3 ms·

> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008. I don't want Hansen stripped of any credentials or anything like

> For example, James Hansen predicted the west side highway in NY would be underwater by 2008. I don't want Hansen stripped of any credentials or anything like that. But it's reasonable for me to ask that he make a public statement acknowledging his error. There is a bell curve distribution of views on any subject. You can always find the most extreme case if you want to. It sounds like James Hansen is one of the most extreme cases on one side. You can also find extreme cases on the other side who were proven wrong. I notice that you aren't interested in them making statements acknowledging their errors. I wonder why. > publish all data and source code for all climatology papers. These are scientists doing their research. They come to their conclusions. If all their data, source code, etc. were made open, people who don't want to acknowledge climate change will cherrypick and find a few inevitable errors and claim they disprove the consensus of scientists, akin to the way you picked James Hanson above. If you want to believe the scientists are involved in some kind of collusion, you will, whether or not they open all those aspects their research. Very simply, it isn't worth the trouble and that's why it's not being done. > Some code once leaked from the Climate Research Unit and it included hardcoded values and a comment that their person was to "hide the decline." Yes, there are dishonest scientists on all sides of any question that has a large number of scientists involved, just as is true in any field. Finding one of them should not be new information. You should predict it, and when it happens, say "Yep, just as I predicted!". What you definitely shouldn't do is cherrypick it and pretend it proves anything, or pay any attention to anyone who does so. It doesn't invalidate the position that that scientist's dishonest research appeared to be supporting, which is also supported by the overwhelming majority of honest scientists. > Both of these points are imminently reasonable and if you make any excuses or push back in the slightest, then I am absolutely justified to retain my skepticism. Go right ahead! I will not reply further in this subthread.

tosbalok3 2y ago
[flagged]
- garyrob 2y ago
  Uh-huh.
- garyrob 2y ago
  OK, I'll bite. But this is the last time. With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear. Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking. With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do. And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything. Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want. You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/ https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/ I'm done here.

tosbalok3 2y ago

[flagged]

garyrob 2y ago
Uh-huh.
garyrob 2y ago
OK, I'll bite. But this is the last time. With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear. Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking. With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do. And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything. Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want. You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/ https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/ I'm done here.