3 ms·
WSJ summary of climate research center data breach
- tokenadult 17y ago"In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public." That's all the more reason for all reputable journals to be united in requiring that authors publishing in their journal be required to make their data sets available to independent researchers, so only disreputable journals publish articles by authors who engage in such research-slowing tactics.
- sleepingbot 17y agoIsn't it a bit strange that this comes just weeks before COP15 in Copenhagen, the same summit the United States and China will not take seriously? Lobbyist already working on it, as I see.
- cwan 17y agoSeriously? Let's assume that it was timed for maximum exposure and maximum impact. Let's also ignore the fact that many oil lobbyists are now for a climate pact so that they can make billions off the trade of carbon credits. Don't you see an issue with the underlying substance of the emails if they turn out to be true? I find it remarkable that there are so many people here who would argue against accountability - especially when public funding and the public interest is involved (per your previous comment, accountability and transparency isn't just for banks). If these emails turn out to be true, if anything this shows that these scientists are not disinterested empiricists but have activist agendas. But this also doesn't mean that they aren't right. The issue could be solved by publishing their data sets and code for their models for public scrutiny and yet they do not - despite being largely publicly funded. Do you not see a problem with this?
- camccann 17y agoSeriously, how many posts about this do we really need?
- robotrout 17y agoI'm loving it, but I do get your point. This particular posting, however, is especially relevant to me, as I had been noting with dismay, the silence of the mainstream media on this. To have the WSJ acknowledging the event (which I didn't know before this post) is reassuring.
- camccann 17y agoWell, frankly, I think it's obnoxious. I wouldn't mind if it had anything to do with actual science, but this is just political fluff to make people feel good about their preconceived notions. HN's front page got spammed with it because it appeals to the political groupthink here, and the scientifically-illiterate mainstream media talking it up is only going to create more drama and less insight. But I guess being more interested in science than ideology puts me in the minority around here, so whatever. Time to collect more downvotes, I suppose.
- robotrout 17y agoI would be interested in discussing, offline (email in my profile) your actual knowledge of this issue. The men and women that post and comment here are, in my opinion, among the best and the brightest. To dismiss the opinions of some significant proportion of them as "political groupthink" seems strange. Anyway, email me if you wish, so as not to pollute your 97 day experience with HN by continuing this subject here.
- camccann 17y agoAnyway, email me if you wish, so as not to pollute your 97 day experience with HN by continuing this subject here. Your condescension is duly noted. Regretfully, I think I must decline your offer of a "discussion".
- jpcx01 17y agoThis seems important because WSJ reporting on it, which will give the story exposure to all the talk radio stations and fox news who will probably cause some political ruckus over the next week, especially given the upcoming copenhagen conference.