21–30 of 40 posts
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public funding should require full disclosure of all data as well as the paper generated by the research.
I believe in the free availability of all publicly-funded research papers . And I'd be prepared to argue for the free availability of raw data as well, if we lived in a world where it wouldn't be cherry-picked by axe-grinders and used for character assassination. I don't think we live in that world. Maybe someday.
Unfortunately, that is exactly the current problem as well, without the data being available.
The article this discussion is keyed off of Flawed climate data (http://www.financialpost.com) which argues pretty convincingly that the AGW researchers cherry-picked their data to show the "hockey stick."
The article The Economics of Climate Change http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455... argues very convincingly that the AGW promoters in question had a financial axe to grind.
The purloined emails (disclaimer, I only read the commonly reported quotes) were replete with character assassination.
Between my assertions and mechanical_fish's assertions, releasing and hiding both lead to nastiness. IMHO, hiding the data caused as much or more nastiness as releasing it. Given that Good Science is verifiable, that argues strongly that the data must be released.
There's an old legal aphorism that goes, "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." -- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pound_the_table
There is a lot of table pounding going on, and it sounds like it started with the AGW researchers not having quality data that could be pounded on, so they hid the data and pounded the table.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
One of the core parts of modern science is reproducable results - to allow anyone to take data, follow through the methods used, and locate errors (or see if something is an anomaly, in the case of experiments). Without it, science is basically meaningless - one must rely on the word of a group of people for their conclusion, and it is essentially pointless to publish the method (as it's impossible for anyone to recr…
But that's not the same as releasing everything you ever write down to anyone who asks, which is what the original comment seemed to be suggesting.
The problem with your raw data is that, in the hands of an opponent, especially one who argues in bad faith, the word raw is quickly and easily filed off and it gets described as "your data", despite the fact that you threw it away and didn't publish it, presumably for a reason.
It's easy to make a scientist look ridiculous -- to a nonscientist -- by poking fun at their unpublished data, just as it's easy to make a great novelist look ridiculous by poking fun at their grocery lists, their kindergarten handwriting assignments, or their unpublished first drafts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe in the free availability of all publicly-funded research papers . And I'd be prepared to argue for the free availability of raw data as well, if we lived in a world where it wouldn't be cherry-picked by axe-grinders and used for character assassination. I don't think we live in that world. Maybe someday.
I'm with you. I really really wanted to read (for example) "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950". However, all of the references to it that I can find are stuck behind paywalls, despite the paper having been authored primarily by NOAA scientists. I fully support spending tax dollars on scientific research. That said, I think that the results of this particular bit of research have already…
There is one part that sticks in my craw, that is, the part about the correction applied for post-1960 tree ring data. It smacks of corporate / bureaucratic mindset that there was (apparently) so little effort to find out why the tree ring data diverged after 1960. Wouldn't a scientist be fascinated by the question of why this divergence was occurring-instead of just accepting it happened? Example: Feynman wondered i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm with you. I really really wanted to read (for example) "An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950". However, all of the references to it that I can find are stuck behind paywalls, despite the paper having been authored primarily by NOAA scientists. I fully support spending tax dollars on scientific research. That said, I think that the results of this particular bit of research have already…
I downloaded it for you. Give me an email address to send it to you.
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 c…
How reliant are we overall on tree data to track temperature trends?
Climate scientists rely on (at least, but not limited to) oceanic temperature measurements, satellite measurements, and worldwide ground temperature measurements for current data modeling. Historical data sources include ice cores, tree ring data, geological data (e.g. evidence of past glacial activity), and coral analysis. To some extent, human sources can also be used for historical data -- journals and old weather…
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 c…
If you're going to insist that we spend $100s of billions because of your conclusions ....
This McKitrick guy is like a cockroach that keeps poping back up. Not only are there TONS of datasources besides the tree ring proxies that he is so obsessed with ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ ), his specific claims have been rejected many times including by peer reviewed sources such as Nature. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php…
And, since that e-mail also shows that realclimate is one of the participants in the supression of contrary views from the beginning, citing it as evidence now is ....