Live data from Hacker News

Flawed climate data

financialpost.com

1–10 of 40 posts

Re: Flawed climate data

#3

This thing is really blown out of porportion now: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1... This "Climategate/Warmergate" thing is just another case of FUD, an invented scandal.

It's literally FUD (UD?), in that the skeptics are spreading uncertainty and doubt about the legitimacy of the models and the underlying data that the world leadership has accepted as gospel truth for the past decade. But it might be good FUD, because it might reopen intelligent discussion on a topic where debate has consisted of name-calling for just as long.

Re: Flawed climate data

#4
If Mars is heating up a the same rate as earth, they [martians] must have quite a complex underground freeway system to produce all that CO2 on Mars, which is obviously causing Marsian Warming...

Re: Flawed climate data

#5

This thing is really blown out of porportion now: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1... This "Climategate/Warmergate" thing is just another case of FUD, an invented scandal.

It's literally FUD (UD?), in that the skeptics are spreading uncertainty and doubt about the legitimacy of the models and the underlying data that the world leadership has accepted as gospel truth for the past decade. But it might be good FUD, because it might reopen intelligent discussion on a topic where debate has consisted of name-calling for just as long.

But it might be good FUD, because it might reopen intelligent discussion on a topic where debate has consisted of name-calling for just as long.

My suspicion is that it will renew name-calling in a discussion that has consisted of name-calling for just as long, but then, I'm a cynic. Fingers crossed, though.

Re: Flawed climate data

#8

Surely the flabbergasting thing is not whether this proves or disproves GW but that scientists are allowed to flat-out refuse to release the raw data they used to generate results.

Public funding should require full disclosure of all data as well as the paper generated by the research.

Re: Flawed climate data

#10

Surely the flabbergasting thing is not whether this proves or disproves GW but that scientists are allowed to flat-out refuse to release the raw data they used to generate results.

A collection of raw data is full of systematic errors, accidental mistakes, misleading black swans, and false trails (some of which get followed for years before they finally turn out to be false). I've seen several talented, well-trained, and highly experienced scientists fool themselves for decades with their own raw data. That's why it is called raw. That's why you have to analyze data, over and over, until you can't stand it anymore, and only publish the last tiny fraction that comes out: Your best work, the stuff that you're confident in and prepared to stand behind. And that's why there's a lot more to science than just reading a lot of numbers off the front panel of your instrument and sticking them up on the web.

If I were a scientist in a controversial field, where every dropped decimal point, statistical anomaly, and speculative sentence (later to be disproved, and to make even its own author blush with the memory) was liable to be mined out of my notebooks and splashed all over the tabloids, I'd sure as hell refuse to release my raw data. Indeed, I might just decide not to release any data at all, but just switch to another field. That's obviously one of the goals of this campaign of intimidation.

Post reply on HN