4 ms·
Were there emails that actually talked about deleting data? I've seen the emails that talked about deleting emails, but not raw data.
by Anechoic 17y ago
Were there emails that actually talked about deleting data? I've seen the emails that talked about deleting emails, but not raw data.
- patio11 17y ago1107454306.txt Professor Jones: Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [Patrick notes: he is referring to McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
- Anechoic 17y agoHmm. The rest of that email reads: Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
- Tichy 17y agoWhy did they not want to give away the data?
- protomyth 17y agoWell, if a group has your original source data, they can try to reproduce your results and/or challenge your process. I gather that the results are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.
- Tichy 17y agoThat seems kind of weird - if they don't show the data, they might as well not bother with collecting data at all. They could just make it all up. Why then, would they bother to mail it around, as they did in the quoted email? I suspect there are some other reasons.
- randallsquared 17y agoIt would be harder for the scientists to justify making it up to themselves. I assume none of them set out to do bad science when they started investigating climate.
- Tichy 17y agoSorry I don't think this makes sense. Personally I'll just wait to see how the story unfolds. This makes me glad again that there is some kind of legal system in most civilized countries. So many people seem to be ready to form a lynch mob at short notice.
- CamperBob 17y agoJudging from the sheer volume of replies you've made to every HN thread on the subject, one has to wonder if you have a dog in the fight.
- Tichy 17y agoJust a case of http://xkcd.com/386/ http://xkcd.com/386/ , Mr Holmes I don't know any of the people involved, but I really despise lynch mobs. Still, I know I shouldn't bother with this.
- electromagnetic 17y agoI concur, the only reason to destroy the original source data is if you know your work won't stand up to scrutiny and will discredit your work. Irony here is that now it isn't a matter of if there work would or wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, now it's a matter of ethics and they're clearly discrediting themselves by their severe lack of ethical behaviour.
- Joeboy 17y agoAs I understand it their license to (some of) the data did not permit them to do so.
- randallsquared 17y agoIf that were the case, there would be no need to delete it; the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won. Of course, if it turns out that it was illegal for them to accept the data under that license in the first place, then it might be more understandable.
- Tichy 17y agoWhat if they simply felt they didn't have the time to deal with "the MMs", who would most likely not care about the law (also being from a completely different country). Newspapers tend to simply publish stuff they acquire, no matter if they came by it by legal means or not. Not wanting to deal with the MMs does not imply guilty, just as not wanting to discuss moot points with creationists does not imply evolution theory is wrong. At some point maybe you decide your energy is better spent elsewhere. Just playing devils advocate... I still feel there is too much context missing.
- Joeboy 17y ago> the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won. ...and if the FOI won you wouldn't be able to get data anymore. I don't understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph.