Futurism: Demanding Climate Data is Evil

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to Futurism author Lou Del Bello, demanding the data used in climate studies is evil because it leaves climate scientists open to having their work challenged.

Scott Pruitt’s Latest EPA Gambit Is As Clever As It Is Evil

Lou Del Bello

The more information, the better, right? Except when it’s not. Like when it’s just a tactic weaponized to obscure the truth. And now environmental science is about to be on the losing side of that strategy from the American Government.

Case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency may release the raw data behind every study it carries out. It’s hard to imagine this as anything but a good thing! But, believe it: Former EPA employees and scientists say the effort’s a ruse, and what appears to be a push toward openness is just another way to stifle science.

  • Betsy Southerland, a former EPA official, explained to E&E how releasing raw data leaves scientists open to attacks from industry lobbies who may try to distort information in their own favor.
  • Moreover, requiring the agency to only base new laws on studies with public, reproducible data would prevent a lot of important research from informing policy making.
  • That word, “reproducible,” is key. Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors, or the environmental impact studies following the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill: These are events whose baseline conditions can’t be replicated, but are important to science and policy-making alike.

Besides, they say, a process of check and balances is already at the heart of any solid scientific study — it’s called peer review. We want independent experts to assess the value of a particular study, because they have the specific skills required to do so.

Read more: https://futurism.com/scott-pruitts-epa-evil-transparency/

Similar arguments appear through the Climategate email chain.

For example, Climategate email 1075403821.txt (Phil Jones writing to Michael Mann):


In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.



Ben Santer complaining about releasing data in email 1231257056.txt

… 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?

(Climategate emails available from Wikileaks).

I’m less than sympathetic to attempts to justify withholding data. Trillions of dollars ride on the integrity and validity of climate studies. Everyone is affected by climate decisions made on our behalf by politicians, whose decisions are influenced by scientific advice. Telling people they should take the expert’s word for it simply isn’t good enough.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 20, 2018 8:34 am

The white (collar) terrorists of Data Haram strike again. Are anti-scientists of the Phil Jones ilk not inimici humani generis? Do they deserve more leniency than pirates?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 8:39 am

To quote The History of the Climate Debate in the vain hope someone will learn from the past:
Anti-Disclosure Group Exposed

For years, the existence of an extremist cell known only as Data Haram—inspired by Sayyid Quţb and opposed to the Enlightenment, science and technology, Western liberal civilization, free inquiry, the rational tradition and human knowledge—has been denied in the most strenuous terms by the sect’s leader, Stafan “al-Australyi” Lewandowsky.
Until, that is, the cult accidentally publishes its manifesto as a Nature article.
Will the leak be enough to discredit the group? Transparency advocates fear it may have the opposite effect: by unveiling its anti-epistemic misosophy on such a respectable stage, they wonder, has Data Haram taken the first step towards halal—even kosher—status?

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 9:56 am

Certainty Channel : politics ; Uncertainty Channel : scientists.

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 10:04 am

WHAT WAS THAT?!? What did you just link to? What is this “Whip It” thing?
OMG! That was…I can’t even…words fail me.
Please cease and desist from infecting this blog with such…

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 10:27 am

Brad…that is funny. This is my favorite:
Justice Burton of the High Court of England and Wales finds it unlawful to show An Inconvenient Truth in UK schools without ‘guidance notes’ alerting children to the film’s “political bias” and “errors of science.” Eager to win back the British education market, Gore’s editing team experiments with cutting all falsehoods and/or dishonest statements from the film. But the new, deception-free version tests poorly with teachers, who complain that its 12-minute run-time isn’t even enough to waste a school period

Phil R
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 12:39 pm

Hah, “misosophy.” Learn a new word a day!

Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 21, 2018 6:31 am

The Nature article inadvertently reveals the Alinsky tactic employed by Mann, Lewandowsky et al, of blaming others for their own crimes of smearing and character assassination.

Reply to  Graemethecat
March 21, 2018 7:36 am

Have you also noticed how they constantly accuse others of projecting their flaws onto them, when they’re the ones who constantly project their own flaws onto others? There’s a technical term for that, which escapes me right now.

George Tetley
Reply to  Brad Keyes
March 20, 2018 8:40 am

Pirates? yes Sir,
the cat with nine”tales”

Reply to  George Tetley
March 20, 2018 9:44 am

makes sense! When a problem comes along…

March 20, 2018 8:46 am

I am going to say it again. AGW is done and this year will be the turning point. Their theory will be obsolete before the decade ends.
Already overall sea surface temperatures and global temperatures are on the decline.
Again the weakening of geo/solar magnetic fields is what I believe rules the climate in the relative short term.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 20, 2018 9:03 am

You are very optimistic. It’s a very well crafted cargo cult post normal science. It needs decades to lose the blind belief and that is only if the priests are quite unlucky.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Adrian Roman
March 20, 2018 10:25 am

Well maybe the crooks and charlatans doing phony science and hiding their contaminated, censored, and made-up data might not like transparency and honesty. Can good science and policy come from hidden data, models, and analyses?
But for now, don’t believe or support anyone who cannot be open, transparent, and above board in their research and data collecting and analyses.
Truth seeks the light. Honest scientists seek to enlighten.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 20, 2018 12:10 pm

Unfortunately, we’ve indoctrinated a generation with an uncritical belief system.
People give up their beliefs very reluctantly.

Reply to  Joel Snider
March 20, 2018 1:43 pm

More accurately, indoctrinated into being hypercritical of everything, except for the indoctrinators’ pet beliefs.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 20, 2018 1:06 pm

Salvadore Del Prete, the Sun is involved in climate changes sometimes, but the main driver of short-term climate changes is probably the Oceans. And there are many other variables, some of we know and some we don’t. But we don’t understand how any of these processes work or interact, even at an elementary level.
My point is, we can’t with any certainty, claim we know what is capable of changing the climate. Maybe it’s sunspot activity, maybe not. Maybe its the Oceans up-welling and down-welling, maybe not. Maybe it’s cosmic radiation, maybe its our location as we pass through the arms of the MIlky Way. We are a century or two away from being able to predict a change in climate.

Reply to  hollybirtwistle
March 20, 2018 1:35 pm

Nicely done.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 21, 2018 1:18 am

No, what will happen is that refutation, ie the failure of predictions to materialize, will strengthen belief. It will also strengthen the virulence of attacks on unbelievers.
Read ‘When Prophecy Fails’.
What happens in these movements is that the rank and file become more and more extreme, just at the point when the elite are starting to get worried about the extremism some in the movement at lower levels are making. But the elite have started it rolling and find it impossible to hold it back.
As the day of the predicted apocalypse dawns, bands of the rank and file head up into the hills to await rapture. The elite meanwhile are furiously backing off.
Morning comes, nothing has happened. The rank and file climb back down the mountain with their belief strengthened.
Look up the history of the Jehova’s Witnesses, and the number of failed predictions of the end of the world they have survived.
This is going to get worse before it gets better. The Levandowsky piece in Nature, and Mann’s fulmination, are both part of clues that the elite is deeply worried. But the rank and file, well, read the Guardian comments section, or Ars Technica. They are true believers in the end of the world.

Chris Lynch
Reply to  michel
March 21, 2018 3:32 pm

I agree. I think that people like Mann and Lewandowsky know in their hearts they are charlatans. The problem is the legion of followers for whom their bogus theories have become secular religious articles of faith. They would rather die than lose face and admit that the “right” was right all along.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 21, 2018 11:54 pm

Wow. The projection of the deluded is tragic. For nearly 20 years WUWT commenters and article writers went on and on and on and on and on about “the pause”. Meanwhile scientists said the world would recommence warming.
Yet you guys are right.
You are being taken for a ride. Enjoy the journey from far, far from reality.

Jacob Frank
March 20, 2018 8:49 am

Reminds me of the Catholic church back in the day. If we can’t read the actual text of your religion I guess we will just have to take our local stazi agw officers word for what it says.

Reply to  Jacob Frank
March 20, 2018 9:55 am

So, hopefully, there there will be enough educated Pruittans to carry on with his heroic stance. (and to contribute to a continued honest effort at the translation).

Bruce Cobb
March 20, 2018 8:55 am

Climatesplaining at its finest.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 20, 2018 1:19 pm

Oh, very good, Bruce. But may I expand on that: Mannsplaining? (But, perhaps it’s already been used…) 🙂

March 20, 2018 8:56 am

Pal review was taken to another level with EPA. It became pen pal panel review with money going to all participants of the panels.

March 20, 2018 9:01 am

It also makes courtroom stall tactics much harder.

Terrance Daniels
March 20, 2018 9:07 am

It is Jack O’dell and John Dagre.

March 20, 2018 9:09 am

There is no real climate data used today.
The surface average temperature compilations
are data-free.
They consist of wild guess infilling (over 50%)
and “adjusted” raw data (under 50%).
“Adjusted” raw data are what someone
— a government bureaucrat with a science degree —
THINKS the data would have been,
if measured accurately in the first place.
So once raw data are “adjusted”,
you no longer have real data.
Raw surface data are real data
— but they may not be accurate,
because they are affected
by the urban heat island effect,
inaccurate measurements
(such as thermometers in buckets
of sea water, that can’t be accurate
measurements of sea surface temperatures),
and repeated changes of weather station
locations, downsizing Stevenson box sizes,
and changes of measurement instruments,
which are not checked for accuracy every year.
In addition, the surface measurements don’t
match weather satellite or radiosonde measurements,
(both of which correlate well with each other).
My common sense climate change blog
(meaning liberals should stay away):

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
March 21, 2018 6:57 am

Agreed 100%. “Adjusted” data IS NOT “data” at all. If the ACTUAL (raw) data is suspect, the solution to that should be to increase the size of error bars, or to simply exclude any obvious results of malfunctions, i.e., impossibly high or low readings (NOT “change them to what we think they would have been,” NOT “infill the erroneous data with guesswork,” just remove it).
As soon as you start “adjusting” data, it is simply NO LONGER DATA. It is guesswork, assumption, and scientifically speaking, ultimately nonsense. If “climate science” were being properly done, this is how the weather data would be treated – the lack of precision and accuracy would be accepted, and the ridiculous notion that we have “measured” an amount of warming that is little different than the range of errors in the measurements would put to death the whole climate panic campaign.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
March 22, 2018 9:27 am

First the warmunists would
have to learn what “error bars” are!
Then they have to learn
that if individual surface measurement
instruments have an accuracy rating
of +/- 1 degree C.,
which is typical,
then the average of their data can not
be assumed to be better than +/- 1 degree C.
… and that’s not even accounting for
the wild guess infilling,
and “adjusting”
“re-adjusting”, and
that’s going on.
I suppose even the wild guess infilling
gets “adjusted” too!
This is not real science.
It is haphazard, inaccurate measurements,
and wild guesses of the future average temperature,
with 30 years of wrong predictions so far,
providing strong evidence that
the future climate is unpredictable !

March 20, 2018 9:15 am

If your methods and data are irrefutable, wonderful. If they are questionable, they aren’t actionable.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Marnof
March 21, 2018 6:59 am

Exactly. And when they are “adjusted” by people who start with their conclusion and work their way backwards looking to support it, your statement’s accuracy increases exponentially (no pun intended).

Reply to  AGW is not Science
March 22, 2018 9:34 am

One must work “backwards”
to get the right (already “known”)
climate conclusion!
That is the foundation of modern climate science !
The equivalent is to shoot an arrow
into the side of a barn, and then paint
a target around it, with the bulls eye
painted around where the arrow
is stuck in the barn wood.
I have experience with bows and arrows:
As a kid I set a local record for shooting
an arrow so high that it became invisible …
until it came down and went through
my next door neighbors’ screen and window.

March 20, 2018 9:26 am

The graphic needs the vertical red column for 2020….. after “extremely likely”… I believe
the red column for 2020 it is called “VIRTUALLY CERTAIN” and then in 2025 we will
have it “TOTAL, VIRTUALLY, EXTREMELY CERTAIN”. and this will finally silence all the sceptics.

Reply to  J. Seifert
March 20, 2018 4:22 pm

By the year 2025 we find out if we are on track, or not. The next several years can be attirbuted to normal solar minimum drop in temps. The years following should reflect a cooling trend, imo. If they don’t, then that would be reason to reassess my views on how this works.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  goldminor
March 21, 2018 7:08 am

But that is part of the problem – you’ve locked yourself into thinking there is a SINGLE variable that should be *immediately* reflected in the temperature readings (“several” years being, in “climate” terms, an eye blink), without considering that there are multiple influences at work which are not all identified or understood or quantified, and so not seeing its effect within some short time frame may well tell you nothing – simply because other factors are counteracting it somewhat or because the time lags involved are longer than you anticipate.
Our “climate science” problems begin with the fact that relatively little is understood, but the so-called “climate scientists” act as if they know enough to draw conclusions from, and make predictions based on, their laughingly inadequate knowledge.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
March 21, 2018 2:13 pm

@ AGW ….my idea is based on the current state of the climate as being in a cooling mode. That means all variables are considered. The sum total of all of the variables should reflect a cooling trend or my entire premise is wrong. That is that the climate shift points run approximately from 2006/07, 1976/77, 1946/47, and basically around every 30 years into the past. The recent El Nino is a great example of why patterns are not easily discerned in the long term record, imo. Existing conditions will take their time dissipating especailly when the existing condition was a warm trend, and in this case also at a peak point of warming.
And so my thought that after the end of the solar minimum the years which follow should reflect a continued cool trend visible with the passage of years. There will still be warm years mixed in.

Gary Pearse
March 20, 2018 9:32 am

What can be done about all these irreparable minds and institutions as this massive deceit continues to unwind? Will this third of a century of wholesale destruction of economic and human resources by wanton gl9balist “progressives” be prosecuted? Will we have to let broken institutions, universities collapse on themselves and simply build new ones?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 20, 2018 9:34 am

com’ on mods this is mild stuff.

March 20, 2018 9:33 am

When you hide the information which you are using to harm people you are a criminal, time to treat these people exactly as what they are. And take our tax dollars back, by force if necessary. US Marshals kicking in doors and seizing bank accounts, safe deposit boxes, money from under mattresses, wherever they have hidden it.

March 20, 2018 9:36 am

“Telling people they should take the expert’s word for it simply isn’t good enough.”
Problem number one is demonstrating “expertness” from a group whose predictions have been so inexpert. Problem number two is assuming an expert is infallible.

March 20, 2018 9:40 am

The Church of the Holy Moonies believe in the Holy Lie. This De Bello needs to join.

AGW is not Science
March 20, 2018 9:44 am

Thanks, Eric – excellent piece. I especially like the graph showing increasing confidence in AGW BS in reverse correlation with the accuracy of predictions. Priceless! Every “believer” should be confronted with that graphic.
I personally have NO tolerance for the withholding of scientific data, because absent the disclosure of said data, “science” can’t be properly done, PERIOD. Limiting the disclosure to the PALS that “review” it doesn’t promote the pursuit of science, it promotes group-think and ideology that can then masquerade as “science,” doing tremendous damage to humanity and discrediting “science” in general in the process.
And their arguments against it are vacuous; nobody’s “personal information” need be disclosed to share “data,” it can (to the extent even present) be redacted. Hiroshima survivor data can absolutely be “reproduced.” It’s called NAGASAKI survival data. The people whining about the requirement that science that is to be the basis of policy be required to be publicly available are just whining about being exposed to those who might actually disagree with them, and who are able to support their disagreement. Too [bleep]ing bad.

March 20, 2018 9:46 am

That sort of refusal to provide actual data is beyond parody, but common in some politically sensitive fields, like gun control research or climate and environmental studies. We peons just have to accept the word of our betters./sarc

March 20, 2018 9:51 am

So we don’t have to release data because we can’t drop another atomic bomb?
I don’t care what discipline you are in, if you won’t release the data, your work should be ignored. The history of science is littered with those who won’t release – and the vast majority turned out to be wrong or frauds.
As for the claim that people might misuse the data….if people misuse data, then why WHY would trust any people?This absurd, trust me but not them, because I am good and they are not is simply Kafkaesque because the “me good, him bad” is based on whether you believe what those claiming to be good say.
Are we seriously at this point of maximum insanity?

Reply to  Phoenix44
March 20, 2018 10:53 am

So we don’t have to release data because we can’t drop another atomic bomb?

I guess he meant they can’t release the data they don’t have because they didn’t do an experiment (the atomic bomb) in the first place. And their code is protected by IPRs, so they’re a trade secret they don’t need to give to competitors.
And asking the code is harassment… only friends may do that, you can trust them.

Are we seriously at this point of maximum insanity?

Looking into the fact we’re about 40 years into the greenhouse scare and about 50 years into the environmentalist paradigm, I do hope the end is nigh.

Reply to  Phoenix44
March 20, 2018 5:53 pm

“Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors”
These findings only relate to the kind of exposure caused by bombs. (Or possibly excursions in fission reactors, if there are people exposed; AFAIK, nobody has ever survived enough to suffer from that irradiation.) It does not apply to people working in the nuclear industry. It does not happen to people manipulating radioactive materials in any case. That data is not applicable to the impact on the population of any nuclear accident, ever.
We have a lot of data on exposure to radiation at various levels of radiation flux; a rate of exposure much lower than an explosion.
The veneration of the atomic bomb health data we see in the radioprotection community is unhealthy. That data provides gross estimates of effect of doses (not exactly known) over a biologic instant (an “infinitely short time” of exposure from the point of view of biological mechanisms). This is the kind of exposure you can get in a medical context (even then, it would not be the gamma rays of the nuclear fission).
The study of atomic bomb survivors should be used only as a upper bound on the possible health effects of exposure to radiations over a short time. Radioprotection for nuclear industry workers should not be based on that data: we have plenty of data on exposure to a continuously radioactive environment.
See Pr Pierre Pellerin, Maurice Tubiana, Pr André Aurengo… and Bernard Leonard Cohen, of course. On this subject, the French academies are not useless and lost, unlike the NY academy of sciences.

Reply to  Phoenix44
March 21, 2018 6:37 am

How can genuine data be “misused”?
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for keeping scientific data secret.

Reply to  Graemethecat
March 21, 2018 8:58 am

I think that “the doubt is their product” means that “some dishonest commentators and analysts will always find something not quite right and try to exonerate a chemical|an industry based on nitpicking”.
Just like “OJ was declared not guilty so from now on we will not provide evidence for cross examination by the defenders”.
Oh no, nobody said that ever.

March 20, 2018 10:03 am

Re:The Gulf of Mexico link, if it was to be destroyed it would have been in WWII. The first exhaustive study done on oil there (1947-1962) was funded by the petroleum industry. They did not hide their data. Cure may be worse than disease.
“Extensive response actions, including cleanup activities and actions to try to prevent the oil from reaching sensitive resources, were undertaken to try to reduce harm to people and the environment. However, many of these response actions had collateral impacts on the environment.”

Reply to  HDHoese
March 20, 2018 10:38 am

Summary of oil study noted above
Another more offshore study, conducted by the Gulf Universities Research Corporation was published in Rice University Studies, 1980, volume 65, numbers 4 and 5.

March 20, 2018 10:06 am

Trust, kneel, but don’t verify.

March 20, 2018 10:13 am

“Scott Pruitt’s Latest EPA Gambit Is As Clever As It Is Evil”
Ah….the unending hubris of the self-anointed enlightened! Making the data public will expose them as frauds and charlatans, and that is the ‘evil’ that they fear. What they are calling evil, is a blessing to everyone else.

Reply to  jclarke341
March 20, 2018 1:51 pm

As written in the book of Isaiah, “Woe to they who call evil good, and good evil.”

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
Reply to  drednicolson
March 20, 2018 7:35 pm

Acts 1:18 should be their fate.

March 20, 2018 10:17 am

Arctic sea ice… when stuck , always blame climate change…

“This is ice that, if you don’t have an icebreaker like the one we were on, you wouldn’t be able to move through this ice,” said David Barber, a University of Manitoba climate change scientist who led the Arctic expedition, called BaySys.

“It became very clear that we needed to understand what this ice was, where it came from and why it was there, because nobody was expecting it.”

Obviously, in 2018 Barber is not following his own field very carefully as he should know by now what’s happening:comment image
As opposed to 2008comment image
Yet, none of these maps are quoted in the CBC article…
And Barber to predict in direct contradiction with measurements:

He anticipates the problem will persist for the next several years. Even as Arctic ice changes and multi-year ice disappears, researchers predict it will be replaced by rough, single-year ice, which will continue to flow south.

But no journalist will hold him accountable, hence the renewing call for more of the same…

“It’s a complicated thing, and the beginning of that is knowledge,” he said. “That’s why we did the paper we did, and that’s why we conducted the research we did, and that’s why we made it publicly available through the peer-review process.”

Reply to  TomRude
March 20, 2018 10:56 am

Perhaps my comment could be moved to the Beaufort Ice post. Thx

March 20, 2018 10:17 am

If the public pays for the data we should be able to use it for our own analysis, plain and simple

Reply to  Dinsdale
March 20, 2018 5:01 pm

If the data is to be used to create policies that impact the public it must be made public before the policy can be reviewed or acted open or the data and study must be ignored.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Gordon
March 21, 2018 7:16 am

YES – that. If you want to “push policy” based on your “science,” your “science” first needs to be open to ALL for review, testing, and replication, NOT just to your “PAL review” buddies who will cast a bed of roses on your BS.

March 20, 2018 10:30 am

Ceteris Paribus and Global Warming; Ground Measurements are Garbage
One of the key principles to sound science is “ceteris paribus.” With any experiment, one wants to “control” as many outside forces as possible to isolate the impact of the independent variable upon the dependent variable. The posting: Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature attempted to demonstrate an experiment where CO2’s impact on the climate was … Continue reading

March 20, 2018 10:31 am

Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled
The Climate Sophists’ main argument is that there is a scientific “consensus,” and that this “consensus” supports the conclusion that this is “settled” science. First, science is never settled. Science is a process, a method, real science falsifies claims, it never proves something is true. Claiming that an understanding of something as infinitely complex as … Continue reading

Phil R
Reply to  co2islife
March 20, 2018 12:53 pm


The Climate MISOSophists’ main argument is that there is a scientific “consensus,” and that this “consensus” supports the conclusion that this is “settled” science.

There, fixed it for you with the new word I learned from BK today!
(hope I got the tags right.)

Reply to  co2islife
March 25, 2018 12:04 pm

Ignorance and delusion have been ‘weaponized’ by the warmistas. Those are the only weapons that have to bring to the fight.

Reply to  thomasjk
March 25, 2018 12:05 pm

“weapons they have”. ‘Scuse, please?

peanut gallery
March 20, 2018 10:32 am

Checks and validation via buddy review? Bullshit.
If the conclusion can’t stand on its own merits, then it is erroneous.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  peanut gallery
March 21, 2018 7:38 am

Yup – and if it can’t withstand public scrutiny, then it should never be used as a basis for public policy, period.

Joel O’Bryan
March 20, 2018 10:53 am

“…what appears to be a push toward openness is just another way to stifle science.”
They want it both ways.
When Trump was elected, all these useful idiots were proclaiming that the “anti-science Trump” would push for destroying data and what it couldn’t destroy, it would hide from the public.
Now that Trump and Pruitt are pushing to put the glare of sunlight and openness on the corrupt hiding data processes of the past EPA, they still claim this is an attempt to stifle science.
It merely reveals these useful idiots as dishonest players willing to lie to the public to further their political and ideological goals.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 21, 2018 7:41 am

“…what appears to be a push toward openness is just another way to stifle pseudo-science.”
There, fixed it for them.

March 20, 2018 11:00 am

“Betsy Southerland, a former EPA official, explained to E&E how releasing raw data leaves scientists open to attacks from industry lobbies who may try to distort information in their own favor.”
Whereas Betsy and Co are pure as driven snow in that regard because they have heeded Eisenhower’s warning and it’s indelibly carved in stone at the EPA. Hmmm…well maybe not-
However they do say-
“All parts of society–communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments–have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;”
but I guess you could say it hinges on the word ‘sufficient’ that Betsy and Co have defined for society.

March 20, 2018 11:40 am

With this entry, futurism author Lou Del Bello, may have an early lock on the 2018 ‘Clueless’ award.

March 20, 2018 11:46 am

On second thought, maybe will need a runoff between masters Kristof and Del Bello.

March 20, 2018 11:50 am

Good news for big pharma, now they can sell their drugs without FDA approval.

Reply to  Urederra
March 20, 2018 9:13 pm

How is that good? You think many drugs can exist without “gov regulation”?
Would parents allow their kids to be vaccinated the US fed agencies were dissolved?
Would “vaccine against bad breath approved by its own maker and considered essential by dealers” carry the same weight as “vaccine against bad breath approved by the FDA and considered essential by the CDC”?
The FDA-CDC is an experiment that failed, like the medical boards and lawyers’ bars, and the EPA, the intel community and the UN.

Reply to  s-t
March 21, 2018 9:30 am

UL is one of the most trusted rating agencies around, and it isn’t a branch of the government.
People have been carefully conditioned to believe that only the government can be trusted to rate products.

Reply to  s-t
March 21, 2018 6:40 pm

When did “regulated” start to mean “government regulated”?

Reply to  s-t
March 22, 2018 7:24 am

When the hardcore political leftists figured out it gave them power over people they hate. Just that simple.

Reply to  Urederra
March 21, 2018 2:54 am

Urederra, you really do have to be very thorough with /sarc tags here. There are many with critically damaged irony filters.

Joel Snider
March 20, 2018 12:15 pm

‘Evil’. Interesting that those who supposedly subscribe to a discipline that has jettisoned ‘morality’ in favor of ‘ethic’ – all for the furtherance of ‘objectivity’ – invariably speak in moral demagoguery .

David Cage
March 20, 2018 12:29 pm

Not demanding climate data is evil as if it was sound it allows those who disbelieve a completely legitimate excuse to treat dire warnings as fantasies of a self selected set of loonies who have all passed the same test of having been previously brainwashed into the cults beliefs.
A theory that has passed inspection by the most hard line disbelievers will attract most if not all of the marginal potential supporters or rejecters of that theory.

Mike of the North
March 20, 2018 12:49 pm

“it’s called peer review.” …and it only works for us if we can select the peers who review it. If we can’t just tell you that our experts all agree what the secret data says, we might as well just stop taking all of the government money! How ridiculous would that be? I mean, as scientists we were given a very scientific assignment: to make sure the data shows that humans cause warming. Sometimes to make sure the data conveys the predetermined outcome we need to ‘adjust’ scientific parameters of the data that only our peer group of science reviewers can comprehend. Splice here, homogenization there. If we gave that data to a regular old math and science person we could end up having to explain what the hell we were actually doing in the name of science! Ha ha! Well no worries because anyway because Obama is still president! He is still president, right?? Right guys????…..

March 20, 2018 1:06 pm

When someone embezzles from a company they will do everything to prevent the accountant from forensically investigating the accounts. Protests about such a process points to the fact that a fraud has taken place. Too often these scientists are dismissed as zealots who have a belief system in doing what’s best for the future of the human race. The reality is that they a fraudsters and embezzlers who are fully away of their role in this global swindle. It’s reactions like this that evidences the guilt. Until they start putting some of these shysters on trial ( and subsequently into jail) they will think they can get away with it,

March 20, 2018 1:11 pm

Weird the only people who have denied my requests for data and code successfully are skeptics.
Monkton, scafetta, Javier, and Watts.
Just saying.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 20, 2018 1:17 pm

Ah, well you’ll get it when the study is published, not before. That’s the way it’s done. Quite frankly after what your boss Muller did (at your behest when you joined BEST) I don’t trust you anymore.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 20, 2018 1:30 pm

Is that really the quid-pro-quo of scientific argument – the best you can come up with? That you have a juvenile dispute and reduce it to ‘yah-boo-sucks, you did it first’? Pathetic.
Years ago, I used to read your posts here with interest, but now you are truly one of yesterday’s men. So sad.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 20, 2018 1:30 pm

…I should say, in reply to Steven Mosher.

John harmsworth
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 20, 2018 2:03 pm

Does that mean you haven’t asked for any supporting data from the likes of Mann and his hockey team? Not interested? You found it all made perfect sense? It’s impeccable quality made it absolutely clear that no one else should see it?
Or did you know better than to ask criminals for their fingerprints and tools of the trade?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 20, 2018 6:07 pm

what does that mean … the zealots even turn down the hard core adherents at first? what did you have to do achieve that success?
Weird is right.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 21, 2018 5:03 am

Hmmm, Mosher

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 21, 2018 12:23 pm

That’s because you’ve left any pretense of honesty and objectivity far behind once you started playing ‘cover-your-ass’.
Just saying.

March 20, 2018 1:33 pm

True or false:
There is insufficient distribution, reliability and history of land-sea stations, satellites and buoys legitimately to declare a “global temperature” that can be identified and measured… far less that 50% of the Earth land-sea surface is even reliably sampled… and only a few years data exists at that
In reality, “Climate Science” comments and analysis pertain only to a narrow band of monitoring, mostly located in the Northern Hemisphere…
Satellite data don’t monitor polar regions and inferential/ interpretative algorithms are not universally accepted.

Sandy b
Reply to  sarastro92
March 21, 2018 11:46 am

You are too kind. You would need tens of thousands of accurate stations spread evenly across the globe to take a global temp. Good luck with the oceans and polar caps. And yes it would be nice if they were in place for centuries. Global temperature = impossible.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  sarastro92
March 23, 2018 9:53 pm

“There is insufficient distribution, reliability and history of land-sea stations, satellites and buoys legitimately to declare a “global temperature” that can be identified and measured… far less that 50% of the Earth land-sea surface is even reliably sampled… and only a few years data exists at that”
False. A “global temperature” cannot be determined by averaging temperature readings from different stations. No matter how many you have. Each reading is an intensive property of that location, and has no bearing on any other location. Period.

March 20, 2018 3:20 pm

I think the unwillingness to share data owes much to the cold fusion fiasco. Prior to that, the sharing of data was the main check and balance. Once the cold fusion data was shared, physicists explained to the electrochemists what actually happened and an industry collapsed (it still took over a year).
Sharing data, especially tax payer funded data, is the best way to get back on real science.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Bob
March 21, 2018 7:50 am

Yup – and hiding behind “intellectual property” BS when it was the taxpayers who paid for “it” is the ultimate slap in the face to the taxpayers they are looking to swindle.

high treason
March 20, 2018 3:53 pm

The certainty stuff is semantic manipulation in the extreme. The measured data lie within say the 97% error bar, which is actually 100%-97% certainty ie 3% certainty. It is just a matter of twisting a couple of words. By the twisted logic of semantic manipulation, as reality and modeled predictions continue to diverge, the result will balloon out to being within the 99% error bar. Under the twisted logic, the doomsayers will claim 99% certainty, when it is 100-99 % ie 1% certainty.
100% certainty is anywhere between 0 degrees Kelvin and atoms whizzing around at the speed of light.

Curious George
March 20, 2018 4:17 pm

Independent verification? How yesterday … These guys should publish exclusively in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.

Curious George
March 20, 2018 5:22 pm

joannenova.com.au formulated it nicely: In a bombshell, Scott Pruitt is expecting scientists to act scientifically…. there is no such thing as “secret science”. If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science. What Pruitt is stopping is Fake Science.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Curious George
March 21, 2018 7:53 am

Ah, but there’s the rub – the “scientists” who deride the notion of disclosure of their data and methods are not really scientists – they are *activists* masquerading as “scientists.” Kind of like the guy dressed up like a doctor on TV while trying to sell you something.

old construction worker
March 20, 2018 5:30 pm

“Moreover, requiring the agency to only base new laws on studies with public, reproducible data would prevent a lot of important research from informing policy making..
“reproducible data”: Isn’t that what the Data Quality Act is all about?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  old construction worker
March 21, 2018 7:57 am

“would prevent a lot of important research from informing policy making” – GOOD! Because if the “research” in question can’t stand up to scrutiny beyond the “PAL review” buddies that will declare “manure” to be “Filet Mignon,” then IT SHOULDN’T “inform” policy making.

T. Fry
March 20, 2018 6:31 pm

Did anyone notice that Del Bello’s arguments for keeping the data a secret aren’t even arguments? From the article:
“Case in point: The Environmental Protection Agency may release the raw data behind every study it carries out. It’s hard to imagine this as anything but a good thing! But, believe it: Former EPA employees and scientists say the effort’s a ruse, and what appears to be a push toward openness is just another way to stifle science.
Betsy Southerland, a former EPA official, explained to E&E how releasing raw data leaves scientists open to attacks from industry lobbies who may try to distort information in their own favor.
Moreover, requiring the agency to only base new laws on studies with public, reproducible data would prevent a lot of important research from informing policy making.
That word, “reproducible,” is key. Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors, or the environmental impact studies following the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill: These are events whose baseline conditions can’t be replicated, but are important to science and policy-making alike.”
As to the first and second points: hogwash! Industry lobbies trying to distort information in their own favor? What on earth has the CAGW lobby been trying to do for the past 30 years with SECRET DATA???? Besides, being this is a scientific endeavor, scientists should be able to use the data to destroy any distorted argument, no matter where that distorted argument is coming from (the EPA, lobbyists, academia, etc.)
And what does reproducible data have to do with Pruitt’s ruling? This is about public data, not reproducible data. What is the author even talking about?

Robert of Texas
March 20, 2018 6:53 pm

All data used in publicly funded scientific research should – by law – have to be disclosed. Period.
There is no excuse to hide data. If you are a scientist (or even just a so-called scientist) who receives public funding, you need to have the metaphorical balls to stand up to criticism. Either others will verify your findings, or they won’t – prepare to get it wrong now and then because no body is perfect.
If the data is so sensitive it cannot be released, then you better be looking for private money.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 21, 2018 7:59 am

And you better stop thinking public policy should be driven by what you refuse to disclose.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 21, 2018 9:15 am

There is the nub, tax payers picking up the tab then it is public property. Period. Full stop.

Christopher Chantrill
March 20, 2018 7:02 pm

This how climate scientists signal that it’s not about the science, but about the politics.
Any real scientist would be eager to let people look at his data and his model, so as to get the bugs out of his model and his data. Because he knows that there are errors in there; there always are.
Politicians are the ones that want secrecy and need to hide the data. Because politics is war and you don’t tip your hand to the enemy or let them look at your data.
Thanks for tipping us off, climate scientists.

March 20, 2018 9:04 pm

They don’t want transparency for data that justifies turning our economies inside out.
When my mother moved 6000 € from one account to another, her bank had to tell the anti trafficking and terror funding something something agency about it. (But then the awful Nice terror attack was financed with those kinds of credit you use to buy a washing machine.)
Also, NSA intercepts pretty much all communications, except Putin’s attacks on the DNC, for which we need to rely on an AaaS firm (Attribution as a service) that makes reports that look as if they were produced from Marvel.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  s-t
March 21, 2018 8:27 am

LOL well said.

Chris Wright
March 21, 2018 3:42 am

“That word, “reproducible,” is key. Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors, or the environmental impact studies following the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill: These are events whose baseline conditions can’t be replicated, but are important to science and policy-making alike.”
What utter, utter rubbish.
Suppose a study is conducted into the Hiroshima health damages.
The researchers would gather data from many available sources, process it and publish the results and conclusions. That data, and any software used to process it, should be published and made publicly available. This makes the study replicable: any one can use the same data and software to reproduce the study. It also makes it possible to find any flaws in the data or methods used. This is how science should work. Indeed, I believe many journals and institutions insist on full disclosure of data used in a published study (though it seems they often fail to enforce these rules).
To imply that replication of a Hiroshima study requires the dropping of an atom bomb is completely barking mad.
That the true believers seem to be terrified of raw data tells us a lot. What they are doing is not science – it is anti-science, a kind of corrupt religion. That’s why, for them, computer models are so important. Models are just an opinion, they can be programmed to do anything they want. In contrast, data tells us what is really happening. If you’re a true believer that would never do, would it?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Chris Wright
March 21, 2018 8:32 am

Yes, but then again if they wanted independent replication of Hiroshima studies, they could just look at Nagasaki studies. No need to drop any more A-bombs.
And it’s not only raw data they are afraid of disclosing, it’s their methods of use of such data. Why do you think Mann so stubbornly resisted the release of his hockey stick BS?

Reply to  Chris Wright
March 21, 2018 9:07 am

They also can:
– do more genetic testing of survivors, with newest methods
– try to confirm the localisation of survivors with historical sources
– reassess exposure doses
But then I think it’s a waste of resources. That event is not representative of most radioprotection issues.
Studying people living a radioactive environment is much more useful. Also, less popular because it shows that radioprotection in the nuclear industry is a massive waste of time.

Philip Finck
March 21, 2018 4:12 am

It would be good to update Dr. Spencer’s diagram (the first at the start of the article). It is 5 years out of date and leaves one open to the criticism of truncating the data.

March 21, 2018 5:15 am

Lou Del Bello is a freelance journalist from Italy with a background in environmental issues. She is studying for an MA in science journalism at City University in London. Her main interests include energy, computer science and European policies. Follow her on Twitter @loudelbello


Moreover, requiring the agency to only base new laws on studies with public, reproducible data would prevent a lot of important research from informing policy making.
That word, “reproducible,” is key. Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors, or the environmental impact studies following the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill: These are events whose baseline conditions can’t be replicated, but are important to science and policy-making alike.

The moron doesn’t even comprehend the meaning of the word “reproducible” as it is used in science or in the proposed “HONEST Act”…

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430
MARCH 30, 2017
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment andPublic Works
To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.

‘‘(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such covered action is—
‘‘(A) the best available science;
‘‘(B) specifically identified; and
‘‘(C) publicly available online in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results, except that any personally identifiable information, trade secrets, or commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, shall be redacted prior to public availability.

“Reproducible” refers to the results of the study/experiment. Reproducing the results of a fraudulent study that claims that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused [Fill in the Blank], doesn’t require the reproduction of the only oil spill of its kind in the US waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It requires that the results of the fraudulent study can be reproduced from the un-adjusted, unadulterated, un-cherry-picked, un-mangled, RAW data.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  David Middleton
March 21, 2018 8:40 am

Absolutely. They are just straining to find justification to maintain their “Iron Curtain” against proper scientific scrutiny.

March 21, 2018 8:48 am

“That word, “reproducible,” is key. Think of the investigation of the health damages suffered by the Hiroshima survivors, or the environmental impact studies following the BP PLC Gulf of Mexico oil spill: These are events whose baseline conditions can’t be replicated,” As others have pointed out here, she’s misusing the word “reproducible”, and in fact equating it with “replicable”, using the two words in quick succession. It’s a distinction worth making. Deepwater Horizon and Hiroshima/ Nagasaki can’t be *replicated” (at least we can hope they never will), but if the data from those events is available, then the results can be reproduced, or alternative analyses of the data tried out. There’s lots of discussion on the web about this distinction, see e.g. http://www.replicability.tau.ac.il/index.php/replicability-in-science/replicability-vs-reproducibility.html.

Reply to  McSwell
March 21, 2018 7:46 pm

The underlying principle of the Sievert radiation exposure unit is that different types of radiations are comparable in how they affect an animal (human, but a lot of testing was on animals).
If different types of radiations are indeed comparable, then medical exposure by short bursts of X-rays should provide results that can be compared to the exposure of atomic bombs.

Robert B
March 21, 2018 2:10 pm

Like Climate Scientists use “peer-review” as a QA label (which its not) the lack of transparency should be a caveat – small print that cautions users to not base government policy on he conclusion.

March 21, 2018 2:13 pm

Try Statins and the keeper of the data Professor Sir Rory Collins of Oxford University in the UK and the £250 million his group has received from the drug companies marketing statins, this is far worse than the Phil Jones data withholding. Collins even has a patient to detect the 1 in 10,000 side effect he claims statins cause, the kit costs $99, its called Statin-smart, now why would you want to patient a test for a 1 in 10,000 event.

%d bloggers like this: