4 ms·

I'll just reproduce patio11's comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=966620 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=966620 ... 1107454306.txt Profes

I'll just reproduce patio11's comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=966620 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=966620 ... 1107454306.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. ... "Fairly Embarassing" doesn't cut it. Jones announces his intention to delete data in response to FoI requests rather than hand it over. An FoI request was indeed made. The data are discovered to be missing and cannot be recovered. Losing your data is a career-ender in any other scientific field. When you lost the data is irrelevant. In the context of the other emails, which reveal collusion to control the peer review process, marginalize critics, and censor comments on the very website linked in the original post, it's very clear they were trying to manipulate the scientific process.

Joeboy 17y ago
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... implies the loss happened long before Jones wrote that email, and not on his watch.
- mnemonicsloth 17y ago
  Right. He didn't lose the data himself. He just conspired with his fellow scientists for 20 years to frustrate all attempts to bring that fact to light. In light of the malfeasance documented in those emails -- packing review boards, intimidating journals, marginalizing critics, etc. -- we have to wonder why. You would think that a scientist who worked in an especially contentious field, with well-funded political enemies and huge amounts of money at stake, would have taken extraordinary measures to establish his bona fides. That would include making his work especially open and accessible, and being at pains to document every single step in his research. That is the scientific ideal, after all.
  - Joeboy 17y ago
    > He just conspired with his fellow scientists for 20 years to frustrate all attempts to bring that fact to light. Not as far as I know. My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Happy to be corrected though. > You would think that a scientist who worked in an especially contentious field, with well-funded political enemies and huge amounts of money at stake, would have taken extraordinary measures to establish his bona fides. That would include making his work especially open and accessible, and being at pains to document every single step in his research. That is the scientific ideal, after all. I basically agree, with the caveats that a) climate change theory was actually a fairly marginal concern in the '80s and b) I don't equate failure to live up to the scientific ideal to gross misconduct, as you seem to.
    - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
      My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Citation please? Also, if the CRU has been admitting to the loss of data all along, why didn't they say as much in their statement about the loss? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... Furthermore, why did Jones, Mann, et. al. spend so much time talking about "hiding from" (their words) FoI requests if the data being requested were lost? I don't equate failure to live up to the scientific ideal to gross misconduct... Misconduct is peripheral. The scientific ideal is to approach every situation with reasoned skepticism, and then to use experiments to collect evidence that removes as much doubt as possible. We have just discovered that we have less evidence, and more doubt, than we thought we did. The proper response is to re-establish those results as quickly and conclusively as possible. Lepidopterists do that much, even knowing that their papers will only be read by a handfull of colleagues. Global warming is a historic issue and requires a historic response, but it seems there are some who want conclusive proof that their is a problem before they will publicly acknowledge that there might be a problem. I can't imagine why. But considering how virulent an argument about "Science" global warming has become, I think we would do well to remember that science is a method, not a set of conclusions.

Joeboy 17y ago

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... implies the loss happened long before Jones wrote that email, and not on his watch.

mnemonicsloth 17y ago
Right. He didn't lose the data himself. He just conspired with his fellow scientists for 20 years to frustrate all attempts to bring that fact to light. In light of the malfeasance documented in those emails -- packing review boards, intimidating journals, marginalizing critics, etc. -- we have to wonder why. You would think that a scientist who worked in an especially contentious field, with well-funded political enemies and huge amounts of money at stake, would have taken extraordinary measures to establish his bona fides. That would include making his work especially open and accessible, and being at pains to document every single step in his research. That is the scientific ideal, after all.
- Joeboy 17y ago
  > He just conspired with his fellow scientists for 20 years to frustrate all attempts to bring that fact to light. Not as far as I know. My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Happy to be corrected though. > You would think that a scientist who worked in an especially contentious field, with well-funded political enemies and huge amounts of money at stake, would have taken extraordinary measures to establish his bona fides. That would include making his work especially open and accessible, and being at pains to document every single step in his research. That is the scientific ideal, after all. I basically agree, with the caveats that a) climate change theory was actually a fairly marginal concern in the '80s and b) I don't equate failure to live up to the scientific ideal to gross misconduct, as you seem to.
  - mnemonicsloth 17y ago
    My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Citation please? Also, if the CRU has been admitting to the loss of data all along, why didn't they say as much in their statement about the loss? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... Furthermore, why did Jones, Mann, et. al. spend so much time talking about "hiding from" (their words) FoI requests if the data being requested were lost? I don't equate failure to live up to the scientific ideal to gross misconduct... Misconduct is peripheral. The scientific ideal is to approach every situation with reasoned skepticism, and then to use experiments to collect evidence that removes as much doubt as possible. We have just discovered that we have less evidence, and more doubt, than we thought we did. The proper response is to re-establish those results as quickly and conclusively as possible. Lepidopterists do that much, even knowing that their papers will only be read by a handfull of colleagues. Global warming is a historic issue and requires a historic response, but it seems there are some who want conclusive proof that their is a problem before they will publicly acknowledge that there might be a problem. I can't imagine why. But considering how virulent an argument about "Science" global warming has become, I think we would do well to remember that science is a method, not a set of conclusions.