorithm if the company making it claims it is commercially sensitive and thus won’t release the source code?
The point is that “ALL” is an impossible requirement for code as well as data. Requiring that sufficient information be provided so that others can reproduce the work is more sensible and actually workable.
They seem to want things both ways – taxpayer funding for their work and then the ability to claim proprietary intellectual property. This is something only leftists would demand. Absurd.
Germonio, you don’t need to release commercial code in order to replicate because you can easily get the same commercial product (ie the same make, model, version number) – that’s rather the point of using commercial products vs “homebrewed” solutions. If, for some reason you think you need the code behind the commercial product you need to speak to the product’s manufacturer, not the product’s users.
So are we supposed to take at face value everything published by every “scientist”? Just trust me, I know what I’m doing? It is up to the “scientist” to decide whether to publish the data and methods behind the conclusions?
Even when you get your PhD you have to defend your dissertation. They don’t give it to you on blind faith.
I really don’t get what the uproar is here. We are talking about information and research done on the public purse affecting public policy. If you don’t want to disclose your methods, don’t take the public money. Or better yet, have the grant stipulate all research methods and data will be made public and there will be no questions.
Excellent. Why wouldn’t the purchasers be allowed to see what they purchased?
Is science a pursuit of truth, or at least accuracy? The purchasers should be allowed to independently validate the findings. In the case of the epidemiologist funded by Exxon, why wouldn’t they independently validate his findings? It would be irresponsible to their stockholders not to. What if a plant were shut down, shuttering a town, only to find later that an eco justice warrior falsified or misinterpreted their findings? Isn’t every science paper supposed to evaluate possible errors and alternate explanations.
“I really don’t get what the uproar is here”
I think it’s a case of ‘publish and be damned’ if you’re into sublime irony.
I don’t see that anyone is claiming that scientists don’t need to publish the data or methods. If they don’t nobody is going to listen to them. What the issue is to what level do you need to disclose the information. Is saying you took a Fourier transform sufficient or do you need to supply the code of the program to prove that you implemented it correctly. Nobody does the latter rather they just say I did a fourier transform. Similarly if you take a radio astronomy image using a telescope array nobody publishes the raw data (extending to terabytes) but rather the processed image.
Nick. It’s already been reviewed with some level of corroboration and is posted on archiv. You don’t usually need bales of woolly statistical reworkings in fundamental physics. Indeed they frown on this kind of social science manipulations in real science..
“Nick. It’s already been reviewed with some level of corroboration and is posted on archiv.”
That could be said of most scientific papers. Indeed, they are usually published in journals.
@ Nick Strokes,
Peer-review occurs mostly AFTER publication but only where it isn’t, “secret science”.
Eternal Bog of Stench much?
Er….it’s not being USED. No one is basing policy on it. It’s an initial, odd finding which is being published to see if anyone can find anything wrong with it. Which is how science ought to be done,
The interesting part will come if someone finds a problem with their work which negates the finding. Will they gracefully accept it, or will they try to suppress any publication of the rebuttal? Like the AMB did to John Daly, or Mann did to McIntyre…
“No one is basing policy on it.”
This is an important point. Policy and regulations ought NOT be based on things like “tipping points” (350 ppm of CO2; or 2 Celsius degrees; and so on). Much money is being spent on the dubious claims of folks that do not understand.
Actions have been proposed based on Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5) In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century.
Many folks, apparently, do not understand a “worst case” scenario and a best-methods forecast. Policy ought to ignore the former.
A very silly nit to pick- from the king of nit-pickers. Peer reviewed or not, this “fifth force” paper is not for consumption relative to any policy action whatsoever, with the possible exception of permitting some minor funding for further research.
Even that should be limited to well qualified researchers in a relevant field. If it’s a bogus result we don’t need a herd of opportunist ,activist hacks like Mikey Mann and the denizens of climate “science” moving to the hot new field in search of easy bucks and career advancement at public expense.
It isn’t a nit. The point of this article is that this Hungarian paper shows how it should be done. And I just can’t see how it is different from any other scientific paper.
But it raises the point of how this policy of Pruitt is going to be enforced. Basically scientists were using studies that they felt gave enough information for them to rely on. Political operatives decided otherwise. That requires decisions to be made on the admissibility of individual studies. So who decides that? And how?
Reply to Nick Stokes :
Nick………YOU HOLD THE “SCIENTISTS” ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR INFORMATION !
The idea of spending years and millions in legal fees is a GREAT INCENTIVE to be SURE
OF YOUR FACTS. { As someone else posted : YOU DON’T CREATE FACTS , YOU DISCOVER THEM }
Having developed an hypothesis , tried and tested it to the best of your own ability , opened it up for
others to confirm or disprove , then generally speaking you have a “working hypothesis” that is tangible
and applicable. Until such time……keep working on it ………..don’t GIVE IT TO THE EPA OR ANYONE
ELSE. This is WHAT should have been the case with AGW and the UN IPCC well before
financial commitments and promises were made.
POTUS Trump has done the US a great service ! IMAGINE ! HONESTY IN SCIENCE AGAIN !
Perhaps while he is “MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” he will also MAKE SCIENCE GREAT AGAIN !
“POTUS Trump has done the US a great service ! IMAGINE ! HONESTY IN SCIENCE AGAIN !”
Imagine honesty in a POTUS again!
Nick Stokes May 12, 2018 at 11:40 am
“POTUS Trump has done the US a great service ! IMAGINE ! HONESTY IN SCIENCE AGAIN !”
Imagine honesty in a POTUS again!
Nick – I concur – at least we are moving in the right direction – we certainly didnt have any honesty in the last administration
From you can keep you doctor to this Iran deal will stop Iran’s nuclear program
“Imagine honesty in a POTUS again!”
indeed after the last 8 years of the previous dishonest president, it’s a breath of fresh air 😉
Since the Hungarians aren’t proposing new government regulations, in fact they haven’t even conclusively demonstrated that this 5th force actually is real, I’d say this does NOT meet the level of scientific certainty necessary upon which to base public policy.
As you well know Nick, the problem is that when asked for their data, most climate scientists refuse to provide access.
“most climate scientists refuse to provide access”
A weird generalisation. Have you tried? It just isn’t true.
So all the people who have stated that they couldn’t get the data, were just lying?
Was Jones lying when he declared that he wouldn’t give his data to someone who just wanted to find problems with it?
You say “most climate scientists refuse” and cite (kind of) incidents involving just one.
***You say “most climate scientists refuse” and cite (kind of) incidents involving just one.***
You are full of it as usual, Nick. All you have to do is ask Steve McIntyre how many he asked. It is NOT only one.
“It is NOT only one.”
So tell us more? Who were they, and what was refused?
“That has long been the standard approach of science. But we’re now being told that this is inadequate, and this Hungarian paper shows the “better” way. And I don’t think it does. As your suggestion conveys, it is an orthodox scientific paper.”
And yet, when people ask for the raw climate data, and “secret” code, they’re told to take a hike unless they’re pretty sure you won’t be one of those wanting to “find something wrong with it.” Ie. Climate science already ditched the standard scientific approach. They want you simply to accept their conclusions.
it would be great if every post at wuwt followed the example willis sets.
when roy spencer posts his charts here it would be great if he posted the raw data and code…..
naaa
Moshe. Data and code needn’t be here on a blog but should be readily accessible and generally is. Are you defending secret science?
Can someone point me to the code that UAH uses for its UAH 6 product? Gary P says “Data and code … should be readily accessible and generally is”. Mosh has been asking for the code for years.
RS, if you really want to know, contact Dr. Spencer or simply check out his professional blog.
posting charts on WUWT is not “publishing” … moron
You sure beat that strawman to death.
Some days it’s not easy to separate the straw from the chaff.
Riding on the back of a strawman can certainly chafe
The losing side in this argument used to be arrogant. Now they’re getting defensive.
The danger was exaggerated, moshe, and the exaggeration has been immensely destructive. It’s about time for you to address that.
============================
You’re Wandering in the Wrong Strawman Weedpatch, Mr. Mosher.
Dr. Spencer’s methods, data, etc. are publicly available. No need to put it all out for an update chart.
Steve,
You keep confusing criticism with proposal.
It is like you are suffering from a sort of Stolkholm syndrome, reflexively demanding more of skeptics than you do of the climate consensus.
It’s reassuring to hear that real science still exists.
Is there a valid argument that: I worked hard to get that data, why should anyone else be able to get it for free? It’s my property.
The other side of the coin is open source software.
There was a time when people would publish their software, for-profit companies would take their hard work, bundle it with other software, and sell it for a profit. That hardly seemed fair and made people unwilling to publish their work.
The GPL (GNU General Public License) solved the problem. It conveys a copyright license to do anything you want with the software as long as you supply the source code. Any derivative code would have to be published with the same license.
The GPL has been wildly successful, in my humble opinion, because it treats software writers fairly. They are willing to publish as long as they get credit for their work.
I wonder if there’s an open source solution that will allow you to publish your data without worrying that someone else, with more resources, will then beat you in publishing something else that you are working on already but haven’t finished yet.
The data, code, etc. belongs to the people that pay for it. If, for example, a company pays for the development of a new way to get natural gas out of the ground – they own the data, and don’t have to give it to anybody else. (Well, probably government regulators, but it doesn’t have to be publicly disseminated.)
Who pays for climate “research”? The taxpayer pays. The taxpayer – which is the entire public – owns it.
You are confusing ownership with responsibility. If you obtain data and crunch them to form an interesting conclusion, that is YOUR business. If you expect others to recognise the validity of (and act) on your conclusions, then they are entitled to be privy to your data and reasoning processes. “Trust me!” is not science.
You don’t necessarily have to divulge everything, but you do have to give those affected by your work sufficient information to enable them to establish its validity.
“Who pays for climate “research”? The taxpayer pays. The taxpayer – which is the entire public – owns it.” This is true. The taxpayer pays for the research. It is not so clear that the taxpayer pays for intellectual product that went into that research.
If all the information leading up to a research conclusion has to be publicly accessibly, by the same token we should be able to easily access Pruitt’s meeting transcripts whenever he’s on the federal dime. Instead he has closed-door meetings at the Heritage foundation, and people there are “not authorized to discuss the meeting.” (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076559) Where is the transparency?
There are problems with the rationale of public data/method ownership. What about those whose salaries are paid by private institutions, but who get public grants? Or those who work in international groups? How does it apply to the data that come from foreign sources?
This should not me a matter of ownership, but what is best for scientific advancement and society at large.
It’s true that data-sharing has always been standard. However, that was based on request, and people knew who had their data.
There is something to be said for having control over who uses data. There are people who will use data to publish claims just for the sake of giving those who supplied the data a bad name. This does not advance science, it is injurious to it. Public perpetuation (e.g., via blogs) of claims even after they’ve been debunked is anti-science. It damages the reputation of science, and distracts scientists from productive purposes when they have to deal with attacks on their science, ability and character. This is very different from experimental reproduction. It’s sabotage.
When data are available for public consumption, there are those laymen who use it inappropriately and make false claims. Science is ignored or assumed absent or wrong. Misperceptions are spread and multiplied.
That doesn’t mean transparency isn’t worthwhile. The climate science community has been discussing these issues, and things have changed. I don’t know about other fields. It seems, though, that Pruitt wants regulation of an industry that has long had its own evolving standards and ways of improving, and it has done so.
I think it would be excellent to have a government database where data and methods are archived. That is a good use of funds, and encourages participation.
Overarching federal regulation restricting government access to research used in policy-making seems counterproductive. Accessibility of data is not a valid indicator of the quality of the research or the validity of the results.
In my opinion.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is a line from the c. 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare, where it is spoken by Queen Gertrude !
NOTE WELL :The phrase is used in everyday speech to indicate doubt in someone’s sincerity.
…………………………..Methinks we NEEDS BEST rename KRISTI as “GERTIE”
Trevor,
Are you doubting my sincerity? Why? What possible reason do you have to doubt my sincerity? It’s very odd. A sock puppet, a paid spokesman – why do people think these things? It’s just me. It’s not easy. But it seems this site needs as much exposure to other ideas as possible, especially ones that don’t fit stereotypes. I’m a human. I have a good heart, I love my country, and I hate to see it as divided as it is. I also hate to see the science community castigated.
Kristi, your postings indicate ether bias or naivete about big government and academia.
Kristi………….or is it…………”Gertie” !!?
You seem to enjoy being THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE at each and every opportunity !
You enjoy “MUDDYING THE WATER” rather than clearing it !
SIMPLE ANSWER TO : “Do you doubt my sincerity ? ” is YES !
Just hold up publishing anything until you have completely finished with the raw data. If you are in a hurry to make a claim or publish, then the price is others seeing your data. What you cannot insist on is the right to make a scientific claim without showing all of the evidence.
And by the time anything is to be considered for public policy, it should be open to all the public.
Our warmist friends Nick, Mosh, and Kristi have variously argued:
Blog commenters are not qualified to judge the science, so it should be kept secret.
Scott Pruitt is not qualified to judge the science, so it should be kept secret.
The researchers worked hard to develop the analysis method, so it should be kept secret.
If researchers need to show their work, then everybody in every walk of life would need to show their work, so it should be kept secret.
I’d say, all we’re discussing is whether a few billion Africans and Asians get to have a decent lifestyle (or even get to live), and whether to divert tens of trillions of dollars away from productive economic activity toward developing inefficient and insufficient energy sources. It’s only going to impact the bottom half to three quarters of the population in any severe way. Probably not more than a few million would actually die. So why in the face of all those powerful arguments given by our warmist interlocutors, would we consider requiring that the science be transparent?
Since some blog commenters are not qualified to judge the science, actual researchers who might be skeptical of CAGW papers must be prevented from being able to replicate anybody else’s work. Otherwise, we risk that unqualified commentators may express heretical points of view and attempt to undermine the CAGW agenda. The public is notoriously stupid and would be immediately hoodwinked by any shoddy presentation full of “common sense” and “facts”.
Since Scott Pruitt is not qualified to judge the science, it would be impossible to agree on a set of criteria that a panel of experts could use to judge the science objectively. So let’s put an end to that crazy talk as well.
There might be dozens of examples of misconduct by self-interested scientists, but why not just trust that all scientists are good people trying to do their jobs? They earned their license to benefit from government spending and they have a moral right to be believed no matter what they say or do. If anybody wants to join their guild, all they have to do is pledge fealty to the one true faith and do their apprenticeship.
Seriously now, there’s not enough on the line to require all this intrusive oversight!
oh I forgot an important one…
Because some of the research being funded by the EPA involves medical records, we must uphold the principle of medical confidentiality by keeping all data and analysis methods secret.
Like all those medical records related to temperature adjustments. It’s impossible to distinguish between research that has medical records and research that involves observational data related to physical phenomena. We just need to keep it all secret. Please. Isn’t this obvious?
As an interesting corollary to your excellent post, I would point out that none of the great minds of climate “science”, who have lectured us for years from 40,000 feet about our energy use, have hesitated one second over the economic repercussions of their demands. This in spite of their near total lack of competence regarding economics. Somehow they felt qualified to run the world’s economy.
But the man appointed to run the EPA doesn’t have any business fulfilling his mandate not to throw taxpayers money at secretly contrived garbage.
Hey Nick!
Just tell us. Should Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”paper have been accepted by the EPA as valid for the purpose of formulating policy? Just askin’.
She’s also declared that since oil company funded scientists might use your data to disprove your point, it is right to keep the data secret.
“Should Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”paper have been accepted by the EPA as valid for the purpose of formulating policy?”
Yes. But I think it is very unlikely they needed it for any of their decisions.
So, Nick – scientific malpractice should guide policy?
And unvalidated climate models should also guide policy?
***“Should Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”paper have been accepted by the EPA as valid for the purpose of formulating policy?”
Yes. But I think it is very unlikely they needed it for any of their decisions.***
Again, you continue to show you are full of it, Nick.
It WAS used for decisions. For years Environment Canada had it on their web site. It was PAL reviewed.
Mann did not provide enough code or data. Only the brilliant Steve McIntyre was able to decipher what he did. And of course you defend such garbage.
Seriously “GERTIE” …….now there is AN OPEN , BALANCED and LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
you are suddenly SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY INCENSED !????
WHY were you NOT SO when it was such a ONE-SIDED “unscientific” and BIASED FIELD
BEFORE Mr Pruitt announced his OPEN POLICY ????
.
“Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act” — requiring that EPA rules be based on science for which underlying data is publicly available and reproducible ” YES !!!
.
Is it “UNFAIR” to you pampered left-wing ideologues to have to ACTUALLY PROVE YOUR CLAIMS
and COMPETE in the market-place of IDEAS ????…..No more “secret science”.
NOW the rules and regulations which have hampered so much development (and the benefits which
would possibly have flowed from these) are OPEN TO SCRUTINY and HONEST EVALUATION of
their MERIT and THE SCIENCE BEHIND THEM.
The “Renewable Energy ” falsehoods CAN NOW BE EXPOSED.
Trillions of dollars WASTED ! For almost no benefit !
What a CAUSE CELEBRE ! About time it was SCIENTIFICALLY , OPENLY , DECENTLY
and HONESTLY EVALUATED ! A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION NO LESS !
CONGRATULATIONS !
WELL DONE MR PRUITT !!
Rich Davis,
Do not speak for me!!! You just show how casually you make erroneous statements based on faulty assumptions. This is the kind of lack of rational skepticism that makes the term “skeptic” inappropriate.
“I’d say, all we’re discussing is whether a few billion Africans and Asians get to have a decent lifestyle (or even get to live), and whether to divert tens of trillions of dollars away from productive economic activity toward developing inefficient and insufficient energy sources. ”
You may be discussing that, but it has nothing to do with science. If you can’t keep science and energy policy separate, you have no hope of seeing the scientific evidence impartially.
“There might be dozens of examples of misconduct by self-interested scientists, but why not just trust that all scientists are good people trying to do their jobs?”
Well, there might be, but unless you know of lots of misconduct in other fields, that seems like a stretch. Even considering those by skeptic scientists, I can’t think of dozens (unless you believe the fabrications built around CRU emails).
Like so many other comments here, you portray the scientific community as hopelessly untrustworthy. This is partly a consequence of access to data. Although I am all for sharing data, code and methods among those who know what to do with it, it’s a shame if it comes at the cost of making it available to those whose goal is to give the impression that science is wrong, whether it’s true or not.
“The public is notoriously stupid” No, that’s not true. (Neither is it true that scientists or liberals are stupid or immoral.) But even the brightest engineer or mining geologist can’t be expected to have the expertise of scientists in their own field. When bloggers write articles ridiculing research that they haven’t read and others can’t access because of a paywall, I think that’s a problem, but stupidity isn’t it.
Go Girl ! You tell him “Gertie” !!
To hell with the consequences of BAD SCIENCE , HIDDEN SCIENCE and
CORRUPT SCIENCE which leads to BAD DECISIONS affecting multitudes !
but YOU are so certain YOU MUST BE RIGHT !
” CHEW HIM UP ” while you perceive yourself to be holding the ‘moral high-ground”
but a word of caution………. it’s not for much longer !
I think that “the animal fertiliser has engaged the rotating air disperser” !
Snake oil salesmen never put ingredients on their labels.
Not quite. while snake oil salesman never put *all* the ingredients on their label, they often tout one ingredient as being the source of the miraculous effects of their snake oil. Never mind that that one ingredient does not have the capability to provide those effect or that the ingredient might not even be in the snake oil that the salesman is selling.
culture of secrecy which seems to prevail in the climate and environmental science communities.
Because the three card trick or find the lady only works when the ‘sucker ‘ does not know how it is done.
The industrial scale use of ‘smoke and mirrors ‘ is really a reflection of how unsettled the ‘settled science’ really is.
And to be fair on that BS some very nice careers have been built, but those who otherwise would have a hard time getting a jump at a third rate high school teaching science, so you can certainly see why it is done.
If you don’t share your data, you can “prove” anything and simply declare it settled. Amazingly, the settled science of the climate change scientists achieves a goal long sought by politically motivated activists who have used deception over and again to the reach the end of their goal.
Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
All data must be available freely, else science degenerates to a form of cheap manipulation with unchecked results bought and sold ad libitum.
It still amazes me that people conducting taxpayer funded research think that their work should remain secret!
it’s not just in research. Remember Pelosi, “You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” To rephrase an old saying, “Secrecy is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
“Is there a valid argument that: I worked hard to get that data, why should anyone else be able to get it for free? It’s my property”. Yes, if you worked “hard to get that data” on you own dime. If you are Thomas Edison and you work in your own lab to create something new.
However. If you take a single dime of public money, everything you do should be available to the public. We paid for it. WE own it. Get off the public trough, do whatever you want. It’s a free country. Pull your snout up to the public trough, the results are ours!
Larry Geiger (4:51 a.m.) says, “Is there a valid argument that: I worked hard to get that data, why should anyone else be able to get it for free? It’s my property.”
Are you also responsible for the $ billions, and perhaps countless benefits to humanity, lost because you published faulty science and refused to publish the underlying data and methods with which to validate your work.
If you are not responsible for the results of your faulty work, than no, you should not be able to keep the data private.
There’s little question that public policy should not be established on the basis of non-public science. However, what might be a problem for the EPA is access to non-scientific data with commercial importance. Are auto companies likely to give the EPA their best guess on fuel efficiency and exhaust characteristics of their 2024 engine technologies if the EPA is then going to hand the data to their competitors. I suspect there might be a large body of data in the grey area between SCIENCE and COMMERCE where public disclosure might be a significant issue.
apples and oranges … fuel economy data is not used to make policy … it comes AFTER the policy was made … try to keep up
Don K
Layman here, but from what I’ve been reading, commercial data handed over to, for example, the EPA remains the property of the originator, in your example, the car company.
The EPA’s job is to validate the car companies claim by scrutinising the data used to arrive at the conclusions, therefore the data need not be passed onto other companies, indeed, it would surely be a breach of contract for the EPA to do so. Assuming there is some sort of contract relative to data access and dissemination between the EPA and the commercial organisations it works with.
I’m a layman also. My understanding is pretty much the same as yours. That’s the way things work today. But if we’re going to demand that the EPA only act on publicly available data, it’s not going to work that way any more.
The problem is that when the EPA gets around to setting, for example, future tailpipe emission standards, that is likely to be difficult if they aren’t allowed to look at what the industry thinks it can/will actually do. And what the tradeoffs are. I suppose they can summon company spokesmen to some sort of legal proceeding where the spokesman will smile cordially, blow copious amounts of smoke, and reveal next to nothing, but it’s hard to imagine that producing satisfactory results.
All of this handwaving is pretty much nonsense. The EPA doesn’t set standards based on what manufacturers say they can do. If fact, it’s quite often the opposite.
Secondly, the protection for intellectual property comes from patents, not ‘secret science’. You can easily glean more from patent applications than anything given to the EPA. If research is not at the patentable stage, the EPA should not be looking at it.
You can easily glean more from patent applications than anything given to the EPA.
==========
indeed that is one of the aims of the patent process. A patent requires that you change your “trade secret” into “public knowledge” so that all can see how your new invention works.
In return, you as the inventor get protection for your new invention. Copyright provides a similar level of protection to the author and could likely be applied to scientific works.
ferdberple
The other means to protecting your commercial trade secret, is not to reveal it to anyone, other than perhaps, the EPA. They are obliged to examine the safety of your product but can’t reveal the details of your trade secret to anyone.
That’s where Scott Pruitt’s initiative runs into problems. And the real problem is that the EPA has lost the trust of many Americans because of its underhand, overbearing nature.
Or that’s how it seems to me as an outsider, forgive me if I’m wrong.
Jtom
There are two routes to IP protection (at least).
One is that you keep your secret formula close to your chest and reveal it to no one, other than a government agency who demands it for, say, safety purposes. Nothing wrong with that method unless your invention is, perhaps, a clever bit of a car component, in which case, your competition strip it down and copy it without sanction.
One then might consider patenting the product, which provides you 20 years of immunity from copying your product by anyone. The downside is you must reveal exactly how your component works and how it is unique. At which point, the Chinese and Indians step forward, copy it anyway, manufacture it to substandard form and package it in cardboard boxes exactly like yours. In fact the cardboard boxes are usually better made than the product itself.
Patents are a great way of protecting ones invention from scrupulous people, but not from the unscrupulous. It also offers you some weight in a commercial dispute and any subsequent court proceeding, assuming you can find the person responsible for initiating the patent violation. Not easy amongst two billion Chinese and Indians.
As ever, the theory is undone by reality.
If the data is a secret between the EPA and a scientist, then no one can scrutinize the data and methods to see if it’s faulty. And that’s exactly how the old EPA liked it.
kcrucible
And therein lies the problem. The EPA has lost the trust of the common man.
All government agencies, in any country, should be beyond reproach so they can be trusted to deal with matters of secrecy on behalf of the citizens paying the salaries. Much of the reason for exposing corrupt civil servants and politicians is to ensure the institutions they serve are run by people of integrity.
CAFE and emissions data is tested by the EPA, and it’s public information.
Shanghai Dan
Emissions data may well be available to the EPA, and available to the public, but not the means by which emission control is achieved, which may be a trade secret unique to the car manufacturer.
Whilst emissions data is important, and should be available to the public, the means by which it’s achieved may be important to public safety, therefore the EPA should be allowed access to that information, without any obligation to reveal it to the public or the car companies competitors.
For example, if a car manufacturer made a zero emission car, powered by a tiny nuclear reactor, I think it would be important that the EPA understood how that nuclear reactor worked so there weren’t millions of nuclear missiles roaming the streets. They needn’t reveal details on the reactor other than to say it’s entirely safe and clean, indeed, they are bound by commercial law not to reveal details about the process.
I know, extreme example, but I expect you get what I mean.
Inherent within all this is that there is a great deal of public trust invested in agencies like the EPA. What Scott Pruit is saying is that they have violated public trust, a common refrain amongst climate sceptics.
Climate “scientists” can withhold their data and method all they want, but they had better not expect anyone to believe their findings, and gov’t/civil policies had better not be based on the findings. It’s the ‘G’ in GIGO until proven otherwise.
Hate to point this out to you, but you may have noticed there’s a lot of garbage policy being formulated lately.
Next thing you know Climate Scientists are going to be invoking National Security as a reason they can’t release their data.
And, they’ll be applauded by the DOJ and the FBI.
That will be the excuse if geoengineering ever receives serious funding – weaponised geoengineering turns climate science into a military secret.
There is obviously a time to keep data to yourself until you have a finished product to deliver, which clearly is what the Hungarian physicists did. Here is a concern that relates to the pernicious, lawless jungle that exists particularly in publish or perish academe. A talented geophysicist I know well (who had just co-authored a paper in “Science”), who was a post doc at JPL had an idea and bought an expensive raw satellite dataset product to test the idea (not in climate science). A fellow considered a young star at Harvard obtained this dataset at source (had an inside guy he had bought, perhaps?) and rushed a paper into print foreclosing on the young JPL researcher.
For older folk like me, this was a shocking incident, but I was told it is the norm now. Collegiality and integrity, is for schmucks. There wasn’t even an attempt to hide this brash crime. So yeah, I can see a certain concern in this ugly new amoral world. But given the atmosphere in science, this lack of integrity extends to the research being done, too and we know personal aggrandizement and career advancement is the be all and end all, particularly in climate science.
It is simply foolhardy to trust researchers whose chief motivations lie outside of science per se, particularly where an excessively costly agenda is being put over. Rehabilitating science is going to be tough when the majority think the “crafty” game is what science is. We know what happens to the old fashioned honest scientists like Judith Curry, Willie Soon, Sally Baliunas in the jungle.
Many well meaning commenters who defend warming proponents here at WUWT don’t appear to know what the scientific culture has become, certainly in a hot topic like climate science.
As Lindzen said, in early 1990s when global warming became a hot topic (pun intended), the funding increased 10-fold and it attracted a lot of scientists from other fields who would otherwise be not interested.
In theoretical physics, it’s a different kind of dysfunctional behavior. Due to the pressure to publish papers, they write highly speculative and even nonsensical papers that have no chance of being tested experimentally. This way nobody can prove them wrong and accuse them professional misconduct.
Dr. Strangelove
I can’t recall who posted this here, but it echoes your sentiments.
http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/research-perversions-are-spreading-you.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Backreaction+(Backreaction)
I share a lot of common views with Sabine Hossenfelder. We think that string theory, M-theory and multiverse are dubious at best, not-even-wrong at worst (worse than wrong). I would add “consciousness” and “information” to the list of doubtful theories. Consciousness is legit topic in neurology, and information in computer science and communications engineering. But questionable when applied to theoretical physics.
“Consciousness” is just the 18th-century Bishop Berkeley’s empiricism disguised in quantum mechanical language. Berkeley proposed the moon does not exist when we are not looking at it. Our perception creates reality including the moon and the whole universe. “Information” is the ancient Platonism dressed up in sciencey language. To Plato, ideas, numbers, symbols are the ultimate reality rather than material things.
The advancement of science from 300 BC to the present is the success of objective reality and materialism over mysticism and Platonism. I call the revival of this ancient philosophy “the revenge of the mystics and Platonists.” They had enough of science.
If the government pays for the data collection and research, the data belongs to the government, not the so-called scientists.
R
Not necessarily. For a time the Government didn’t WANT to hold proprietary rights to research they funded, but sometimes they do. There are spec contract clauses that covers whether or how much proprietary rights the Govt retains.
It used to burn me up that the Govt would give away their rights and I hope it has changed in the years since I stopped dealing with Govt contracts.
If it isn’t open and repeatable then it isn’t real science. All funding for “secret” science should be terminated.
Reply to MS ,ralfellis , Eric et al :
MY UNDERSTANDING OF SCOTT PRUITT’S POSITION :
Pruitt is simply saying that THE EPA WILL NO LONGER IMPOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS
ON THE COMMUNITY based on “science”
UNLESS the science is OPEN , WELL RESEARCHED and that means challenged as well ,
AND AS RELIABLE AS CAN REASONABLY BE ESTABLISHED
and that he won’t FUND “secret science” or utilise it in decision-making.
.
Since the ” CAGW scientists” all APPEAR to work for GOVERNMENT BODIES
then surely their WORK belongs to their employer and ANY GOVERNMENT
AGENCY should have FULL and COMPLETE ACCESS at ALL TIMES !
THAT SHOULD END THE DEBATE.
.
As Larry Geiger said ( see comment above ) : IF YOU WANT TO “OWN” YOUR WORK
THEN SET UP YOUR OWN FACILITIES AND PAY FOR THEM YOURSELF !
No-one CAN or WOULD object to that ……Private Enterprise built America !
But IF you are being PAID by GOVERNMENT and the FACILITY is GOVERNMENT OWNED
then THE WORK BELONGS TO YOUR EMPLOYER……..THAT IS THE PUBLIC !!
On the other hand , IF you MAKE UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS that are incorporated
into “award winning films or books or lectures ” , then IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
YOU SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED ; and if found to be FRAUDULENT
YOU SHOULD BE PROSECUTED and EXPOSED and be FINED A SUFFICIENT
AMOUNT TO FUND A CAMPAIGN TO CORRECT the damage of your fraudulent
publications have caused.
AGAIN…….that seems fair and reasonable……….I AM SURE THAT NO Social Justice Warrior
would argue against that ! would she ??
Yes, the EPA is regulating the economy and people’s lives based on unsubstantiated research produced by activists.
How is that any different than what climate science is trying to do. It is not any different and that is why Pruitt’s obviously logical proposal is such a threat to climate science.
That is an excellent restatement of the Pruitt sound bite.
I stand by what I said. I wasn’t quoting Pruitt. I was making a broader statement. I would go further: the government should not be the major funder of science “research”. And, I agree that people who accept government funding should be required to release their data and methods.
Al Gore might have a problem with your suggestions. It would bankrupt him.
GOOD !
I know; Climate Scientists can’t release their data because of …
… the Russians!
No, not because of the ……russians. Because of Putin. This great scientifiscist would other wise put the data together and create a new Untertasse, in russia блюдце. That would be a great concern for Area 51. Area 51 would not be the only area in the future that can create saucers. Not even flying. In addition, there would be only the special case of flying carpets and samowars. Простите товарища Путина и летите с самолетом.
The Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. already have their data, Tom. People need to get a grip. There is a real world out there, not subject to armchair mental gymnastics.
Of course, the Cli-Sci-Fi guys wanted their “results” kept out of the public’s reach.
Here are your clues: derived, synthetic,so-called cloud simulator, CAN’T AFFORD etc. Anyone with a working brain cell can test real world results against those manufactured results and find the flaws very quickly.
The hidden agenda was to keep other people ignorant of the method for achieving those modeled results, which have turned out to be false. The greed and arrogance that arose out of this has been substantial and very visible.
That politicians have seized on it as a means of keeping their jobs is as plain as day, especially when ex-political animals and movie stars become involved. Now it’s a cult, and unless the glaciers start flowing south again, those in the front of this assault on reality will hammer the message home until Doomsday and the Laurentide Ice Sheet arrive on their doorsteps.
When the ice sheets squish da Caprio’s house and he knocks on my door for refuge, I will hand him some hot chocolate and tell him to keep going, head south.
I’m skeptical of the 5th force claim. That Nature article was May 2016. It’s been two years and still no confirmation. IMO the Hungarian team that “discovered” it is doubtful. They also “discovered” two new bosons in 2008 and 2012 from the same beryllium-8 experiment. It turned out to be false positives. This is the 3rd time they claim a new boson from beryllium-8. To quote particle physicists who examined their work:
“What Naviliat-Cuncic finds most astonishing about Krasznahorkay’s account of the past decade is his group’s failure to report any of their results that did not indicate new bosons; instead, they seemed to view these experiments as failures. “Is it not a rather flagrant (and naive) admission of a bias?” he said. Thaler explained, “The gold standard in particle physics is blind analysis, where you first decide what you are going to measure, you perform all cross-checks without looking at the final result, and you report the results regardless of the outcome.” Not doing so “sounds like cherry-picking evidence,” he said, which “can be a way to manufacture false positives.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/new-boson-claim-faces-scrutiny-20160607/
The gold standard in particle physics is blind analysis
===========
this should be the standard in all sciences. otherwise, given any dataset, if you repeatedly try different statistical methods, you will eventually arrive at one that delivers a false positive.
In climate science, where they operate at 95% confidence, random chance says that if I try 20 different statistical methods to analyse the data, I’m likely to find one false positive. If I publish only that one result, there is no way the peer reviewer or the public can tell this is a false positive.
This is the nature of scientific corruption we see around us. Scientists trying different mathematical methods to “tease” an answer from their data, where no anwer exists.
This is no different than playing “Helter Skelter” backwards to find “hidden messages”. Both methods have killed people.
At 95% confidence, even one statistical method can give you a false positive. The odds are 1 in 20. That’s the same odds as getting two-pair in a poker game. I don’t think anybody would believe me if I claim to have proven my psychic power by predicting a two-pair in a poker game. But at 95% confidence (2 sigma) that would qualify as “scientific evidence.”
That’s why the gold standard in physics is 5 sigma. But if you apply that to psychology, medicine and climatology, how many experiments and observations would pass? Very little I guess
Ferdberple,
“This is the nature of scientific corruption we see around us. Scientists trying different mathematical methods to “tease” an answer from their data, where no anwer exists.”
How do you know? What’s your evidence? I don’t see what you mean.
Still sounds like a lot of work. Somebody should tell the poor bastards about tree rings.
I have no problem with scientists protecting their code and information. That is what patent and intellectual property laws are for. If a climate scientist claims their method is new and unique, they can file a patent and get 20 years protection against others using it for commercial purposes. Just like any other scientist inventing new technology. If they don’t want to disclose the method in a patent, they can keep the method and results secrete just like major corporations do, but then others have the right to publish the methods if they are discovered.
This is the normal course of business for all technology developers. But if they got the route of keeping their methods and data to themselves, they will then have to disclose this when asked for the proof of their claims. This gives them little credibility in the real world but does allow them to protect their concepts up to the point where others discover what they have done. Then others are free to use the secrete method and data for their own purposes and even seek patent protection for it as they were willing to disclose the information in a patent.
What climate scientists cannot do is claim that they are the only ones that have the answers unless they put those answers out for review along with the data an methods used to produce those answers. That is science. Otherwise, climate scientists are no better than snake oil salesmen how have secrete sauce.
If my tax dollars paid for the research and the code writing, then it is open, period. I have published in my field (experimental thermophysical properties and phase equilibria) and all my data are available, raw and massaged. The methodology has to be explained in the paper or it does not get published. If a climate researcher cannot explain in detail how the data went from raw to conclusions, then the paper should not be published. By “in detail” I mean well enough that the process can be reproduced. the paper does not need to contain all the raw data – a supplement will suffice. in my case, an e-mail will do. For climate work, the reference to the database is fine. That is the “raw” data (even though it has already been smoothed and adjusted, etc.) The big step is how the sausage was made. What does that big program actually do? It has to be explained to the point that another researcher can reproduce the results using a different set of software. Otherwise, it is unsubstantiated.
Climate scientist “secrete” all right. But so do bulls.
“What climate scientists cannot do is claim that they are the only ones that have the answers unless they put those answers out for review along with the data an methods used to produce those answers. That is science. Otherwise, climate scientists are no better than snake oil salesmen how have secrete sauce.”
Climate scientists do share data and methods, and have for a long time. There are 40 modeling groups out there. Most use overlapping datasets that come from many countries. Many share modules within their models. There are many full models available online.
All the models are different, though. The strength in having a diversity of models is that researchers can look at what parts make them most “skillful,” and what might help lower uncertainty, how much they agree overall – the comparison of results is itself informative.
THIS is how science is ordinarily “reproduced.” It tests how robust the results are using a new (variation of a) dataset and different methods. Sometimes the test is indirect, through varying a different parameter, for example. All these related but different experiments end up effectively reproducing the first, even if the same protocol is never followed.
The Rule in science as I learned it is not that everything be reproduced, but that it can be reproduced based on the information provided in the paper, and that would include citations. So a paper could cite another that describes the methods at greater length.
If you use the same data and the same method, all you are doing is repeating mistakes.
If you suspect there are errors based on the publication, contact the researcher or write a letter to the journal.
Accessing data and methods for the express purpose of claiming problems in order to discredit research is not scientific method. It’s not scientific philosophy. It’s unprofessional. It’s damaging the good name of science and therefore its benefit to society.
If YOUR research was paid for by MY tax dollars, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN!
If you want to run private research and keep your methods private, that is intellectual property, NOT in the public domain. Government money always comes with strings attached. Making your research public, when funded by public dollars, should not be a surprise.
If your research cannot stand public scrutiny, then it should not consume public resources.
But, maybe by logic isn’t good enough. I’m confident, so I put my methods in the public domain…
Even if you do own it, no public funding – it should not be used as input to government decisions. The only exception is if it is of military / intelligence significance – in which case, it has to be fully revealed to the government decision makers.
Climate science is NOT of military / intelligence significance.
Lemme pop your bubble there.
The whole reason the US and allies held the Pacific against Japan was a better understanding of climate and weather.
Superior meteorology has won *many* wars. One can even say that Climate Science lead to the improvement in collection of heavy water.
Poor understanding of weather lead to one interesting circumstance in which a major wire-tap of secured communications was discovered due to a line of melted snow.
One can claim “anecdote anecdote anecdote” but when you put them all together, known proven facts, it becomes evidence.
So, Climate science is DEFINITELY of military and intelligence significance.
“prjindigo May 12, 2018 at 8:13 am
Lemme pop your bubble there.
The whole reason the US and allies held the Pacific against Japan was a better understanding of climate and weather. Superior meteorology has won *many* wars.
One can even say that Climate Science lead to the improvement in collection of heavy water.”
THIS IS UTTER DRIVEL !
THE ALLIES ( Especially the US ) CRACKED THE JAPANESE NAVAL CODES and were able to
anticipate attacks and co-ordinate SUPERIOR opposing forces ! THAT is how the PACIFIC SEA WAR
WAS WON ! Weather reporting PLAYED A PART as far a movements by AIRCRAFT were
concerned ! IF it was foggy you didn’t fly ! Radar was still being developed !
The USE of the ATOMIC BOMBS is what FINISHED THE WAR , mercifully ,and that saved millions of lives !
“CLIMATE SCIENCE” weren’t even a DIRTY WORDS THEN !!
Not like they have become NOW !
“So, Climate science is DEFINITELY of military and intelligence significance.”
But not in this case.
Prjindigo: “So, Climate science is DEFINITELY of military and intelligence significance.”
Unless the data and methods are available, it isn’t “Climate science” and has no “military and intelligence significance.”
“So, Climate science is DEFINITELY of military and intelligence significance.”
++++++++++++++++
only if it returns the right answer. imagine what would have happened in WWII if allied weather forecasting routinely returned the WRONG answer.
Very likely you and I would not be here today. If our ancestors had survived, we would be eating rice and/or cabbages in a slave labor camp.
“The whole reason the US and allies held the Pacific against Japan was a better understanding of climate and weather.”
Who discovered the Jet Stream, US or Japan? I would suggest that the war record does not suggest any marked edge in forecasting for the US. The two “Halsey Typhoons” for example. The IJN did not suffer any similar weather-related losses.
TREVOR, “Climate Science” didn’t even exist until they needed a phrase to describe the global warming pseudo science (it’s a science in the same way “social science” is a science). The actual science was and still is meteorology.
Thanks Jim……….I sort of knew that………but thanks for taking the trouble to point it out.
I think Al Gore and several other influential people have a lot to answer for in that they
portray their ” CAGW religious beliefs” as based on science (of any kind ) and that
the term “CLIMATE SCIENCE” has become such a misnomer and is so divisive and
frankly , so EXPENSIVE !………….and THE WASTE of it all !
All these “brilliant minds” completely side-tracked from their proper application ,
wandering Don Quixote-like , wading into futile arguments ;
while others are gorging and enriching themselves
from the dividends of the “bottomless pits of ALTERNATIVE ENERGY” ;
dozens of Countries are “banking on perpetual CLIMATE COMPENSATION
welfare” , and “we” debate the debasement of METEOROLOGY into
CLIMATE SCIENCE !
“Such is life ! ” said Ned Kelly ( just before he was hanged ! ).
Optimistically , science is the one noble cause that I think can ( and will )
provide us all with the knowledge to create prosperity and together with
a fair and just legal system ,a decent lifestyle and purpose in life !
HOWEVER, “we” have to CLEAN IT UP and get rid of the
CHARLATANS and THE IDEOLOGUES and THE
GET-RICH-QUICK TYPES that currently dominate the scene !
Then YOU can return to your respectable “Meteorology” perhaps ?
,
It is true that Allied forecasting was markedly superior to German in Europe. But this wasn’t because allied meteorological science was ahead of german (it might be argued that the opposite was the case).
The reason was that the allies were west of the germans, and in Europe weather usually develops from west to east.
Let me pop your bubble.
Weather isn’t “climate”.
PS Ever hear of Typhoon Cobra? The US nailed that one!
@prjindigo – I see that others have pretty much dealt with your ignorance here, but I shall still add my own bit.
Meteorology is not climate. And, in fact, meteorology theory has not advanced all that much, except in limited areas (very important areas, mind, such as “this cell is almost certainly going to pop a line of strong tornadoes”). Meteorology has become far better because it now has data that it did not have before, better data, from further away, and virtually instantaneous. Still has problems, of course, such as when a “heavy snow” prediction turns into a “light dusting” or “all out blizzard” every so often. The theory of meteorology does not cover that yet (and may never do so, thanks to the nature of the problem).
This is the same reason that the Allies had better predictions in the European theater of operations. Better data about what was happening in the North Atlantic, faster, and more complete. German meteorologists had the same knowledge about how weather worked, but they did not have the data to inform that knowledge. (Despite the incredibly brave U-boat crews that would surface and radio to send them at least some weather reports – and, yes, I call them brave despite the people they were working for.)
In any case, that better data was only kept secret during operations that it affected. Not after those operations. There are many papers that rely on the records kept by the Allies during the war, to reconstruct what was going on then – it is about the only nearly complete data set that really does exist for the North Atlantic, as civilian activity was extremely curtailed.
No decisions during the war were made based on “climate.” The European climate was that there were going to be heavier or lighter storm times, with more or less snow, with more or less wind. Everyone knew that, on both sides – but Eisenhower and his staff made the decision to launch D-Day on the basis of weather, asking the question of their people as to whether there was a front heading in or not, that would hit the AO (area of operations) in the time period needed to gain a proper foothold on the continent.
There were very vigorous efforts to prevent the Germans from having weather reporting stations in Greenland, to the extent of shipping native Greenlanders and their dog teams from the west coast to the northeast, which was nearly uninhabited then.
Any German surface ship, or U-boats on the surface were attacked as a matter of course no matter what they were doing.
In addition if your research finding are to be used to argue for subsidies on a project it also needs to be in the light of day.
All this talk about data release misses the big point and that is if you make it clear that your finding will be open to others to understand then that risk will tend to temper the stretch towards the use of said false positives.
Think of the Paris accord and the pause buster how many so called scientists would risk their reputation on that work. At the best its shakky and probably just one interpretation of many that suited the advocacy crowd.
If science strays to advocacy it is by definition not science.
We all know it simply comes down to the money. Your results belong to those who paid you to obtain those results. You may want to keep the method of obtaining those results secret but then don’t expect others to blindly accept your results. We also know (or should know) that far too often those hiding their methods put their supposed results out to the general public for the purposes of pushing a product or agenda without regard to the correct science. As it is said, you can fool most of the people some of the time and some of the people most of the time. As long as they get their quick profit or pass their agenda the full truth doesn’t matter to them as they believe their ends justify their means.
The right to profit from your results belongs to those who paid you to discover the results.
Your phrasing is only applicable to fabricated data, Tom.
prjindigo
In what context do you include your term “fabricated”?
OED:
fabrication
A. The action or process of manufacturing or inventing something. ‘the assembly and fabrication of electronic products’
B. An invention; a lie. ‘the story was a complete fabrication’
So the Hungarian scientists have discovered cold fusion?
e-Cat is indeed supposed to be the lithium-7 reaction.
My first enquiry would be to look into the background of the Hungarians to check for any possible association with e-Cat team. If that comes up “clean” (no link) you can go further into the work.
Cold beer…
Another minor nit, but, shouldn’t it be “methods” not “method”?
The 5th element!
Hollywood had it right, lol
https://youtu.be/aB-AUTGqUCU
It is ego at work. Ben Santer’s ego was on raw display in that ClimateGate e-mail snippet.
It is why the ClimateGate email continue to be so damaging to them, it shows their intent.
As the guy who dishonestly changed the attribution statement in the Second AR, Ben Santer had a lot of professional reputation and work to protect. And if he would brazenly act dishonest when he knows others will see it as he did on the SAR, one can only imagine what he does when he thinks he can get away with data fudge-ery.
I recall my very first secondary school chemistry lesson at eleven years old which was on writing up experiments conducted and was to be done for every practical assignment. “Apparatus, Method and Result. Your report should explain what equipment was used and how and why it was used, your method should describe exactly what you did and what was observed during the experiment, your result should show your findings, your conclusions and any additional notes that you think important. The teacher explained that to have validity anyone should be able to take your report, follow your method and get the same result.
Peter C
My entire secondary school science experience was devoted to blowing things up and handling stuff considered hazardous today – e.g. chasing blobs of mercury with straws, in games of desk football.
And yes, we blew up a classroom, science teacher left with the smouldering remains of a taper in his hand and Tom and Jerry style mad professor hair and charred lab coat.
No wonder I’m so bad at science in my old age, we couldn’t write anything up for laughing.
Great fun but pointless.
Problem, Peter, is if the method is flawed you can get the same flawed result.
So my point is that the method itself should also be subject to scrutiny as well as the raw data and methods used to collect the data.
I see so many “adjustments’ to the data and then unverifiable coefficients in the climate models that I have lost faith.
Gums sends…
Ive just heard, from an anonymous source who, speaking under condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject, that the recent unemployment line participant, former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, has started an organization to protect the justifiably classified Climate Science research findings. This organization is called: Forbidding Unanswered Climate Claims – and – Outlawing Findings From – EVERYONE.
To simplify the title Andy’s organization is simply going to go by this acronym: … FU..OFF EVERYONE.
However, every other department in Washington, since 11/16 has wanted the same acronym so it’s bound to be a fight.
Are they affiliated with Michael Mann’s new group? Support for disHonest
Intellectual Targets.
What I find most disturbing about this debate is that they bring in some partially valid concerns about personal privacy in medical and drug investigations and act like the same concerns apply to weather and climate, which, of course, it does not. And the medical records concerns can be alleviated by using the first level double blind data which is used in all valid clinical investigations to avoid statistical bias.
I agree the solution is easy as you described.
The problem with EPA epidemiology studies on air pollution has been no replication in the sense that scientists at EPA or elsewhere have never used the published data of their supported investigators to replicate the results. It is impossible to duplicate these epidemiology studies, however the data should be inspected and a replication analysis should be mandated before making a decision.
Recently, 8 published articles have been criticized in a peer review journal:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230017300673?via%3Dihub
It is paywalled but has been obtained by many.
How the results of these 8 articles have been used is a good example of what Pruitt wants to avoid to make decisions.
Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546819/
This Bell study of premature deaths due to increases in ground level ozone is one of the reasons I question the quality of the climate science studies.
1) no control population
2) recording biases
3) cities with negative correlation to increases in ozone
4) other factors with much higher correlations to premature death than ozone increases.
5) cities with ozone levels so low that it is highly unlikely that ozone was a factor in death (honolula for example)
To Joe:
Yes I agree with you.
Joe,
1) no control population
No, there wouldn’t be in a study like this, or many other epidemiological studies, for that matter. It’s not appropriate – you can’t say, this city will remain ozone-free for the next 5 years.
2) recording biases
Like what?
3) cities with negative correlation to increases in ozone
Negative correlation of what?
4) other factors with much higher correlations to premature death than ozone increases.
That’s accounted for in the data and methods.
5) cities with ozone levels so low that it is highly unlikely that ozone was a factor in death (honolula for example)”
Well, that’s data, too, isn’t it? That is like a control.
If YOUR research was paid for by MY tax dollars, then it is PUBLIC DOMAIN!
Not necessarily. The research leading to the atomic bomb was [and some it still is: e.g. what is the exact critical mass] highly secret.
If the Los Alamos boys had used climate science practices they’d have invented the Uranium suicide kit!
There is a very good book by richard rhodes “the making of the atomic bomb” . The book starts in the mid to late 1800’s covering many of the scientists and each little discovery as each progressed. The sharing of data was reasonably open to all the scientists, numerous meetings, sharing of info. It wasnt until the mid 1930’s (after hitlers rise to power) that the research became very secretive.
nuclear physics is lightyears more complex than climate science with only the chaotic system making climate science complex.
Fair point Leif.
lsvalgaard
Therein lies the problem. Had the EPA not lost the trust of much of the public i.e. American climate sceptics, by their underhand methods, Pruitt’s transparency initiative would not have been necessary.
What’s in question here is not the money or the science or anything else, other than the trust invested in a government agency by the public.
As an outsider, it appears the American public feel betrayed by an agency entrusted with their their integrity.
lost the trust of much of the public i.e. American climate sceptics
Unfortunately, the skeptics are not ‘much’ of the American public. Most people don’t give a damn [that does not in itself make them skeptics].
lsvalgaard
Pollsters usually perceive “I don’t give a damn” as a negative response.
So yes, the complacent majority do make a difference.
Pollsters usually perceive “I don’t give a damn” as a negative response.
So yes, the complacent majority do make a difference.
Well only in the unreliable polls, then.
That does not reflect reality, though.
lsvalgaard
Perception is reality to most.
Perception is reality to mos
Do you suffer from that too?
lsvalgaard
I believe we’re all subject to it. Aren’t you?
I believe we’re all subject to it. Aren’t you?
In scientific work we try hard not to suffer from that. In other matters, no so much, perhaps.
lsvalgaard
Are you saying that in you’re professional life as a scientist, you don’t suffer from it, but in other areas of your life you might?
In which case, how about the rest of society who aren’t scientists?
I contend that outwith our areas of professional expertise, we are all subject to confirmation bias simply because we don’t know what we’re talking about.
Of course, when it comes to politics, we’re all experts, because there is no qualification required to become a politician.
Are you saying that in you’re professional life as a scientist, you don’t suffer from it, but in other areas of your life you might?
Something like that, except I try not to suffer from as a scientist [may not always succeed]
In which case, how about the rest of society who aren’t scientists?
As scientists we then have a sort of duty to help improve the situation as best we can. Here we may succeed even less.
What I perceive is my reality, HotScot. Perceptions, however, change. One should always question his assumptions.
Heh, so not ‘lost’, but still ‘losing’. The tide is going out on this one, and it’s about time.
========================
The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED. All scientists and staff had a security clearance to work on the project. They knew they could not reveal anything unless declassified by the government.
To compare this with a grant or contract from EPA for an epidemiology study is nonsense.
All data from the atomic bomb were in government files. They could be inspected anytime by the government scientists with a security clearance.
Where are the data from EPA epidemiological studies done by grantees or contractors? In their office with nobody having access? Nonsense. The data should be available for review.
The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED.
Even today, there is lots of research that without being formally classified, cannot be shared with foreign nationals, e.g. https://gov-relations.com/itar/
To Isvalgaard
“The research on the atomic bomb was CLASSIFIED.
Even today, there is lots of research that without being formally classified, cannot be shared with foreign nationals, e.g. https://gov-relations.com/itar/”
Please don’t mix the stuff you quoted with research at EPA.
We are discussing providing “scientific research data”. Not BS from government relations.
We are discussing providing “scientific research data”
That is what I was referring to, as directly exposed to it.
To Isvalgard:
“We are discussing providing “scientific research data”
That is what I was referring to, as directly exposed to it.”
Have you provided your data or have you directly exposed to it?
Have you provided your data or have you directly exposed to it?
Even though your question looks a bit muddled, I say that all my data in my own research has always been provided or taken form public archives.
I’m exposed to the ITAR problem every day.
If all your data has been provided. Good. I have done the same.
Real scientists want to be proven wrong.
Am I right?
Max Photon
“Real scientists want to be proven wrong.”
“Am I right?”
That”s the theory. I suspect the reality is, the best scientists enjoy a good debate and propose a theory to stimulate one.
The rest, well, they do science because the ‘scientist’ badge makes them feel superior.
Nonsense. Scientists publish results and data with an explanation and discussion and conclusion. Not to be proven right or wrong. But simply to bring issues or supporting or modifying about older issues in science.
I don’t want to be proven right or wrong. I want to present new findings, discuss how such can improve understanding. And in a rare case a new and possibly changing current thinking on a particular issue.
Nobody wants to be proven wrong. Real scientists are prepared to accept being proven wrong if it happens.
97% of real scientists agree.
I think if the 2 guys that discovered cold fusion hadn’t of shared their findings and kept it secret, that we’d have working cold fusion generation today.
“Should scientists share their data and method?”
Absolutely positively 100% yes when that data is used to steer political policy decisions.
Agree
Lots of data and methods posted, some for decades. Why not use BEST results?
Can you tell us what BEST results are???
Open source, open methods, open everything. Skeptic scientists, skeptic funders. None of the methods borrowed from previous work.
Seems people keep forgetting that there was a plan to end the argument of whether NASA, NOAA or others were doing things properly and came to proper conclusions. As it turns out, BEST came to the same conclusions.
http://berkeleyearth.org
Agreement with both sides with certain qualifications.
In a fractious environment where great opinion differences exist, such as pure climate science verses the carbon cartel-(who have demonstrated expensive capacity to skew not just the facts of science but have bought & paid for scientists, journalists, politicians & the kid in the candy store); it will be downright foolish if not damaging to a scientist character to publicly share all their raw data.
I applaud the moral higj ground of the Hungarian team in sharing their findings in hopes of validation.
Were there unbiased institutions who are willing & able to dispassionately investigate the long and arduous tasks our planetary explorers
have found thru their research, this is the answer to this debate.
When scientists are kings and kings are scientists, then we shall have a better world.
“it will be downright foolish if not damaging to a scientist character to publicly share all their raw data.”
IN PRECISELY WHAT WAY and WHY ?
Answer here :…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If these “pure climate scientists” are so PURE then surely they could improve the rest of the
SORDID WORLD ( “us” ) by enlightening us with the purity of there erudition ?
Answer here:………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“When scientists are kings and kings are scientists, then we shall have a better world.”
Surely there are ENOUGH ELITES already !!
How about a FEW HONEST , DOWN-TO-EARTH SCIENTISTS sharing COMPLETELY
their findings. THAT WOULD SETTLE THIS STUPID DEBATE ONCE & FOR ALL.
Answer here:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
MIND YOU……the research FUNDING would also cease ………Oh ! Shirt !!
Answer here:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
.
ps. Additional funding WOULD BE AVAILABLE for OTHER PURPOSES , including research.
pps. When it is “found” that this is NORMAL , NATURAL and NON-PREVENTABLE and even
DESIRABLE and that MANKIND’S CONTRIBUTION is NEGLIGIBLE , some of those funds
could be put into ADAPTING to cope with ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS
ppps. There have been NO ADVERSE EFFECTS SO FAR……so it may not take much funding !
RSVP
As a former public employee whose files, work email, work product, computer files, and text messages could be subject to a Freedom of Information or Public Records Act requests at any time by anyone for any reason; it is very difficult to have sympathy for a publicly paid “scientist” who refuses to comply with transparency.
I note that in the UK, we have the ‘research excellence framework’ REF which compares the research performed at all UK universities.
Starting now, there is an instruction that all research has to be published in an open and searchable way via the internet.
A summary of the requirements are:-
The four UK HE funding bodies believe that the outputs of research should be as widely accessible as possible. For this reason, we have introduced a new policy for open access in relation to research assessments after the 2014 REF.
The policy states that, to be eligible for submission to the REF 2021, authors’ final peer-reviewed manuscripts must have been deposited in an institutional or subject repository. Deposited material should be discoverable, and free to read and download, for anyone with an internet connection.
The requirement applies only to journal articles and conference proceedings with an International Standard Serial Number. It will not apply to monographs, book chapters, other long-form publications, working papers, creative or practice-based research outputs, or data. The policy applies to research outputs accepted for publication after 1 April 2016.
As a researcher, if you do not follow these rules, then your research can not be included in REF2021 and your institution suffers.
UK institutions are already emailing their staff to ensure all research is uploaded…..
Is the US doing something similar?
I don’t know if the US is doing something similar.
All I can say is to applaud the UK decision.
Some of us retired before it was possible to ask universities to provide a mechanism to keep databases easily acceptable. Obviously it is easy to do now. I have even updated a database published years ago, to make it now easily available to students or others and easily obtained from my university. I hope we can all do this.
And a little more to your question.
An article published with my students in 1994 contained the description of a computerized method to obtain highly reproducible results. It was stipulated, at the end of the article, that the software used would be supplied free of charge to anyone requesting it and also included would be a file on how to implement this.
The software was in FORTRAN and running on DOS on a 386 PC! I then received a call from the president of a software company in France telling me if I would supply the FORTRAN, they would follow the directions and prepare a version to run on Windows. So they did. Now used all over the world with many publications.
This is SCIENCE. Do scientists need be told by the government what they should do?
If you have a sense of humour, you can visit unrealclimate. They also have a post with their view of “open science” and “reproducible science”. It seems nobody else knows anything about it. They did not mention the hockey stick.