4 ms·

This isn't the first time people have raised questiones about Philip Jones and the Climate Research Unit. HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?

This isn't the first time people have raised questiones about Philip Jones and the Climate Research Unit. HN discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=843517 Obviously, an article in the National Review isn't worth much as evidence by itself. But it quotes reputable scientists who have gone on record as saying they believe he is stonewalling their requests to see his raw data. The CRU has acknowledged that the files are genuine. In one of the emails, Phil Jones brags how he unethically manipulated the presentation of his results (Nate's words, not mine). And we might not be able to go back and check his results against his measurements. It seems to me that this would be a good time for an audit of the climate change data. Our first priority should be maintaining the integrity of the scientific process, and in this case that means getting rid of the appearance of impropriety. It's wrong to hold back scientific criticism because of the way we feel about whichever group is currently using the scientific consensus to advantage in the infinite clown fight that is partisan politics. EDIT: this post went through several versions, most of which were bad. Sorry to those who replied to something that's gone now.

thras 17y ago
I don't understand why conservatives are so happy about this. If an entire branch in the tree of human knowledge is unsound, that's an unambiguously bad thing. It means, at the least, that we have a lot of work to do over again. Maybe those people are happy because they have been saying for a while that an entire branch of human knowledge is unsound and that there is a lot of work to do over again?
ajross 17y ago
CRU's work hardly constitutes an "entire branch" of climate science or meteorology, must less the whole tree (!) of human knowledge. What happened here is that some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions, and even an agenda. And other players, themselves no less possessed of agenda, are using it to attack the subject via guilt by association. Meh. Lots for Fox News to spit about. Not much really interesting here.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions Foul ball. This is not what was revealed. They're shown to have acted on those opinions, at the very least, unethically manipulating the presentation of study results to exaggerate the conclusion they agreed with. Any maybe more than that. Depending on the context (which I don't know), it may show that they actually manipulated the data, which calls into question all further research that uses the data coming out of that study.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

thras 17y ago

I don't understand why conservatives are so happy about this. If an entire branch in the tree of human knowledge is unsound, that's an unambiguously bad thing. It means, at the least, that we have a lot of work to do over again. Maybe those people are happy because they have been saying for a while that an entire branch of human knowledge is unsound and that there is a lot of work to do over again?

ajross 17y ago

CRU's work hardly constitutes an "entire branch" of climate science or meteorology, must less the whole tree (!) of human knowledge. What happened here is that some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions, and even an agenda. And other players, themselves no less possessed of agenda, are using it to attack the subject via guilt by association. Meh. Lots for Fox News to spit about. Not much really interesting here.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
some players in a controversy were revealed (gasp) to have strong opinions Foul ball. This is not what was revealed. They're shown to have acted on those opinions, at the very least, unethically manipulating the presentation of study results to exaggerate the conclusion they agreed with. Any maybe more than that. Depending on the context (which I don't know), it may show that they actually manipulated the data, which calls into question all further research that uses the data coming out of that study.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]