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):
Mike,
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.
Cheers
Phil
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.
“…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.
“…what appears to be a push toward openness is just another way to stifle pseudo-science.”
There, fixed it for them.
“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-
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do
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.
With this entry, futurism author Lou Del Bello, may have an early lock on the 2018 ‘Clueless’ award.
On second thought, maybe will need a runoff between masters Kristof and Del Bello.
Good news for big pharma, now they can sell their drugs without FDA approval.
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.
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.
When did “regulated” start to mean “government regulated”?
When the hardcore political leftists figured out it gave them power over people they hate. Just that simple.
Urederra, you really do have to be very thorough with /sarc tags here. There are many with critically damaged irony filters.
‘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 .
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.
“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????…..
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,
Weird the only people who have denied my requests for data and code successfully are skeptics.
Monkton, scafetta, Javier, and Watts.
Just saying.
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.
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.
…I should say, in reply to Steven Mosher.
Stephen-
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?
“successfully”
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.
Hmmm, Mosher
That’s because you’ve left any pretense of honesty and objectivity far behind once you started playing ‘cover-your-ass’.
Just saying.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Independent verification? How yesterday … These guys should publish exclusively in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
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.
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.
“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?
“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.
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?
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.
And you better stop thinking public policy should be driven by what you refuse to disclose.
There is the nub, tax payers picking up the tab then it is public property. Period. Full stop.
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.
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.
LOL well said.
“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?
Chris
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?
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.
Eric
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/lou-del-bello
https://futurism.com/scott-pruitts-epa-evil-transparency/
The moron doesn’t even comprehend the meaning of the word “reproducible” as it is used in science or in the proposed “HONEST Act”…
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1430/BILLS-115hr1430rfs.pdf
“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.
Absolutely. They are just straining to find justification to maintain their “Iron Curtain” against proper scientific scrutiny.
“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.
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.
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.