5 ms·

No. In this world, it is true that scientists rarely keep the data secret, more often than not, silly conspiracy theorist views notwithstanding. Business-spons

by logjam 15y ago

No. In this world, it is true that scientists rarely keep the data secret, more often than not, silly conspiracy theorist views notwithstanding. Business-sponsored science is very often secret, but please don't attempt to paint, as the parent commenter disingenuously attempts to do, that scientists are the root of data secrecy. There have been now six separate inquiries into the misguided, corporation driven, politically-motivated and frankly dumb charges that climate science data is faulty or is associated with some kind of scientific misconduct. All six separate inquiries indicated it was not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-IWR-83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_co... Moreover, scientific organizations are overwhelmingly making changes that makes their data even more accessible: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Data+without+the+doubts%3A+the+climategate+furore+has+galvanised+the...-a0257556897 http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Data+without+the+doubts%3A+the...

ellyagg 15y ago
I don't know about scienctists in general, but at least in climate science it is not true that scientists rarely keep the data secret. You can review untold number of cases of this on climateaudit.org and the justifications by the stonewallers are extremely poor. Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye.
- 3am 15y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
  - mseebach 15y ago
    > He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit") If you can't make an argument without resorting to name calling in the first line, please excuse me while I disregard anything at all you have to say. kthxbye.
    - grammaton 15y ago
      Maybe they do that because of the number of mistakes and basic misunderstandings of the science involved? If you don't like the name calling just look at the actions of the man, as outlined in the article. He is not a credible commentator.
- bermanoid 15y ago
  Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye. First of all, "climate science" != "science as a whole". Second, if any scientific field ends up in the crosshairs of a well-funded politically motivated movement working against it at any cost, then it will become hostile towards skeptics and eventually start stonewalling them. This happened in biology re: critics of evolution (in the anti-evolution camps there are tons of complaints about censorship, refusal to address criticisms, provide data, share models and code, etc.), and whereas it's always possible to address criticisms, the other side is always willing to spend more money to poke new "holes" in the theory, and you'll just never win. "Skeptics" like to portray the ultimate goal of science as if it's to continually try to poke holes in existing theories, because progress is made when theories are disproven. But that's not science. Science is when you mix a desire to poke holes in theories with a reasonable threshold of acceptance, a willingness to step back and say "Okay, we've spent a lot of energy coming up with arguments as to why this is wrong, and they've been addressed satisfactorily, so this is probably right, let's see if this takes us anywhere new rather than getting stuck arguing the point". Climate skeptics lack the willingness, even in theory, to accept that enough is enough - I don't believe for one moment that there is, even in principle, any piece of evidence that would lessen the amount of criticism against AGW. I don't believe they would give in because we've already seen that no amount of evidence reduced the amount of anti-evolution noise, and it's by and large the same sources of funding and political motivation that's behind both movements. Now, it very well may be the case that climate scientists also lack the willingness to admit that they're wrong (actually, I think this is pretty likely), in which case they're not doing science, either, and that's bad. I'm totally in agreement there. But they're taking exactly the approach to the skeptics that they would (and arguably, should) be taking if they were doing proper science. So the way they deal with skeptics is not a point of evidence either for or against the honesty of their scientific investigations, it's merely an inevitable result of the politicization of their field.

by logjam 15y ago

ellyagg 15y ago

I don't know about scienctists in general, but at least in climate science it is not true that scientists rarely keep the data secret. You can review untold number of cases of this on climateaudit.org and the justifications by the stonewallers are extremely poor. Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye.

3am 15y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
- mseebach 15y ago
  > He is the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog (or, more accurately, "Climate Fraudit") If you can't make an argument without resorting to name calling in the first line, please excuse me while I disregard anything at all you have to say. kthxbye.
  - grammaton 15y ago
    Maybe they do that because of the number of mistakes and basic misunderstandings of the science involved? If you don't like the name calling just look at the actions of the man, as outlined in the article. He is not a credible commentator.
bermanoid 15y ago
Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye. First of all, "climate science" != "science as a whole". Second, if any scientific field ends up in the crosshairs of a well-funded politically motivated movement working against it at any cost, then it will become hostile towards skeptics and eventually start stonewalling them. This happened in biology re: critics of evolution (in the anti-evolution camps there are tons of complaints about censorship, refusal to address criticisms, provide data, share models and code, etc.), and whereas it's always possible to address criticisms, the other side is always willing to spend more money to poke new "holes" in the theory, and you'll just never win. "Skeptics" like to portray the ultimate goal of science as if it's to continually try to poke holes in existing theories, because progress is made when theories are disproven. But that's not science. Science is when you mix a desire to poke holes in theories with a reasonable threshold of acceptance, a willingness to step back and say "Okay, we've spent a lot of energy coming up with arguments as to why this is wrong, and they've been addressed satisfactorily, so this is probably right, let's see if this takes us anywhere new rather than getting stuck arguing the point". Climate skeptics lack the willingness, even in theory, to accept that enough is enough - I don't believe for one moment that there is, even in principle, any piece of evidence that would lessen the amount of criticism against AGW. I don't believe they would give in because we've already seen that no amount of evidence reduced the amount of anti-evolution noise, and it's by and large the same sources of funding and political motivation that's behind both movements. Now, it very well may be the case that climate scientists also lack the willingness to admit that they're wrong (actually, I think this is pretty likely), in which case they're not doing science, either, and that's bad. I'm totally in agreement there. But they're taking exactly the approach to the skeptics that they would (and arguably, should) be taking if they were doing proper science. So the way they deal with skeptics is not a point of evidence either for or against the honesty of their scientific investigations, it's merely an inevitable result of the politicization of their field.