4 ms·

I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context. The comments may just be wa

I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context. The comments may just be warning users not to use the function past 1960. The most damning excepts from the leaked email are the following: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php In this one, they delete emails rather than respond to a FOIA request http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php In which they lie to the NYTimes in response to a question of data cherry picking. They tell the NYTimes that they looked into the criticisms and that the criticisms were completely unfounded. But behind the scenes they were emailing each other that they could not explain the results, and in fact, other scientists had found the criticisms to be quite valid.

lionhearted 17y ago
> I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence. By itself, it wouldn't mean too much. Considering everything else, it doesn't reflect well upon them. You need to be very, very careful when normalizing or adjusting a complex system, and you need to be extremely clear that you're adjusting and how you're doing it. A lot of normalizing/adjusting based on a certain factor is to make data fit a predetermined conclusion. There's some that are generally accepted - like adjusting for inflation - but even that can be done many different ways with different goals to serve different agendas. Adjusting data without disclaiming how you did it is a pretty big no-no and casts a lot of doubt on someone's results.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  I agree, but taking a code comment that says something is being adjusted does not mean a lot. Any criticism would have to look at what is being adjusted and how. You'd have to make a statistical argument based on the model. I am a skeptic as well, but the way these emails and code comments are analysed is entirely meaningless. However, it goes to show how incredibly stupid it is for scientists to not be as transparent as possible in the first place.
4everDumb 17y ago
Is this what happens when you run the function past 1960? http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
CWuestefeld 17y ago
Maybe. But they've had the opportunity for years to explain their methodology to the world. Yet they refused to release the details of what they were doing, taking this attitude (as quoted from one of the alleged emails): We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. ... I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research... I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. They shouldn't be surprised now to find that they're being tarred. Of course, that doesn't help us extract the truth of the situation. But it's a pretty clear object lesson to other scientists.

lionhearted 17y ago

> I'm more in the skeptic camp, but I don't find the comments cited in this article very suspect, especially without further context. It's another piece of circumstantial evidence. By itself, it wouldn't mean too much. Considering everything else, it doesn't reflect well upon them. You need to be very, very careful when normalizing or adjusting a complex system, and you need to be extremely clear that you're adjusting and how you're doing it. A lot of normalizing/adjusting based on a certain factor is to make data fit a predetermined conclusion. There's some that are generally accepted - like adjusting for inflation - but even that can be done many different ways with different goals to serve different agendas. Adjusting data without disclaiming how you did it is a pretty big no-no and casts a lot of doubt on someone's results.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
I agree, but taking a code comment that says something is being adjusted does not mean a lot. Any criticism would have to look at what is being adjusted and how. You'd have to make a statistical argument based on the model. I am a skeptic as well, but the way these emails and code comments are analysed is entirely meaningless. However, it goes to show how incredibly stupid it is for scientists to not be as transparent as possible in the first place.

4everDumb 17y ago

Is this what happens when you run the function past 1960? http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Maybe. But they've had the opportunity for years to explain their methodology to the world. Yet they refused to release the details of what they were doing, taking this attitude (as quoted from one of the alleged emails): We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. ... I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research... I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. They shouldn't be surprised now to find that they're being tarred. Of course, that doesn't help us extract the truth of the situation. But it's a pretty clear object lesson to other scientists.