5 ms·

One thing I don't get is how people always seem to follow the pattern "I'm unbiased. #{strong_opinion_here}." Unbiased... really, hop? For the record: I think

by crux_ 17y ago

One thing I don't get is how people always seem to follow the pattern "I'm unbiased. #{strong_opinion_here}." Unbiased... really, hop? For the record: I think that open source + code cleanup + code review is a great idea, and not just for climate science. But it's important to keep in mind that ugly code isn't the same thing as wrong code, and that mistakes in the code aren't automatically become mistakes in the science. (For example, a poorly written data parser with lots of bugs will not affect the science one bit, if none of the data triggers those bugs.) So what's your purpose here: - To contribute to a community, finding and fixing bugs, making things more readable and robust, etc? - To do a little audit to "prove" what you already believe? (I suspect a hint of witch-hunt in the air...) Edit to fix formatting and add a side comment: This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true motivation of climatologists, then why aren't more of them going for the fame and think-tank money available to them by expressing dissent? I can't believe that all these scientists are dishonest and greedy enough to lie about the science, but not suitably dishonest/greedy to sell out their peers.

nkurz 17y ago
It's possible that the post has been edited since you replied, but as it reads now he is "impartial and agnostic about climate change". Clearly he is biased against the current state of "climate science" as currently practiced, but I'd take him at his word that he's interested in seeing what the data show if one removes the hype and spin.
hop 17y ago
I am biased - not about climatology, but having been in grad school and seen it first hand, I am biased about scientists motives, especially when you are competing for millions of dollars of grant money. I also know its easy to fit big data sets to a desired conclusion. I care about being confident that the data supports the conclusion. I want all the data in the open and open to scrutiny. Whether the Earth is cooling, heating, staying the same - I just want it proven with open source code, not on a consensus of people I don't know using data hidden from the public, with code that I haven't read. Edit: I am sure the vast majority of scientists are true to the data. And this project will only help reinforce their work.
- marltod 17y ago
  Even if you could get ALL the data in an open and transparent format and were able to scientifically prove that "Global warming is (100% real/fake)" it wouldn't matter because the political/corporate/celebrity forces on the other side would claim that you are "using bad science, corrupt, in the pocket of (liberal elites/big corporations)". Even if you proved that there isn't enough data to prove anything, both sides would say you are wrong.
  - eru 17y ago
    It's still worthwhile.
- crux_ 17y ago
  A grab-bag of replies before I get back to work. (Yes, on a Sunday; sigh.) - The notion that science can be "proved" is a mistaken one. - I don't think there's much question by anyone that there has been measurable warming this century; so that part of your question is answered. ;) - How much of the data is really "hidden"? There certainly hasn't been a effort to widely distribute it from a central source (until lately: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/), but that doesn't mean it was under lock and key either. Personally, I am biased in the other direction: I feel that it is likely that the extreme pressure and politics involved are forcing climate scientists to be over-conservative in their conclusions.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I am biased about scientists motives, especially when you are competing for millions of dollars of grant money. You raise legitimate points and I think the idea of open-source climate modeling (perhaps using BOINC or something for distributed processing) is an excellent one. Unfortunately, I think the value of your proposal is obscured by comments such as the one above. Surely, scientists do compete for millions of dollars in grant money, but I'm also a bit biased about vested interests that are competing for billions (or perhaps even trillions) of dollars in revenue from the sale or processing of fossil fuels, with any inconvenient externalities dumped on the taxpayer. To be sure, such fuels have been essential progress and are an important factor of future economic growth, but suppliers are not necessarily altruistic either.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
He said, "I'm unbiased on issue X, but I strongly believe that Y group of people can not be trusted about X." The only reason you read this as "I have a strong opinion about X" is because the primary argument in favor of X consist of "trust Y on the issue of X." (By "primary argument", I mean within the mainstream media. Within the scientific community, there are both legitimate scientific arguments and illegitimate attempts to subvert science via politics.)
jacoblyles 17y ago
>"This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true motivation of climatologists, then why aren't more of them going for the fame and think-tank money available to them by expressing dissent?" Many people go into environmental science because they are environmentalists. You get the same results as when you send a group of Catholic priests to investigate the virgin birth. Or, picking on my own biases, it is like sending a bunch of libertarian economists to estimate the utility of a government program. Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Trust, but verify.
- crux_ 17y ago
  > Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, this looks to resemble a checkable fact, rather than the supposition and ad homeneim the rest of your post was filled with. Data point: In 2006, Exxon alone spent 733 million in R&D (from their annual report). That's about 5x (edit: I had written 6x) the federal National Center for Atmospheric Research's budget. (153 million) (source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=3924&id=2 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=39...) Data point: The American Enterprise Institute's 2006 income: 28.4 million. (From sourcewatch.org) Greenpeace USA? 11 million. (from the 2006-7 annual report) Data point: Environmental & health lobby spending is dwarfed by that from energy groups: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/assets/img/climate-change-chart.gif http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change... Data point: Anti-climate research for cash: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen... I think that's enough for now. To claim that the "other side" is dwarfed is laughable, at least as long as you are speaking dollars and not facts or mindshare. At the _very_ least, it's an even fight (looking at research dollars); more likely the resources on the anti-climate-change side far outweigh those of scientists and climate change activists (including policy & advocacy dollars). Edit: tsk, tsk. Reply, don't downmod!
lutorm 17y ago
Being a scientist and looking at the code that is written daily (and aware of the bugs that are found), I certainly agree that there is horribly written code going around. Most scientists aren't encouraged to learn about coding, it's something you do to get the job done. But like you say, that doesn't mean it produces incorrect output. Hopefully there are enough cross checks that mistakes are caught before publication.

by crux_ 17y ago

nkurz 17y ago

It's possible that the post has been edited since you replied, but as it reads now he is "impartial and agnostic about climate change". Clearly he is biased against the current state of "climate science" as currently practiced, but I'd take him at his word that he's interested in seeing what the data show if one removes the hype and spin.

hop 17y ago

I am biased - not about climatology, but having been in grad school and seen it first hand, I am biased about scientists motives, especially when you are competing for millions of dollars of grant money. I also know its easy to fit big data sets to a desired conclusion. I care about being confident that the data supports the conclusion. I want all the data in the open and open to scrutiny. Whether the Earth is cooling, heating, staying the same - I just want it proven with open source code, not on a consensus of people I don't know using data hidden from the public, with code that I haven't read. Edit: I am sure the vast majority of scientists are true to the data. And this project will only help reinforce their work.

marltod 17y ago
Even if you could get ALL the data in an open and transparent format and were able to scientifically prove that "Global warming is (100% real/fake)" it wouldn't matter because the political/corporate/celebrity forces on the other side would claim that you are "using bad science, corrupt, in the pocket of (liberal elites/big corporations)". Even if you proved that there isn't enough data to prove anything, both sides would say you are wrong.
- eru 17y ago
  It's still worthwhile.
crux_ 17y ago
A grab-bag of replies before I get back to work. (Yes, on a Sunday; sigh.) - The notion that science can be "proved" is a mistaken one. - I don't think there's much question by anyone that there has been measurable warming this century; so that part of your question is answered. ;) - How much of the data is really "hidden"? There certainly hasn't been a effort to widely distribute it from a central source (until lately: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/), but that doesn't mean it was under lock and key either. Personally, I am biased in the other direction: I feel that it is likely that the extreme pressure and politics involved are forcing climate scientists to be over-conservative in their conclusions.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I am biased about scientists motives, especially when you are competing for millions of dollars of grant money. You raise legitimate points and I think the idea of open-source climate modeling (perhaps using BOINC or something for distributed processing) is an excellent one. Unfortunately, I think the value of your proposal is obscured by comments such as the one above. Surely, scientists do compete for millions of dollars in grant money, but I'm also a bit biased about vested interests that are competing for billions (or perhaps even trillions) of dollars in revenue from the sale or processing of fossil fuels, with any inconvenient externalities dumped on the taxpayer. To be sure, such fuels have been essential progress and are an important factor of future economic growth, but suppliers are not necessarily altruistic either.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

He said, "I'm unbiased on issue X, but I strongly believe that Y group of people can not be trusted about X." The only reason you read this as "I have a strong opinion about X" is because the primary argument in favor of X consist of "trust Y on the issue of X." (By "primary argument", I mean within the mainstream media. Within the scientific community, there are both legitimate scientific arguments and illegitimate attempts to subvert science via politics.)

jacoblyles 17y ago

>"This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true motivation of climatologists, then why aren't more of them going for the fame and think-tank money available to them by expressing dissent?" Many people go into environmental science because they are environmentalists. You get the same results as when you send a group of Catholic priests to investigate the virgin birth. Or, picking on my own biases, it is like sending a bunch of libertarian economists to estimate the utility of a government program. Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Trust, but verify.

crux_ 17y ago
> Also, the billions that governments are spending on climate change policy and research easily dwarfs money on the other side. That's a bit of FUD spread by the alarmists that doesn't pass the smell test. Well, this looks to resemble a checkable fact, rather than the supposition and ad homeneim the rest of your post was filled with. Data point: In 2006, Exxon alone spent 733 million in R&D (from their annual report). That's about 5x (edit: I had written 6x) the federal National Center for Atmospheric Research's budget. (153 million) (source: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=3924&id=2 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf08318/content.cfm?pub_id=39...) Data point: The American Enterprise Institute's 2006 income: 28.4 million. (From sourcewatch.org) Greenpeace USA? 11 million. (from the 2006-7 annual report) Data point: Environmental & health lobby spending is dwarfed by that from energy groups: http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/assets/img/climate-change-chart.gif http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change... Data point: Anti-climate research for cash: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagen... I think that's enough for now. To claim that the "other side" is dwarfed is laughable, at least as long as you are speaking dollars and not facts or mindshare. At the _very_ least, it's an even fight (looking at research dollars); more likely the resources on the anti-climate-change side far outweigh those of scientists and climate change activists (including policy & advocacy dollars). Edit: tsk, tsk. Reply, don't downmod!

lutorm 17y ago

Being a scientist and looking at the code that is written daily (and aware of the bugs that are found), I certainly agree that there is horribly written code going around. Most scientists aren't encouraged to learn about coding, it's something you do to get the job done. But like you say, that doesn't mean it produces incorrect output. Hopefully there are enough cross checks that mistakes are caught before publication.