From the “this is going to quash our grant money gravy train” department. I never thought I’d see the day where science argues against open data requirements.
From an AGU press release:
In a letter submitted to EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, AGU executive director/CEO Chris McEntee addressed concerns about recent policies mandating that EPA consider only publicly available scientific data and information when crafting rulemaking. In addition, AGU denounced reports that the agency instructed its employees to use scientifically inaccurate information about climate change when talking to the public.
Here is the letter in full:
23 April 2018
The Honorable Scott Pruitt Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Administrator Pruitt:
On behalf of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its 60,000 scientist members, I am writing to express concerns about planned policy changes at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding transparency and accuracy of scientific information. We urge you to evaluate the unintended consequences of these policies and reconsider them.
Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. The legislation this policy is based on, the HONEST Act1, has received significant opposition from the scientific community and other organizations because of the potential for this policy to exclude data vital to informed decision-making.2
AGU is fully committed and would be willing to provide assistance to efforts to ensure that scientific information is communicated openly with policymakers and the public. However, it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement. Despite suggestions to the contrary,3 the peer review process affords the type of informed discourse necessary for the objectivity, rigor, and legitimacy of scientific information.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually.4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment. In general, to exclude vital scientific information from consideration would put our local communities’ health and well-being at risk.
Of additional concern to AGU are reports that EPA has directed its employees to use talking points regarding climate change that are contrary to the robust scientific data and the consensus of scientists across the nation and the world.5 The reported guidance requires EPA employees to
emphasize that “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.” This is not only inaccurate, but also jeopardizes the ability of communities to respond appropriately to protect people’s health and well-being from challenges related to climate change.
AGU stands with the scientific community6 regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time. Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA. We as a nation need to ensure that we are addressing the pressing issues facing our communities by using and disseminating accurate, peer-reviewed and up-to-date scientific information.
AGU would welcome the opportunity to work with you on these critical issues and ensure that science can continue to appropriately inform decision-making and benefit the American public.
Respectfully,
 |
Christine McEntee Executive Director/CEO
American Geophysical Union
1 H.R. 1430, sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), passed the House on 29 March 2017.
2 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AAAS-Secret-Science-letter-McCarthy-2015.pdf
3 http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/19/epa-scott-pruitt-secret-science/
4 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50025
5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2018/03/29/the-energy-202-scott- pruitt-s-climate-message-is-now-official-epa-guidance/5abbfd3630fb042a378a2f23/?utm_term=.272c755ae673
6 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/2016climateletter6-28-16.pdf
7 https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2018/02/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement-Final-2013.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
… it is critical that such scientific information undergo the peer review process, which remains the gold standard of academic achievement.
The most important word was omitted from this sentence: “fool’s”
Peer basically means equal…..you don’t want your equal reviewing your work
latitude,
“Peer basically means equal…..you don’t want your equal reviewing your work”
Why not? I don’t understand your point, I’m afraid.
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Phil Jones
Kristi- just stop. you are willfully IGNORE-ant of the collusion and corruption of the modern peer review process, not only in “climate” studies but across the scientific landscape, most notably the pharmaceutical field. Seriously. Just stop already with your obvious self-delusion. It is laborious to have to read a foregone conclusion every time you post. We want worthy opponents, not people masquerading around as intellectuals who can’t muster even the slightest amount of independent or critical thought. Suffers from groupthink, she does.
Latitude –
“equal” as in “wrong equals wrong”.
/grin
HonestLiberty,
“you are willfully IGNORE-ant of the collusion and corruption of the modern peer review process, not only in “climate” studies but across the scientific landscape, most notably the pharmaceutical field. ”
I don’t care about the pharmaceutical industry, I’m talking about climate science. The only incidents i know of regarding corruption of peer review were perpetrated by “skeptics,” resulting in resignation of editors or, in one instance, the publisher cancelling the journal.
You give me no evidence, I’m not giving you any. I’m not at all willfully ignorant – if you want to show me your evidence of collusion, go ahead. Just don’t give me the same old tired arguments that have been made a million times before.
Oh, yes, there’s more…
” It is laborious to have to read a foregone conclusion every time you post. We want worthy opponents, not people masquerading around as intellectuals who can’t muster even the slightest amount of independent or critical thought. Suffers from groupthink, she does.”
If you don’t consider me a “worthy opponent,” that’s OK – I’m not here to be an opponent, even if our views are opposed.
However, I believe you are quite mistaken about the “groupthink” idea. I’m not the one hanging out on the internet or elsewhere with people who think as I do, nor do I EVER do so, nor have I don’t so in 20 years. I didn’t see Gore’s movie or read his book, but I know enough of what he’s done to despise him and think him a great fool. I learn what “alarmists” supposedly say from people like you.
So, say what you want. I know you have no idea what you are talking about. Others can make up their own minds.
Honestliberty – nail hit firmly on head.
Kristi Silber – May 3, 2018 at 11:47 pm
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, …Kristi, ……. of course it is the only incidents regarding the “culture of corruption” of peer review process that you will publicly admit to knowing, hearing or reading about.
Your exercising of an “inherited survival trait” doesn’t surprise me in the least.
“DUH”, iffen I cited you 100 actual, factual, unquestionable incidences of INTENTIONAl corruption of peer review processes directly associated with climate, weather and/or climate science, ….. I am absolutely sure that you would do one (1) of two (2) things:
(1) ignore my posted information, and if questioned about it, claim you never seen it to read it:
(2) avert your eyes and your mind to the factual information contained within my posting and then claim that they were nothing more than a REPEAT of ….. “the same old tired arguments that have been made a million times before”.
Sure nuff, ….. Kristi, ……. whenever you can’t support your beliefs, …… just head for the “roundhouse” because no one can “corner” you there.
If the information is public there will be a much more robust “peer” review. Instead of the self appointed self important pinheads that sit around congratulating them self’s on their superior intellect and ability to control the message there will actually be review by people who don’t care about titles and accolades but actually care about truth and scientific facts not social justice induced manipulations.
As usual, Kristi knows nothing of the real world.
She ignores events that did happen and invents incidents that never happened.
Latitude:
“Peer basically means equal…..you don’t want your equal reviewing your work.”
You have to understand that climate scientists are peerless. To each his/her own specialty where no challenge is entertained.
The clear message from the AGU is that there is an ongoing calamitous disaster unfolding which they can detect, and the proofs of it are in part, secret and therefore not shareable. Peers trust each other so whatever one says, it is taken in good faith that it is based on sound evidence and analysis, provided of course that it supports the pre-determined position the AGU took from the beginning.
It is not peer review per se that is a problem, it is that the review process has been captured by certain actors who want to prevent certain findings and observations from entering the record. The corruptions possible through publication capture are far greater than the corruptions of particular branches of science, which stand to be easily exposed.
The State capture of the South African government by the Gupta family will serve for generations as an example of what happens once the levers that direct funding are controlled by one of, or a group of, the recipients.
The corruption of the peer review process as evidence in the Climategate emails is paralleled by the capture of the AGU leadership, now a slave to the putative ‘consensus’. The emerging consensus about the AGU is that they are not so much geophysical as geopolitical. They can do that if they wish, but they cannot simultaneously claim to be a leading light on any scientific matters.
Respect and credibility are earned, not given. The claim for detectability of human influence on the climate over background variability is built on a bedrock of logical aerogel. You can almost feel it, almost see it. It is as if it is really there in some form. Probably.
“…even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”.
Phil Jones
What am I missing here?
1.I don’t see that requiring scientific information to be publicly available changes the current peer review process in any way.
2. How is it implementing a secret science policy to make the scientific research public?
Requiring the data to be public is an improvement on the current corruption of peer review. Public data allows a more through review than is conducted on many papers these days.
My thoughts exactly. “policies mandating that EPA consider only publicly available scientific data and information” are “a secret science policy”??????? Someone in the AGU has seriously lost it. I hope that there are many AGU members up in arms about this, and that they can sweep away the people promoting this unscientific idiocy.
The peer review process is not affected at all by the new EPA rules so the AGU complaining about it is ridiculous.
The EPA is implementing a “Non”-Secret Science policy. It’s hard to believe that the AGU thinks it is a good idea to keep some public policy science away from the public.
The AGU should point out specific instances where it would be a good thing to keep the public in the dark about science policies that affect their lives. In a country governed by the votes of private citizens, the more information available to them, the better.
Other than personal identification information, what science information is it that the AGU wants to hide from the general public?
Banning the use of any secret science as input to policy making is itself a “secret science policy”, just an anti-policy rather than a pro-policy.
So AGU are technically correct either way.
Papers posted here are much more thoroughly reviewed than any paper in even the most “respected” journal.
Steve Ta ==> How is requiring hypothesis’, methods, data, data analysis, and conclusions to be open and available to all a “secret science policy”? The AGU is not correct in claiming this and neither are you.
Jim, lighten up, it was a joke.
IE an anti-secrecy policy is still a policy “ON” secrecy.
I see.
Since deliberate obtuseness seems to be ruling this thread from the start – Gary’s comment was meant to indicate how the peer review process has been corrupted into the ‘crony review’ process – see Caligula Jones’ post below.
There was a misspelling, it’s actually ‘Pal’ review process.
Gary,
Christine McEntee uses the word “gold”, but I don’t think it means what she thinks it means.
“climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities.7 The data that supports this conclusion is not only strong but growing all the time.”
With that statement Christine McEntee demonstrates that she has no understanding of the scientific method, has no concept of “data,” and that she’s not a scientist at all.
There is no causal and falsifiable theory of climate. Consequently, there are no data that support a conclusion of human-caused climate warming.
You’re a hack, Christine.
Anyone who heads up a ‘Scientific’ organization and argues against the scientific method needs to go!
Christine McEntee, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union needs to resign immediately.
I’m no longer a member of the AGU, but all current members who consider themselves to be scientists should immediately call for the resignation of this fraud.
@ur momisugly Pat Frank
that’s what the trouble is here. They say there is data supporting AGW but they are not willing to let anyone see it.
Fool’s gold.
Pat Frank – May 3, 2018 at 4:33 pm
It is true what you say, …… but it matters not because, …… there is currently about 50.7 million students enrolled/attending US public elementary and secondary schools, ….. and the millions that are currently attending college, ……. that are being taught, nurtured and/or “brainwashed’ into believing that Christine McEntee et el are “truth talkers” that must be believed.
Computer models are not, and can never be “data”.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that is no scientist.
When I hear the phrase “secret science” I immediately think of ‘flat earth’ and ‘geocentrism’. Look how they turned out even after ruining many peoples reputations and lives.
the gold standard of academic achievement.
===========
the gold standard is replication. peer review simply means that the results have been proof-read. Unfortunately too many academics mistake ‘proof-read’ for ‘proven’.
Well, academic achievement is not necessarily science, and is frequently determined by who is willing to play ball, and the people running the show (administrators) often do not know what they are talking about…
…maybe this is a case of accidentally speaking truth while trying to tell a lie.
The bottom line is that AGU is an extreme advocate and not willing to recognize a serious scientific dispute that it in fact is losing.
We really like your variations Mr Bach, but our peer reviewers advise that you could do with fewer notes.
I’ve sort of lost and value I once had for “peer review” after it became very clear from the ClimateGate emails that it had devolved into “pal review”.
I want predictions with numbers attached! So Kristi, what are your predictions for the next 20 years? Warmer, colder or same? I will only make one prediction and that is that CO2 will continue to increase at roughly 1 PPM per year as measured at Mauna Loa.
According to the IPCC we should be 0.5-1.5 C warmer and the cyclical scientists are saying 0.25-1.0 C colder. They can’t both be correct but they both could be wrong! Currently I”m leaning heavily towards Dr Easterbrook’s predictions because he’s got the record for the longest correct call on climate.
“The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually”
So it cost to much money to ensure we are getting good science? And I thought the EPA was initiating an open science policy not a secret one.
I was just about to say something similar.
The proposed EPA policy of requiring transparency in science, that only papers be considered for policy making IF ALL the DATA contained within them is made a matter of Public Record only serves to keep Science reproducible OPEN and HONIST. There is no “Secret Science Policy” involved, only an “Open Science Policy” now being required by Mr. Pruitt’s EPA.
…
I’m sorry AGU but you have your information backwards.
‘I’m sorry AGU but you have your information backwards.’
That’s not an accident.
It’s like what Obama claimed about his administration as “being the most transparent ever.”
When in fact, any objective analysis shows Obama Administration was one of the most opaque in recent history.
“Obama promised transparency. But his administration is one of the most secretive”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html
The Democrats’ modus operendi has always been to do in private the opposite of their public claims. And then rely on a compliant mainstream media to feed manure to the people and keep them in the dark.
joelobryan – May 3, 2018 at 3:49 pm
“YUP”, for past decades and decades the Democrats’ have been the uncontested experts at “mushroom” farming.
i don’t understand that part either darrin.
Same here. It appears to be a deliberate attempt by the AGU to make people think that a”secret science ” policy is being introduced rather than being done away with. Hard to believe that AGU members don’t revolt against their leadership.
Chronic anti-science at the top of the AGU. Very disappointing and concerning. Pruitt should use this to call them out very publicly.
After 9/11, was the Patriot Act really patriotic in its erosion of individual liberties?
No.
This is Washington, DC-speak. They want to operate in secrecy. And where they can’t they want a complicit mainstream media to keep the public uniformed and/or confused about what they are doing.
Hence, not secret means “secret” if we say it is so.
Keep this also in mind. Congress is the People’s voice in DC. The Deep State hates that,
That is, they hate that the framers built a system whereby a rapidly changing Congress can check the other two branches. The Deep State wants an Imperial Presidency, a neutered Congress, and an SJW activist judiciary. The deep state just never anticipated a non-Deep State President would ever be elected. The deep state wanted a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.
They hate that Obama had to bypass the treaty ratification required by the Constitution. SO he decided to bypass the Senate with the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear deal. Both were indeed treaties.
Failing to acknowledge and inform the public about this fact, as well as the ways in which the public can mitigate the effects and build resiliency is scientifically misleading, dangerous, and against the very mission of EPA.
Oh, the irony-impairment is strong with this one.
People might find something wrong with the data.
Mate review has always worked in the past.
Of course, there’s no AGU estimate of the cost to society of excessive regulation due to nonfactual studies and models.
Yes – and THAT, indeed, will be the ONLY “climate catastrophe” – the “climate” POLICIES.
“The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually”
good thing than that the EPA is trying to eliminate secret science
There’s nothing like a bit of uncertainty in the data.
John,
I think you have it backwards. The “secret science” policy is the one Pruitt wants to implement, and it would supposedly come at a cost (due to bureaucratic red tape, I believe). Pretty broad estimate there!
Complete garbage Kristi – you’ve really got to pay attention to what your side has been doing for the last thirty years. For God’s sake, Michael Man STILL hasn’t turned over his Virginia e-mails – and, Gosh-be-darned – the last two governors have sworn to keep them secret.
Jeez. Talk about getting it backwards.
Joel, she is a liar. Plain and simple. Either that or she suffers from a serious case of cognitive dissonance, aka doublethink. At some point the phrase “don’t feed the trolls” will necessarily apply to her.
“The “secret science” policy is the one Pruitt wants to implement,”
Don’t you think calling Mr. Pruitt’s policy a “Secret Science Policy” rather Orwellian? Its like calling the Ministry of War the “Ministry of Peace”.
Kristie …. please explain how …
…require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. …..
equates to “secret science”
i.e., how does publicly available, meaning you and I can read it , equate to secret?? … do you work and Facebook?? Google??
Kristi–the “secret science” policy is the one that Pruitt has reversed, gotten rid of, replaced by “open and reproducible science.” To say he is trying to implement “secret science” is the purest nonsense I have read for quite a while. Please look it up!
Someone has already mentioned Mann’s UVa emails. If I’m not mistaken, all we know about his Penn State climate emails are from Climate Gate. (Ever hear of it? That’s where a bunch of people tried to avoid a legal FOIA request. Someone made public the stuff they tried to hide. Some of the email exchanges involved your favorite Nobel Laureate.)
Yet they’d spend trillions of dollars based on a theory based on data and methods they try to hide.
PS Has Mann turned his stuff over yet in the “discovery” part of his various lawsuits?
In reply to Kristi Silber
Fake science is the real issue.
The AGU activist changes the definition of ‘secret’ (double speak, where a word is used in opposite to its true meaning, see Book 1984) as logic and reason gets in the way of being an activist.
The AGU activist states that forcing the analysis to be based on public available data (which enables methods, analysis, and conclusion) to be challenged by independent parties, is ‘secret science’.
Come on man this is pathetic.
Liberal idiot based fascism.
No understand of what the real science is and forcing fake science and solutions that do not work down and that are ridiculously expensive down our throats.
Kristi, you have it backwards. It’s the “secret science” that this new policy ELIMINATES. And what’s worse is you either know it (ie are lying) or don’t (ie are ignorant). I know which I suspect to be the case.
Declaring that only studies that make their data an methods publicly available will be used at the EPA is a policy of secrecy?
Once again, Kristi demonstrates that she has no desire to actually understand the issues. She just echoes what her handlers tell her.
Kristi ==> You sure are stirring the pot on this post. You are correct — Pruit is pushing the “Secret Science” policy – it is intended to STOP the practice of EPA using science results that are being kept secret — unpublished and unavailable data. In other words, it is an ANTI-Secret-Science policy — an effort to end the use of secret science to support new EPA policies.
It will cost money — money well spent (five million is a drop in the bucket).
It is a Good Thing.
Kristi: Are you a ghost writer for this McEntee person? ‘Cause her letter looks like something you would write. Some of it comes straight outta the IPCC policy statements (future certain, past keeps changing), you know, the ones contradicted by the IPCC reports that acknowledge uncertainty. McEntee defends “secret science” by projecting it onto the open science policy proposed, sure you didn’t write it? Peer review is the gold standard, regardless of debunking (so long as we ignore the non-peers)? Sounds so familiar….. Do you wonder why we are never impressed with your appeals to authority like someone on the AGU letterhead who writes as badly as you?
1) Necessary is not sufficient.
Discourse alone will not provide objectivity, rigour or legitimacy. There needs to be impartiality as well, for example.
2) Affords is not necessary.
Informed discourse can come from public debate (online – perhaps) or in reports from symposia, for example.
I’ll tell you what – when taxpayer (The public) dollars are used to pay for “studies”, any subsequent findings had damn well better be accessible to the public. And if the findings are to be used for policy decisions, the so called science, and its respective data, had damn well better be available to the public for scrutiny. And if a single scientist (single – as in (1), one) determines that the findings are specious or wrong, then we’d better start from square one, and rethink it.
I think the EPA should be shut down after Mr. Pruitt repeals everything the previous 4 administrations invoked. I like clean air, clean water, and clean living conditions as much as the next guy. But the EPA is NO longer about these concerns.
Christine McEntee, I have two words for you: replication crisis. Science is in bad shape when it is widely acknowledged that the majority of published research findings are false. When reproduction is attempted, it has been found that a large percent of the time the original scientists can’t even duplicate their own experimental results.
Arguing against open data is shooting yourself in the foot, with artillery.
If science is to regain its credibility, it has to clean up its house. Embracing open data is one obvious starting point. Your arguments against that sound entitled and out of touch.
Yeah. Some EPA rules, or proposed rules, are based on dodgy “science”, like the Clean Power Plan or the PM2.5 regulations. Both are dreadfully expensive to implement, and doing something as discreditable as the DDT rule would eliminate any credibility the EPA has left.
Agree commie Bob. It is hard to believe that AGU would be against open, transparent science and data as the basis for decision making. Sounds to me that they think this requirement would probably eliminate many of the AGU’s scientists who have upheld the global warming/climate change scam over all these years in spite of scientific findings and data that does not support catastrophic global warming. A very good thing I think.
I hope all government funded research must meet the same requirements that EPA is implementing. How can competent and rational scientists be against greater openness and transparency in their work? Their complaints tell us much about AGU scientific leadership and what it is like.
“Their complaints tell us much about AGU political leadership and what it is like.”
There, fixed it for you.
Many of the measures suggested to solve the replication crisis CALL for data to be made public and available to everyone. This seems like such a basic expectation.
“Because I said so” is only appropriate reasoning when coming from one’s parents.
“Embracing open data is one obvious starting point. Your arguments against that sound entitled and out of touch.”
—-
It’s bizzare that this even has to be argued for, it’s demonstrating the useby-date of the organisation expired decades ago.
What’s conspicuous by its absence is any reference to definitive evidence that further increases in CO2 will have any effect on average global temperatures. Evidence that humans cause most of the increasing CO2 is missing as well.
Chic:
‘What’s conspicuous by its absence is any reference to definitive evidence that further increases in CO2 will have any effect on average global temperatures. Evidence that humans cause most of the increasing CO2 is missing as well.”
This is not the place to provide evidence. If Pruitt doesn’t believe, or doesn’t want to believe, the AGU isn’t going to convince him in a letter. The veracity of AGW is not the issue here.
There is certainly plenty of evidence for these things, but evidence doesn’t seem to matter. Maybe it’s the “definitive” problem – people won’t believe without scientific “proof.” Science is by its nature and philosophy NEVER definitive. It doesn’t “prove” things, for that is a dead end. It is a fundamental tenet of science that it is always open to being falsified.
The whole issue with CAGW theory is that it is neither provable nor wholly disprovable. As such it’s very like the principles that religions are based on. If it were something that could be proved or disproved, the matter would have been settled years ago.
Though, I think the weight of evidence goes against it. Especially the ‘adjustments’ to temperature data, the fact that warming commenced before CO2 increased, that the supposed ‘amplifying feedbacks’ violate the principles of stable system design, are just a few reasons.
Then again, judge its promoters by their track record. How many times have they been wrong on similar or related matters? Sea level rise? <3mm per year and NOT increasing. Ocean acidification? Oceans are alkaline, not acid. (Adding acid to alkali does not make acid, by the way. Chemistry 101.)
Oh, but the veracity of AGW is indeed, in no small part, the issue here. Because had the so-called “science” that allegedly supports this “human-induced climate catastrophe” nonsense been open and transparent from the beginning, it wouldn’t have survived three years much less three decades.
It’s classic projection that the Eco-Fascists call the non-believers “anti-science.” Classic projection. If there’s anything that is “anti-science,” it is attempting to hide your supposed “science” behind closed doors, and expose it ONLY to your “group think” buddies that all march the same goose-step.
Kristi, there’s the problem for you. Pruett, like many of us, “doesn’t believe” because we haven’t been given sufficient evidence that there’s a problem. The “proof” of AGW was never there in the first place. Don’t expect us to act on faith that climate models will somehow be validated or eventually correct themselves.
If I wanted to be convincing, I would reference something more scientific than a position statement.
In Kristi’s mind, the fact that the world has warmed and that CO2 has gone up is the only “evidence” that matters.
To her this conclusively proves that CO2 and CO2 alone is the only thing that affects climate and anyone who disagrees with her is anti-science and/or in the pay of big oil.
Kristi ==> The real problem is that scientists who rely on computer models don’t want to open up their programming to everyone. That way everyone will know what is parameterized and what is based on algorithms, and what is based on physics. In other words, the world will get to see how much they know and how much they simply guess at. No scientist would probably want that unless they were knowledgeable enough to explain everything contained in their model.
The real issue here is that models are NOT physical reality. in order to achieve reproducibility, you must use physical measurements. You just can’t copy code and data to another computer and say you reproduced your hypothesis. In the long run, this will remove models from preeminence in studies and this is the real reason for “secret science”. Viva real physical science!
“It is a fundamental tenet of science that it is always open to being falsified.”
putting aside that CAGW as it currently stands is unfalsifiable as its proponents claim any and all things as proof even when they contradict other things that they claim as proof. Part of being open to being falsified is having the data and methods available for attempts at replication. Hiding the data and methods (secret science) works to prevent falsification. By blocking secret science, this is actually a step towards that fundamental tenet of science. If you truly believed in that fundamental tenet of science you’d be applauding this move. That you naysay it instead proves that you don’t care about science you only care about support your side of the political debate.
Krist, if the AGU comes out with data and conclusions that are reproducible via experimentation and observation, then it is science that Mr. Pruitt will accept. Unfortunately that is something that is missing from almost all climate science. Yet here you are, all upset because the people that make policy based on science are actually requiring science in order for anything to effect policy in the future.
It is rather ironic that you’re arguing against science where policy is concerned…
@ur momisugly Kristi, ” … Propaganda, is by its nature and philosophy NEVER definitive. It doesn’t “prove” things, for that is a dead end. It is a fundamental tenet of propaganda that it is always open to being falsified. …”
Got it.
Agreed. And that is why the Eco-Fascists always resist transparency, the disclosure of data and methods, and the like. Because their so-called “science” is a steaming pile of crap, and they know it won’t withstand scrutiny.
Isn’t this the organisation that arbitrarily endorses the concept of AGW without consulting it’s members?
Sorry if it’s not, but if it isn’t, it’s one of the few.
As for this: “4 At a time when the Administration is proposing significant cuts to EPA funding, this policy would become an unnecessary burden on the agency and further hamstring its ability to protect public health and the environment.”
Sorry luv, like the rest of us, you’re just going to have to work harder. It’s called austerity in the UK and is a result of western governments screwing up the world’s finances.
Thankfully, Trump seems to have a better idea of how a countries economy works, that the rest of the westernised governments put together. I have maintained for 4 years that politicians shouldn’t be let loose on their own household budgets, never mind that of a country. A businessman is far better placed to run what is just a large, profit generating organisation.
No profit, you go bust. Lots of profit, you can afford health and welfare.
Seemples.
“I have maintained for 4 years”
No, I have maintained it for 40 years!!!!!!!!!!!!
effing crappy laptop keyboard, as bad as a tablet touchscreen…….or it could just be me.
And again, she speaks on behalf of all AGU members without their consent. I am quite certain she did not ask the membership to endorse her statement. Organizations like AGU, AMS, AAAS, etc have gotten into the role of virtue signalers big time since President Trump’s election. This is all driven by the permanent executive staffs. They have arrogance to “speak on behalf” of the membership when they weren’t even elected by them. Kinda like the European Union.
Absolutely spot on MM. In the UK we refer to this as the democratic deficit. The EU – and particularly the EC (the unelected commissioners) – absolutely ABHOR democracy because it keeps presenting them with dilemmas they would much rather avoid. The letter from the AGU is not only shocking, it is profoundly embarrassing. Will no rank-and-file AGU members begin a #notinmyname type protest?
The Eco-Fascists have been working long and hard to get “party members” installed in leadership positions in all the “scientific” organizations so that they can co-opt their “message” and abuse their status in EXACTLY this fashion.
Hot Scot:
“Isn’t this the organisation that arbitrarily endorses the concept of AGW without consulting it’s members?”
No.
“AGU has a process for creating, updating, and reaffirming position statements. This process involves establishing a position statement expert panel, led by a Chair, composed of 10-15 experts identified by the AGU Position Statement Task Force, AGU Council, and AGU membership. Draft statements are provided to AGU membership for comment. After reviewing and addressing member comments, statements are reviewed by the Position Statement Task Force, Council, and AGU Board.”
https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/agu-position-statements/policy-on-agus-role-in-advocacy-on-public-issues/
Kristi Silber
I’m quite sure the EPA itself has numerous published statements on how it conducts itself yet it has become public enemy number one. It’s taken a new administration to lift the lid on it’s questionable methods and objectives.
We must also bear in mind that a huge number of the AGU’s membership are employed by the EPA, so as with many ‘old school tie’ organisation, the last thing they want to do is rock the boat. Political machinations once again.
I’m also led to believe a great many of its members signed the Oregon petition. Why would they do that and, with no material change in the evidence, change their minds and support not only the concept of wholly human derived global warming, but the concept that the EPA’s science should somehow be remote from every reputable science reliant organisation, and remain secret. After all, the EPA’s brief, as far as I understand it, was to ensure America’s air and water quality were improved. Why should it need to keep it’s science secret when it’s pursuing that entirely noble objective?
And that final point of course is the crux of the matter. If one asked every member of the AGU confidentially if they thought secret science is credible, they would all answer no.
And I’m sure the “Task Force” and the “Council’ are all loaded with the “like-minded” people to ensure they get the “right” so-called “experts” on the “panel.” Note the “membership” is LAST on the “list,” revealing its being a token non-factor in creating “position statements.”
And why does a supposedly “scientific” organization need to put forth “position statements” anyway? They are blatantly political, and an obvious attempt to substitute the voice of a chosen subset of “experts” for that of the membership at large, so as to control the “message” and hide any discourse. In other words, anything BUT “scientific.”
The insiders pick 10-15 people who agree with them. It really is fascinating how people who have no idea how science actually works, believe this to be a viable method.
MarkW said: “It really is fascinating how people who have no idea how science actually works, believe this to be a viable method.”
Hey Mark, how many scientific papers have you authored or co-authored in your life?
Chris, have you ever made a comment that was actually relevant?
Hey Chris: Bet not as many tr0lling comments as you’ve posted. Get to work, MarkW, Chris is ahead by a few hundred (smoothed).
MarkW – of course background is relevant. Or do you hire a line cook who has an interest in medicine to remove your appendix?
Paul Courtney – nah, I could go off to a remote cabin and post continuously for a month, I wouldn’t come close to Mark’s trolling attacks (always without supporting links) on anyone who believes AGW is real.
“Recent reports indicate that EPA is planning to implement new policies that would require the agency to use only scientific data and information that is publicly available when considering science in rule-making. ”
Does the AGU state anywhere why using data that is NOT publicly available is considered best practice in either science or science based policy making.
Would they be pro scientific studies that were not in line with their stated position if the data was not publicly available and not from an AGU approved journal?
“when considering science in rule-making.” They may also consider witchcraft in rule-making, like the famous definition of “navigable waters”. By the way, they refused to pay damages for poisoning Animas river, citing a sovereign status. No longer “we the people”, now we have “we the sovereign institution”.
Mike,
One point is, whether or not data is accessible to the public is not in any way relevant to whether research is appropriate, valuable and informative in policy-making.
Another is that the feds are interfering in science, which is already addressing issues of transparency.
A third point is that some studies (particularly in health and medicine) use data that are confidential, and couldn’t be made available to the public. If these studies can’t be used in the process of EPA policymaking, the agency will not be as informed as it could be.
Just because data aren’t shared with the public does not mean they aren’t shared with other scientists for the purposes of experimental reproduction or other research. That is appropriate. However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. The blogosphere picks it up, spreading misinformation that has the gloss of science, but without without being grounded in the standards, expertise and context of true scientific research. The proliferation of this pseudo-science has abetted the idea among some that science is easy (and easily corrupted). It has also strengthened the “skeptic” movement by suggesting there are many alternative explanations for climate change, when in reality these ideas have already been thoroughly studied and either debunked or integrated into AGW theory. The present and past relationship between the sun and climate, for example, has been extensively studied, as has that between temperature and CO2. (There are some things I’ve heard so many times from skeptics that I’ve believed them myself, only to find out recently that I’ve been misled, too.)
All this freely available data has, in other words, led to a sub-culture of pseudo-science that is successfully competing with real science for the public’s trust. This is not good for the nation, since it’s resulting in the spread misinformation. Someone can be brilliant, and have extensive expertise in one scientific field but still not be able to understand, absorb and assimilate the theory and research in another field, much less succeed in making breakthrough observations in it. Even scientists within the broad, interdisciplinary field of climate science don’t understand each others’ research. This is expected when a theory is validated on so many fronts – that’s why it’s a theory, and not a hypothesis.
Kristi,
Its called ‘data on file’ and its data that has not been published and its dodgy data to say the least. That’s why ALL trial data should be made available because it allows the administrators of agencies or industries to determine the safety or effectiveness of the trial in question. However, because the data has not been published, the company in question does not have to release it when requested and it simply gathers dust in some back room, somewhere. That’s ‘secret science’ in action.
The only ‘pseudoscience’ I see is the science that has not followed the scientific method and the peer review process mess that has allowed the likes of Mann and Jones to get away with their lies.
Kristi: ‘Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.’
Yes, Al Gore/M. Mann has already proven that out of any question.
It has also strengthened the “skeptic” movement by suggesting there are many alternative explanations for climate change, when in reality these ideas have already been thoroughly studied and either debunked or integrated into AGW theory. The present and past relationship between the sun and climate, for example, has been extensively studied, as has that between temperature and CO2.
So sayeth the true believer.
Skeptics have completely debunked your supposed debunkers.
The sun and not CO2 drives climate change. It’s not just an alternative. It’s the real deal.
” Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. ”
I agree with this, but its the warmists who have completely misinterpreted the data, and have shown nothing but fervor in interpreting data in a particular [one-sided] way.
Hypothesis vs. Theory
Diffen › English Language › Grammar › Words
A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena.
In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors.
A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
“Rapunzel”…………sorry “Dame Gothel” ………….sorry Kristi …………Does your “Ivory Tower” have an escape hatch ?
“Even scientists within the broad, interdisciplinary field of climate science don’t understand each others’ research. This is expected when a theory is validated on so many fronts – that’s why it’s a theory, and not a hypothesis.”
REALLY ? So they CAN’T UNDERSTAND IT ….OR ONE ANOTHER ….and that makes it CORRECT ?
NO ! That makes it RUBBISH !
THEORY……..VERIFIED ( TRUE and PROVEN ),backed by EVIDENCE , Unified EXPLANATION !
HYPOTHESIS……..suggested POSSIBLE OUTCOME……..i.e. NONE OF THE ABOVE !!
That makes AGW or CAGW EVEN LESS THAN A HYPOTHESIS…….. let alone a THEORY !
Oh now we have dangerous data according to Kristi.
Crawl back under your bridge you trolling moron.
To paraphrase Kristi…Yes, we’re keeping you ignorant, but trust me, it’s for your own good.
” whether or not data is accessible to the public is not in any way relevant to whether research is appropriate, valuable and informative in policy-making.”
Science that cannot be reproduced may not be reliable and therefore may be detrimental to policy making
“Just because data aren’t shared with the public does not mean they aren’t shared with other scientists for the purposes of experimental reproduction or other research.”
That’s exactly what it means …. Phil Jones “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”
Take the corp that you envision as the boogey monster, they pay to have a study produced, they only share the data with scientists who have a vested interest in the outcome The study cant be challenged because their data is PRIVATE …… Kristi approves
” However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.”
Kristi “Data are dangerous” wow just wow
….. followed by thoughts of conspiracy , conflating blogs with scientific studies as if the EPA is suggesting using blogs for policy, projecting your gullibility onto others “only to find out recently that I’ve been misled, too.)”
Kristi, at the risk of piling on against you, where is the evidence that convinces you of a direct relationship (not a correlation) between temperature and CO2?
” Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way. ”
This is a pearl of a sentence, thank you for the good laugh!!
I do not think that climate science is more difficult to understand then the theory of relativity.
Einstein said once about 100 scientists trying to prove him wrong: “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
Science does not run by consensus.
Kristi, if the data isn’t made public, then there is no way the results can be validated.
Trust me, is not a scientific saying.
How are the feds interfering with science? By demanding that it be open?
Kristi, if you would ever manage to read something other than your pre-prepared press releases, you would have known that the issue of patient confidentiality was been solved decades ago.
It’s nothing more than a red herring put forth by those who have something to hide.
Kristi ==> Point 1 – A typical liberal viewpoint. The unwashed are too stupid to properly understand and judge the science they have paid for. Congratulations – you are a liberal socialist.
Point 2 – The EPA is the entity using the science. Therefore, they are the sole arbiters of what they will accept as “science” regardless of what “science” is doing elsewhere to address transparency.
Point 3 – See point 2. Most health and medicine should be more transparent as you claim in Point 2 regardless of confidentiality. If a company want to keep their study secret, so be it, it is their decision. However, they will know ahead of time that it won’t be accepted as gospel by the EPA and will carry little weight.
“Data are dangerous in the hands” of the unwashed, right? See Point 1. There is your liberal bias poking up again. Deplorables just can’t be trusted can they?
Your very assertion that someone can know a lot in one field but not another applies very well to climate. One of the most glaring examples are climate scientists who don’t publish measurement error analysis or obviously have little or no background in statistical analysis of data. Of course if you’re using computer models there aren’t any measurement errors, right? That is why transparency is so important. You have unintentionally contradicted your own hypothesis.
“However, I’m not sure it’s always a good thing to make it freely available to the public. Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way”
In other words, put your faith in the high priests of your CAGW religion. No thanks. Data freely available means that the charlatans “who don’t know how to interpret them” can be publically countered and any one with the ability to think for themselves can look at the data and make an informed decision about who is right and who is wrong. Data kept in secret means that the charlatans can pass themselves off as the High Priests that people like you will trust implicitly and countering those charlatans becomes harder because the data isn’t available to show those charlatans for what they really are. Hidden Data that people are expected to trust blindly is what is truly dangerous.
A waste of time and piling on, but…. Kristi, when an agency reviews data that is not accessible to the public, must it remain “not accessible”? Why can’t it then be released? I realize these great tree-ring gatherers et al must make a living, but isn’t saving the planet too important? BTW, I am sorry I called you a concern tr0ll- sorry to the concern tr0lls, that is. Your “data is dangerous” point is kookoo for coco puffs territory, my girl.
Who sets the rules how to interprete them?
Who sets the rules that they shall not be interpreted in a particular way?
One of the most important priciples in science ist
Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
You have never heard of that, I presume. Instead, you want to set some rules ad libitum to nip in the bud opinions contrary those of mainstream science you seem so fond of. That isn’t just bad. It is vicious.
“Data are dangerous in the hands of those who don’t know how to interpret them, or who wish to interpret them a particular way.”
I can’t believe you just said that.
“The blogosphere picks it up, spreading misinformation that has the gloss of science, but without without being grounded in the standards, expertise and context of true scientific research.”
I am a reliability engineer with nearly 40 years experience, including a lot of statistics, data analysis and probability theory. I can examine data and understand data presentations on any number of topics. Don’t assume we’re all too stupid to know the difference. I long ago recognized which side of the AGW debate behaves far more scientifically and it isn’t, apparently, the one you are on.
“AGU stands with the scientific community regarding the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily driven by human activities” AND “clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”, are not contradictory statements.
Nobody denies that climate change is occurring. There is still strong debate in the broader scientific community about whether or not humans are responsible for more than 50% of the climate change observed. That said, there are still very clear gaps remaining in our understanding of the human impact and even bigger gaps in our knowledge of what to do about it.
These are clearly not contradictory statements. Me thinks the AGU doth protest too much, and in the process, looks duplicitous.
Based on this https://sites.agu.org/leadership/leader/christine-w-mcentee/ it appears that Christine McEntee is a career administrator with little or no background in science. Her “expertise” is managing change in large organizations. I am sure the AGU is paying her a bundle. This is what your dues are used for.
Mark Silbert
“Christine McEntee is a career administrator”
Pencil pusher.
That explains it. It is written like the author was working from talking points without any real knowledge of the issues, but a great understanding of the agenda to keep the money flowing to the AGU and its members
All of these large, scientific organizations (AGU, AMS, AAAS, APS, etc) have big. full-time executive staffs and very few of them are scientists. They administer the day-to-day affairs of the organizations and their extensive publishing interests. There is also little oversight from the elected officials who are directly responsible to the membership. The official’s terms are usually one to three years, but the permanent staff stays employed for years on end, entrenched and salaried. They have grown fat and smug, like embedded ticks.
very similar to uk civil servants.
Her “expertise” is managing change in large organizations.
-see the term, change agent. That is what this person really is
Mark, Hot Scot, JClarke345…on and on…
THAT’S your response? Attack the woman who wrote the letter and her title, background, etc.? Isn’t that just a bit petty, or desperate or something? She’s still writing on behalf of the organization. Of course there are clerical staff and admin and so forth! Naturally they aren’t scientists. Sheesh.
Kristi Silber
Ad Hom attacks are a feature of alarmist scientists. Witness the recent widely published attack mounted by Jeffrey A. Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W. Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ian Stirling, Meena Balgopal, Steven C. Amstrup, and Michael E. Mann on Susan Crockford.
Talk about ganging up.
Then there’s M. Mann’s very personal attack of Judith Curry “she is a carnival barker in the circus of climate denial.”
Then there’s threats of violence, Ben Santer: “Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”
I think we sceptics are entitled to snigger at bureaucrats running a scientific organisation. I mean, it’s hardly an official position, a published, ‘scientific’ criticism, or an expression of physical violence.
Kristi, it’s hardly an attack to point out that McEntee is an administrative employee of the AGU hired to promote their political agenda.
Nice try at playing the gender card.
When you got nothing, go with what has always worked for you before.
MarkW said: “When you got nothing, go with what has always worked for you before.”
This from the man who has always contributed nothing. 30,000 plus posts on WUWT and zero supporting links.
Once again lying about the links.
On the other hand, the only time you post recently is to whine that I haven’t posted enough links to satisfy you.
MarkW – nope. I read roughly 1 WUWT article out of 5. Without exception I’ll find 10 or more comments by you on each article I read, never with a link. Now, perhaps you post one link every 1000 posts, but that still makes you primarily a troll.
And when you are painted into a corner, you just slink away, rather than try to defend your position. For example, a recent article about battery life of EVs, which you claimed was not good, and that older batteries had no use as grid backup. I posted data from actual Tesla owners showing that after 250,000 km, battery life was still above 90%. Meaning batteries do not need to be replaced very often, and that used batteries can be used for grid storage – which negates the criticisms you posted.
Let’s have a compromise.. all secret data now becomes public data and all double-secret data becomes secret.
Wikileaks is where it should be stored.
Huh??
If I were Pruitt, I’d hand this note to staff with a question, “Can someone tell me exactly what she/AGU is objecting to?”
The “gold standard” paragraph seems to say “If it’s been peer reviewed, that’s good enough. Trust us, because we are PEERS and we know peer-review when we see it. We don’t gotta show you no steenkin’ data”
The rest of the letter is standard appeal-to-authority BS.
The laugh-out-loud line is the CBO estimate that complying with the new open-data policy “would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million annually”. So AGU is saying the annual cost might be somewhere between $1 and $250 million, so let’s call that “about $125 +/- 125 million”.
I would call that “consistent with” every other climate-change projection, and worth just as much as the paper it’s printed on.
I suspect that AGU Christine McEntee’s letter to Pruitt will cause a long period of “outright prolonged laughter” that could be injurious to EPA employee health.
To be precise, $125.5 +/- $124.5 million. But close enough for government work.
I can’t figure out how McEntee (or her writer(s)) came up with the $125.5 +/- $124.5 million.
McEntee writes: “The Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing a secret science policy like the one proposed by EPA would cost between an estimated $5 million over five years to $250 million
annually.” (4)
BUT her reference (4), from the CBO, says: “Based on information from EPA, CBO expects that EPA would spend $250 million annually over the next few years to ensure the transparency of information and data supporting some covered actions.”
McEntee had the entire AGU complex available to review her letter; A review of an incompetent, by incompetent peers, yields results that should be characterized as questionable … whether from a figurehead letter or from a scientific study.
[And, as a side note about the CBO; $250,000,000 (over the next few (three) years) would be reflective of 6,000 full time GS12 employees, incl benefits. The fact that the CBO idiots will state that this policy would require the equivalent of 6,000 FTE bureaucrats shows that the Washington DC bureaucracy is really fucked up.]
How does data being open interfere with the peer review process?
Whatever medical product these guys are smoking, they should cut back.
Or share. 🙂
It seems to me that the arguments in the letter are actually endorsing the new policy of getting rid of the secret science that has been in use the past 8 years. Methinks that the author does not have a clue.
The author had to appease Mann & Co. without appearing total puppet like in form. It still reads rather silly and puppet like for the sake of some bad actors in science politics.
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” – Phil Jones
Jumbofoot
” … We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” – Phil Jones
—
umm … because there could be something that’s really wrong with it?
The standard at FDA is clearly beyond the so called “gold standard” of peer review. If it stopped there the average cost of a new drug getting through full scientific approval would not be $500 million in the U.S. and there would be a whole lot more dead people around.
Exactly what vital data would have to be excluded from public view aside from perhaps names of their experimental rats? That is total BS. I would love to hear a single specific example. Copywrite, proprietary etc., is not an excuse if it was funded by taxpayer dollars or being used for government policy either……
The stench of dishonesty is strong in this one!
If their science is so good, what are they afraid of.
Great minds think alike.
You gotta ask, “What are these people so affraid of?” And there in lies the answer.
I think “lies” is the key word there.
What a pathetic letter. Do the 60,000 scientist members of the AGU agree with it? I would hope that 97% would think it was pure garbage.
And now would be a great time for them to start standing up and saying so. Unfortunately, that won’t happen, as they’ll quickly find themselves under attack.