6 ms·

Judge preserves privacy of climate scientist’s emails

29 points by ananyob 14y ago

prawks 14y ago
Very glad to hear this. These people aren't criminals, they're researchers publishing their findings and proposed hypotheses.
- vixen99 14y ago
  These findings and proposed hypotheses likely influence policies which financially hit just about everyone. Billions of tax dollars have been diverted on the basis of climate research. Is it really an extravagant demand to know what these scientists' discussions amount to?
  - leothekim 14y ago
    If you want to know what they're up to, read their publications, not their emails. If they aren't publishing, then that's when things get fishy.
    - crusso 14y ago
      Isn't that a bit like saying, "If you want to know what Monsanto is up to, read their publications"? Don't get me wrong. I think that Science is the time and again proven method and culture to move society forward. That said, Science has also become very politicized and needs to be scrutinized so that it remains trustworthy and beneficial. Publications are all well and good, but with all the public money and resources being shifted toward climate study and CO2 remediation policies, I think that we should continue to look behind the curtains wherever we can.
      - leothekim 14y ago
        > Isn't that a bit like saying, "If you want to know what Monsanto is up to, read their publications"? No, it isn't. Scientists are not corporations.
        crusso 14y ago
        Monsanto is spelled with an "M". There's another difference. How is being a corporation relevant? Are you saying that Scientists can't have questionable motives, methods, and data that should be closely examined when what they're both doing has such a big impact on our world, but corporations do?
        leothekim 14y ago
        > Are you saying that Scientists can't have questionable motives, methods, and data that should be closely examined when what they're both doing has such a big impact on our world, but corporations do? No. I'm saying "Read their papers."
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    Verifiable and reproducible publications are all the communications you need. The public pays for their research, not their emails.
    - underdown 14y ago
      except many of these "scientists" won't release their data sets to allow verifiable and reproducible science.
      - prawks 14y ago
        http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-re... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scie... http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inq... Those are just 3 of the 8 organizations that determined that their findings were not the result of data tampering. "The individuals concerned had no idea that their work would ever be of such high public profile, and as a result their record keeping wasn't very good," [Ron Oxburgh, formerly of Shell] said. "If I was asked to produce records of all of the research that I did 10 or 12 years ago, I would be hard pushed to do so." Obviously they could have been more public with their data sets, algorithms, etc. but they're nowhere near alone in that regard.
        talmand 14y ago
        I think you need to reread your own articles. They don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. Yes, they were all cleared of "wrong-doing" but all of them mention the fact their data is still suspect because of the things you mentioned. In essence, my interpretation is that they didn't necessarily do anything wrong in the legal sense, they just didn't present good science. And that's the whole point. How can they say that there was no tampering when everyone admits the "record keeping wasn't very good"? They cannot produce research records from 10 to 12 years ago? Why not? Why would they throw such stuff out? Wouldn't they present all their research data when they submit to peer review? If not, why not? Your articles mentioned that they did in fact hide their data, deleted emails to prevent going public. Why? If you look around you can find articles where they not only did not present their data for review, they actively prevented people they didn't like from getting access to it. Even after publishing in scientific journals. That's not good science. Of course they should have been more public with their data, that's the whole point. But saying that, well, those guys over there were bad about it is not an excuse for them to use to refuse to present their data. So, we can all agree that the findings are suspect because the data appears to be lost and/or incomplete. So I guess we just take their word for it then? I'm not a scientist but that's not how I've understood how science works. If an independent party, or even one that disagrees with them, is unable to recreate their findings then the whole thing is suspect and should be redone. By someone else. But, this is global warming, where neither side is willing to agree to disagree. It's either you're a true believer or you are not, there's no room for discussion otherwise. EDIT: typo
Buzaga 14y ago
no link at all to the story that precedes this one? :/
- talmand 14y ago
  Yes, it does seem a rather one-sided article. Notice how they give a quote as to how the scientists are being "attacked" by people "abusing" public records and FOIA laws. No real indication of why these people are using public records and FOIA laws nor what it is they wish to find.
CWuestefeld 14y ago
Without making any statement about the climate change debate itself... It bothers me more than a little when research is funded by taxpayers, yet we taxpayers are forbidden from seeing what was happening with our money. Even absent public funding, the nature of science is that, at the very least, all results, data, and methodological information should be wide open. When you add in that we're paying for it, I can't see where they get the right to conceal part of their work. If you don't want open books, then don't look for open funding; the private sector would be happy to keep your communications secret, if it's on their dime.
- guelo 14y ago
  They're after the scientists' personal emails, that's a bit much and obviously just a fishing expedition for the next ginned up scandal.
  - yock 14y ago
    What constitutes a "personal email?" I can't find it explicitly stated anywhere whether this was a personal email address or his official university address, but if it's the latter I can't see how that is at all construed as personal.
    - rm999 14y ago
      From the researcher's facebook page: >Judge issues final order. Affirms the university’s right to withhold scholarly communications and finds that the documents & personal emails of mine demanded by ATI were indeed protected as the university had contended. So, he was probably using that e-mail for personal communication. Plenty of people do it (including most of my professors when I was in grad school), even if it's not totally good practice.
    - arrrg 14y ago
      I do not think that matters one bit. It’s pretty clear to me that morally, communication someone wrote with the expectation of privacy should not be made public unless there is evidence for criminal wrongdoing. You do not get to change the rules after the fact. If you want all e-mails researchers write to be public, the researchers have to be informed about that beforehand.
tomjen3 14y ago
If they want people to not care about their emails, stop using Global Warming to take away our freedoms (I can't get a decent light bulb anymore because of this shit) and make 21 century living unreasonably expensive (yeah, we need gasoline). Don't get me wrong, the environment is important but maintaining it as is should not be a priority. Nature is not holy, but it is useful.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That depends on your point of view. The environment will outlive you by a significant margin and since the planet itself enables all life and everything on it then it could be argued to be the closest thing to a 'god' that we have.
- jberryman 14y ago
  Scientists don't set policy, obviously. Re. your second paragraph, what do you expect the alternative to maintaining the environment "as is" to look like and why do you assume we (in the developed world, not to mention the rest) can cope with it?
- davidw 14y ago
  > Nature is not holy, but it is useful. It is useful to future generations as well, perhaps in ways we do not know. Wrong site for this discussion though.
- scarmig 14y ago
  Not to diverge too much from the article (which should be about expectation of privacy rights) and get into politics and moral philosophy, but people in Bangladesh could just as well be like "quit using your lightbulbs to violate our property rights." It's not a matter of whose "rights" are going to be violated, it's a matter of configuring property rights to improve human well-being.
  - glenra 14y ago
    First off, Bangladesh has been on-net gaining land mass in recent years. Quote: "Satellite images of Bangladesh over the past 32 years show that the country is growing annually by about 20 square kilometres (7.72 square miles)" (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm ) Now, it's true that that article claims that eventually sea level rise will overcome this, but the rate of sea level rise has actually not been accelerating in accordance with the predictions made back then - sea level has been continuing to rise at about the same low rate it had been doing for the last century. (Um, here's one source on that: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-no-climaterelated-acceleration-sea-level-rise http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-n... ) In short, if the people of Bangladesh have any reason to be concerned about "our lightbulbs", it's a distant future concern, not a current one.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

29 points by ananyob 14y ago

Very glad to hear this. These people aren't criminals, they're researchers publishing their findings and proposed hypotheses.

vixen99 14y ago
These findings and proposed hypotheses likely influence policies which financially hit just about everyone. Billions of tax dollars have been diverted on the basis of climate research. Is it really an extravagant demand to know what these scientists' discussions amount to?
- leothekim 14y ago
  If you want to know what they're up to, read their publications, not their emails. If they aren't publishing, then that's when things get fishy.
  - crusso 14y ago
    Isn't that a bit like saying, "If you want to know what Monsanto is up to, read their publications"? Don't get me wrong. I think that Science is the time and again proven method and culture to move society forward. That said, Science has also become very politicized and needs to be scrutinized so that it remains trustworthy and beneficial. Publications are all well and good, but with all the public money and resources being shifted toward climate study and CO2 remediation policies, I think that we should continue to look behind the curtains wherever we can.
    - leothekim 14y ago
      > Isn't that a bit like saying, "If you want to know what Monsanto is up to, read their publications"? No, it isn't. Scientists are not corporations.
      - crusso 14y ago
        Monsanto is spelled with an "M". There's another difference. How is being a corporation relevant? Are you saying that Scientists can't have questionable motives, methods, and data that should be closely examined when what they're both doing has such a big impact on our world, but corporations do?
        leothekim 14y ago
        > Are you saying that Scientists can't have questionable motives, methods, and data that should be closely examined when what they're both doing has such a big impact on our world, but corporations do? No. I'm saying "Read their papers."
- cantankerous 14y ago
  Verifiable and reproducible publications are all the communications you need. The public pays for their research, not their emails.
  - underdown 14y ago
    except many of these "scientists" won't release their data sets to allow verifiable and reproducible science.
    - prawks 14y ago
      http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-re... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scie... http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html http://www.deccanherald.com/content/61233/uk-climategate-inq... Those are just 3 of the 8 organizations that determined that their findings were not the result of data tampering. "The individuals concerned had no idea that their work would ever be of such high public profile, and as a result their record keeping wasn't very good," [Ron Oxburgh, formerly of Shell] said. "If I was asked to produce records of all of the research that I did 10 or 12 years ago, I would be hard pushed to do so." Obviously they could have been more public with their data sets, algorithms, etc. but they're nowhere near alone in that regard.
      - talmand 14y ago
        I think you need to reread your own articles. They don't necessarily agree with your conclusion. Yes, they were all cleared of "wrong-doing" but all of them mention the fact their data is still suspect because of the things you mentioned. In essence, my interpretation is that they didn't necessarily do anything wrong in the legal sense, they just didn't present good science. And that's the whole point. How can they say that there was no tampering when everyone admits the "record keeping wasn't very good"? They cannot produce research records from 10 to 12 years ago? Why not? Why would they throw such stuff out? Wouldn't they present all their research data when they submit to peer review? If not, why not? Your articles mentioned that they did in fact hide their data, deleted emails to prevent going public. Why? If you look around you can find articles where they not only did not present their data for review, they actively prevented people they didn't like from getting access to it. Even after publishing in scientific journals. That's not good science. Of course they should have been more public with their data, that's the whole point. But saying that, well, those guys over there were bad about it is not an excuse for them to use to refuse to present their data. So, we can all agree that the findings are suspect because the data appears to be lost and/or incomplete. So I guess we just take their word for it then? I'm not a scientist but that's not how I've understood how science works. If an independent party, or even one that disagrees with them, is unable to recreate their findings then the whole thing is suspect and should be redone. By someone else. But, this is global warming, where neither side is willing to agree to disagree. It's either you're a true believer or you are not, there's no room for discussion otherwise. EDIT: typo

Buzaga 14y ago

no link at all to the story that precedes this one? :/

talmand 14y ago
Yes, it does seem a rather one-sided article. Notice how they give a quote as to how the scientists are being "attacked" by people "abusing" public records and FOIA laws. No real indication of why these people are using public records and FOIA laws nor what it is they wish to find.

CWuestefeld 14y ago

Without making any statement about the climate change debate itself... It bothers me more than a little when research is funded by taxpayers, yet we taxpayers are forbidden from seeing what was happening with our money. Even absent public funding, the nature of science is that, at the very least, all results, data, and methodological information should be wide open. When you add in that we're paying for it, I can't see where they get the right to conceal part of their work. If you don't want open books, then don't look for open funding; the private sector would be happy to keep your communications secret, if it's on their dime.

guelo 14y ago
They're after the scientists' personal emails, that's a bit much and obviously just a fishing expedition for the next ginned up scandal.
- yock 14y ago
  What constitutes a "personal email?" I can't find it explicitly stated anywhere whether this was a personal email address or his official university address, but if it's the latter I can't see how that is at all construed as personal.
  - rm999 14y ago
    From the researcher's facebook page: >Judge issues final order. Affirms the university’s right to withhold scholarly communications and finds that the documents & personal emails of mine demanded by ATI were indeed protected as the university had contended. So, he was probably using that e-mail for personal communication. Plenty of people do it (including most of my professors when I was in grad school), even if it's not totally good practice.
  - arrrg 14y ago
    I do not think that matters one bit. It’s pretty clear to me that morally, communication someone wrote with the expectation of privacy should not be made public unless there is evidence for criminal wrongdoing. You do not get to change the rules after the fact. If you want all e-mails researchers write to be public, the researchers have to be informed about that beforehand.

tomjen3 14y ago

If they want people to not care about their emails, stop using Global Warming to take away our freedoms (I can't get a decent light bulb anymore because of this shit) and make 21 century living unreasonably expensive (yeah, we need gasoline). Don't get me wrong, the environment is important but maintaining it as is should not be a priority. Nature is not holy, but it is useful.

jiggy2011 14y ago
That depends on your point of view. The environment will outlive you by a significant margin and since the planet itself enables all life and everything on it then it could be argued to be the closest thing to a 'god' that we have.
jberryman 14y ago
Scientists don't set policy, obviously. Re. your second paragraph, what do you expect the alternative to maintaining the environment "as is" to look like and why do you assume we (in the developed world, not to mention the rest) can cope with it?
davidw 14y ago
> Nature is not holy, but it is useful. It is useful to future generations as well, perhaps in ways we do not know. Wrong site for this discussion though.
scarmig 14y ago
Not to diverge too much from the article (which should be about expectation of privacy rights) and get into politics and moral philosophy, but people in Bangladesh could just as well be like "quit using your lightbulbs to violate our property rights." It's not a matter of whose "rights" are going to be violated, it's a matter of configuring property rights to improve human well-being.
- glenra 14y ago
  First off, Bangladesh has been on-net gaining land mass in recent years. Quote: "Satellite images of Bangladesh over the past 32 years show that the country is growing annually by about 20 square kilometres (7.72 square miles)" (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7532949.stm ) Now, it's true that that article claims that eventually sea level rise will overcome this, but the rate of sea level rise has actually not been accelerating in accordance with the predictions made back then - sea level has been continuing to rise at about the same low rate it had been doing for the last century. (Um, here's one source on that: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-no-climaterelated-acceleration-sea-level-rise http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/current-wisdom-n... ) In short, if the people of Bangladesh have any reason to be concerned about "our lightbulbs", it's a distant future concern, not a current one.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]