3 ms·

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

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