3 ms·

I can think of a half-dozen reasons off the top of my head as to why the records might have had to been adjusted, starting with "equipment calibration" and movi

I can think of a half-dozen reasons off the top of my head as to why the records might have had to been adjusted, starting with "equipment calibration" and moving widely on from there. I think the media's been a little too eager to jump on the climate change denial bandwagon...

pyre 17y ago
Let's just face the fact that 'climate change' has become a political topic more than it's a rational and/or scientific one. "Climate change denial" has become secret code for, "I'm a neo-conservative and I really want it stick it to Those Damn Liberals(tm) because not only do they want to take away my Hummer and my hamburgers, they want to take away my guns too!" There are plenty of journalists and talk-show pundits on the conservative side of the spectrum that see this as some sort of vindication that they were, "right all along," or just as a chance to get all sorts of coverage/attention/viewership/advertising money.
- anamax 17y ago
  Similarly, AGW has become secret code for, well, you can fill in the blanks. However, there are some differences. For example, the skeptics haven't been suggesting that their opponents be thrown into jail for their beliefs. And, they aren't proposing restrictions or taxes.
  - JCThoughtscream 17y ago
    No, we simply have "skeptics" that've decried climatologists as anti-industrial communists that ought to be tarred and feathered if not outright lynched for their views. Comparing crazies doesn't make for great discourse.
- natmaster 17y ago
  I'm not familiar with the hamburger political controversy. Do enlighten me.
  - pyre 17y ago
    See the conservative assumption that "liberal == vegan" or "liberal == animal activist."
anamax 17y ago
There are valid reasons and there are invalid reasons. That's why being open about the raw data is important. [Edit] I should have also mentioned that it's also important to be open about how the data is adjusted. Explaining your reason for adjusting the data is not enough. Which reminds me. Someone commented that scientists don't share code. That's not quite true. In many areas, it suffices to share data because the analysis routines are already shared.
- JCThoughtscream 17y ago
  I fully agree! But both sides are guilty of subjective analysis. As to which side is most guilty... well, choosing either/or gives away your position on the issue.
thaumaturgy 17y ago
Yes; I think the simplest and most likely explanation here is going to involve specific facets of the data or analysis which people won't be familiar with unless they've been studying it for several years. That doesn't mean it isn't sloppy though, and while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies -- they aren't well-enough funded to spend their time answering the various challenges of laypeople that aren't educated enough to understand the field -- it's still a really poor choice in the longer term that's going to result in a lot of suspicion regarding their work. Or, alternatively: we're seeing some confirmation bias at work.
- nickjohnson 17y ago
  "while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies " - I can't. If your results can't be reproduced independently, it's not science, it's an assertion from authority. This is a really, really basic part of scientific research. Failing to do it should raise huge red flags.

pyre 17y ago

Let's just face the fact that 'climate change' has become a political topic more than it's a rational and/or scientific one. "Climate change denial" has become secret code for, "I'm a neo-conservative and I really want it stick it to Those Damn Liberals(tm) because not only do they want to take away my Hummer and my hamburgers, they want to take away my guns too!" There are plenty of journalists and talk-show pundits on the conservative side of the spectrum that see this as some sort of vindication that they were, "right all along," or just as a chance to get all sorts of coverage/attention/viewership/advertising money.

anamax 17y ago
Similarly, AGW has become secret code for, well, you can fill in the blanks. However, there are some differences. For example, the skeptics haven't been suggesting that their opponents be thrown into jail for their beliefs. And, they aren't proposing restrictions or taxes.
- JCThoughtscream 17y ago
  No, we simply have "skeptics" that've decried climatologists as anti-industrial communists that ought to be tarred and feathered if not outright lynched for their views. Comparing crazies doesn't make for great discourse.
natmaster 17y ago
I'm not familiar with the hamburger political controversy. Do enlighten me.
- pyre 17y ago
  See the conservative assumption that "liberal == vegan" or "liberal == animal activist."

anamax 17y ago

There are valid reasons and there are invalid reasons. That's why being open about the raw data is important. [Edit] I should have also mentioned that it's also important to be open about how the data is adjusted. Explaining your reason for adjusting the data is not enough. Which reminds me. Someone commented that scientists don't share code. That's not quite true. In many areas, it suffices to share data because the analysis routines are already shared.

JCThoughtscream 17y ago
I fully agree! But both sides are guilty of subjective analysis. As to which side is most guilty... well, choosing either/or gives away your position on the issue.

thaumaturgy 17y ago

Yes; I think the simplest and most likely explanation here is going to involve specific facets of the data or analysis which people won't be familiar with unless they've been studying it for several years. That doesn't mean it isn't sloppy though, and while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies -- they aren't well-enough funded to spend their time answering the various challenges of laypeople that aren't educated enough to understand the field -- it's still a really poor choice in the longer term that's going to result in a lot of suspicion regarding their work. Or, alternatively: we're seeing some confirmation bias at work.

nickjohnson 17y ago
"while I can sympathize with scientists' decisions not to release their data or their methodologies " - I can't. If your results can't be reproduced independently, it's not science, it's an assertion from authority. This is a really, really basic part of scientific research. Failing to do it should raise huge red flags.