4 ms·

My understanding is that for climate science, a lot of effort is spent to debunk claims, by well-financed groups who will publish without independent peer-revie

by bertil 10y ago

My understanding is that for climate science, a lot of effort is spent to debunk claims, by well-financed groups who will publish without independent peer-review but with a clear goal in mind. Allowing those groups to access the same data means that the researchers will have to spend a lot more effort explaining why those claims are unfounded. That means the researchers are not really encouraged into sharing the data. There is a more general issue in science or any data-intensive practice (Google ranking is another example) where the argument “People should be allowed to cross examine raw data” fails to acknowledge that ‘People’ generally do not have the ability or know-how to, and those who can generally have interested financial backing. In many cases, it is positive (Open Source Map is a good example of that: my employer is interested in identifying, say, bike parking spots) but there are examples where de-anonymisation, competitive pressure, make “sharing data” a pragmatic question that needs more than principles. Will more people who can contribute positively to climate science help if they had free access to those data? It is the case for astronomy; I am less convinced for climate science.

jkot 10y ago
Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. Climate science is way more important than astronomy. It should have much higher standards for transparency, not other way around.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Get rid of copyright law, then everyone can have the data. People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way (whereas within the field other researchers probably do have IP rights to use the same data).
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way While I agree that this is a problem in the current copyright law, there is still a way for researchers to "circumvent" this copyright restriction without violating the scientific principle of independent verifiability that I outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720: Let's say that the data is generally distributed by the owner in a standard format, say, a zip archive, which we will name foo.zip here (for simplicity). If you can't distribute the data itself, you write into your research paper a short explanation of the license terms that disallow the distribution of foo.zip. But you also add a notice what the SHA256 sum of foo.zip is. If some person who has also access to the data (say, from another university) has interest that the research result can be checked independently, they will leak foo.zip somewhere (I can imagine that sci-hub would be willing to provide server space for this). This way access for independent verifiers can be "assured" without the original researchers having to violate copyright law.
  - dalke 10y ago
    The US[1] doesn't recognized the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for copyright. There is no copyright on a "mere collections of facts", and no IP rights cover collected data. Give that, what role does copyright law play (at least in the US) in preventing data sharing? I thought it was limited based on patient confidentiality, collaborator agreements, end-user agreements, desire to maximize publications from the same data, and other non-copyright issues which were at play. ([1] Other countries are more restrictive than the US in this regard.)
- vixen99 10y ago
  If astronomy includes the possible detection of previously unknown sizeable objects in space which might put an end to our activities on this planet, then I don't agree. Climate alarmism (that's not intended as a perjorative word: it's sensible to be alarmed if there is something to be alarmed about) is based on the validity or not of statistical conclusions regarding climate data. Objects in space can and do collide with Earth if that's their trajectory. No theory or hypothesis is required - just data.
- jackmott 10y ago
  > Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. It is not paranoid, it isn't even secret. Koch Brothers Exxon Heritage Foundation are just 3 examples. It is absolutely within the purview of science to consider these things, as is anything. You can't just declare it off limits. We observe and have records of these groups paying people to write fake sciency-sounding reports on climate science constantly.
- bertil 10y ago
  There is absolutely nothing paranoid about systematic and well documented efforts from the oil industry to discredit scientists. > It should have much higher standards Yes, but for the quality of the result, not intuitions set-up as principles to replace the real pillars of science: experimentation and peer-review. Transparency is only useful if it helps getting peers; in this case, there are well documented reasons to doubt it, and that the people benefiting from that transparency are not just enemies of science, but of humanity.
wolfgke 10y ago
> Will more people who can contribute positively to climate science help if they had free access to those data? I think if we only consider it as science if it can be verified independently, also the "opposite side" (your "well-financed groups") has to provide evidence of the same high standard, which would strongly increase the level on which the debate is pursued (i.e. the opposing side also cannot get away with outlandish "evidence").
- frankquist 10y ago
  But then I wonder, how do you enforce the latter rule? ('the "opposite side" has to provide evidence of the same high standard'). Generally it seems like a lot of the media at least, which serve as a gatekeeper of sorts for which information gets disseminated to the broader public, do not really seem capable of or interested in enforcing such a rule. Policymakers, who should be quite interested in climate studies, might be more persuadable to having standards, at least when they're not in some interest group/ideological pocket. (EDIT: of course, journals could serve as enforcers, but then the "opposite" should have to publish their science in well-policed journals. The OP's article claims that this generally isn't the case) (EDIT: disclaimer, I am not trying to argue against the broader point that data should be open)
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    I think it is easy (in the sense: takes little time) to check if the opposite side provides the data and source code of the computer program that lead them to the conclusions. If not, one can simply give out this reason. If they do, on the other hand, I consider it as sufficiently scientifically intesting to analyze what different kind of model their program used (that lead to different conclusions) and why this model is better/worse etc.
    - ajford 10y ago
      The problem is that budgets for science are controlled by the relatively uneducated (as is seemingly the case for most legislators), at least when it relates to the fields of science. And they are often easily swayed by unreviewed and unverified articles in public magazines/newspapers/blogs/etc. Even more so for the public, who hold a strong sway over legislators due to elections and what-not. So it is in no way easy to force the opposition to uphold the stringent requirements of science, when they are clearly ignoring many of the facts staring them in the face (at least in the case of climate change deniers).

by bertil 10y ago

jkot 10y ago

Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. Climate science is way more important than astronomy. It should have much higher standards for transparency, not other way around.

XorNot 10y ago
Get rid of copyright law, then everyone can have the data. People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way (whereas within the field other researchers probably do have IP rights to use the same data).
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > People keep ignoring the fact that you can't just release data like that all over the place, because researchers often do not have the IP rights to do so in a general way While I agree that this is a problem in the current copyright law, there is still a way for researchers to "circumvent" this copyright restriction without violating the scientific principle of independent verifiability that I outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12099720: Let's say that the data is generally distributed by the owner in a standard format, say, a zip archive, which we will name foo.zip here (for simplicity). If you can't distribute the data itself, you write into your research paper a short explanation of the license terms that disallow the distribution of foo.zip. But you also add a notice what the SHA256 sum of foo.zip is. If some person who has also access to the data (say, from another university) has interest that the research result can be checked independently, they will leak foo.zip somewhere (I can imagine that sci-hub would be willing to provide server space for this). This way access for independent verifiers can be "assured" without the original researchers having to violate copyright law.
- dalke 10y ago
  The US[1] doesn't recognized the "sweat of the brow" doctrine for copyright. There is no copyright on a "mere collections of facts", and no IP rights cover collected data. Give that, what role does copyright law play (at least in the US) in preventing data sharing? I thought it was limited based on patient confidentiality, collaborator agreements, end-user agreements, desire to maximize publications from the same data, and other non-copyright issues which were at play. ([1] Other countries are more restrictive than the US in this regard.)
vixen99 10y ago
If astronomy includes the possible detection of previously unknown sizeable objects in space which might put an end to our activities on this planet, then I don't agree. Climate alarmism (that's not intended as a perjorative word: it's sensible to be alarmed if there is something to be alarmed about) is based on the validity or not of statistical conclusions regarding climate data. Objects in space can and do collide with Earth if that's their trajectory. No theory or hypothesis is required - just data.
jackmott 10y ago
> Paranoid talks about "well financed groups" have no place in science. It is not paranoid, it isn't even secret. Koch Brothers Exxon Heritage Foundation are just 3 examples. It is absolutely within the purview of science to consider these things, as is anything. You can't just declare it off limits. We observe and have records of these groups paying people to write fake sciency-sounding reports on climate science constantly.
bertil 10y ago
There is absolutely nothing paranoid about systematic and well documented efforts from the oil industry to discredit scientists. > It should have much higher standards Yes, but for the quality of the result, not intuitions set-up as principles to replace the real pillars of science: experimentation and peer-review. Transparency is only useful if it helps getting peers; in this case, there are well documented reasons to doubt it, and that the people benefiting from that transparency are not just enemies of science, but of humanity.

wolfgke 10y ago

> Will more people who can contribute positively to climate science help if they had free access to those data? I think if we only consider it as science if it can be verified independently, also the "opposite side" (your "well-financed groups") has to provide evidence of the same high standard, which would strongly increase the level on which the debate is pursued (i.e. the opposing side also cannot get away with outlandish "evidence").

frankquist 10y ago
But then I wonder, how do you enforce the latter rule? ('the "opposite side" has to provide evidence of the same high standard'). Generally it seems like a lot of the media at least, which serve as a gatekeeper of sorts for which information gets disseminated to the broader public, do not really seem capable of or interested in enforcing such a rule. Policymakers, who should be quite interested in climate studies, might be more persuadable to having standards, at least when they're not in some interest group/ideological pocket. (EDIT: of course, journals could serve as enforcers, but then the "opposite" should have to publish their science in well-policed journals. The OP's article claims that this generally isn't the case) (EDIT: disclaimer, I am not trying to argue against the broader point that data should be open)
- wolfgke 10y ago
  I think it is easy (in the sense: takes little time) to check if the opposite side provides the data and source code of the computer program that lead them to the conclusions. If not, one can simply give out this reason. If they do, on the other hand, I consider it as sufficiently scientifically intesting to analyze what different kind of model their program used (that lead to different conclusions) and why this model is better/worse etc.
  - ajford 10y ago
    The problem is that budgets for science are controlled by the relatively uneducated (as is seemingly the case for most legislators), at least when it relates to the fields of science. And they are often easily swayed by unreviewed and unverified articles in public magazines/newspapers/blogs/etc. Even more so for the public, who hold a strong sway over legislators due to elections and what-not. So it is in no way easy to force the opposition to uphold the stringent requirements of science, when they are clearly ignoring many of the facts staring them in the face (at least in the case of climate change deniers).