A Poll on Scientific Transparency

[Nederland]

The recent CRU hack has generated a great deal of discussion regarding the degree of transparency the scientists should be required to provide. Some argue that releasing all code and data involved in a piece of research is time consuming and expensive, making researchers waste valuable time and effort. Others argue that releasing all code and data involved in research is easy using today's technology (post it on a website and you're done) and that failing to do so only makes it look like you have something to hide. So, what do you all think?

[bridgit]

1. should not have to release code and data

[mike_c]

2. who enforces scientists "having" to do anything...?

I mean, my notes and analysis are open to anyone who wants to view them, but who would you have me "release" them to, and who would penalize me if I failed to include something? Publishers certainly don't want to become the repositories for such stuff-- that's where peer reviewed research goes. Non reviewed reports should certainly contain all the results that are relevant, but few recipients even want stuff like analysis code or original data.

[JonQ]

5. I think when it comes

to a science that is at the forefront of political attention, and will likely influence laws, spending, and commerce for many years in to the future (to the tune of many trillions of dollars) it is important to make everything known and make sure no mistakes have been made.

A 10,000 dollar grant to study diet in drosophila, meh, they should provide all the relevant info to whoever asks, but not a major concern for the general public. A number of grants totaling billions, that will influence how trillions of public dollars are spent, you know, the public may want to check that out.

[timeforpeace]

12. There has never been a time when data, protocols and results were not entirely open and available

for others to try to replicate for similar results. Until now. This is an alarming departure and the sole cause of scepticism.

[JonQ]

18. The double standard is concerning

and the willingness of so many to defend it.

[mike_c]

44. what do you mean, "until now...?"

I'm an academic scientist, so maybe my experience differs from yours, but the only areas I know of where the traditional openness is not still working are:

1) Corporate sponsored research in which the funding entity views the research as "proprietary"-- I've seen a number of colleagues sign non-disclosure agreements as a condition for receiving research support, almost always from corporations that want to fund academic labs. This has NO place in academic science, IMO. I have never signed a non-disclosure agreement, and I don't apply for funds from anyone who might require one.

Of course, in-house R&D labs often exemplify this secretive corporate approach because economics trumps science, but I'd probably gnaw my arm off before working as a drone in some company lab.

2) National labs, where EVERYTHING tends to be treated like national security secrets-- this has always been the case to a certain extent, but it has gotten much worse in recent decades. In national labs, and in some academic settings where funding is controlled by the more paranoid agencies, like the DOD and DOE, research is routinely treated as "secret" and every communication must be vetted. Again, I think this is contrary to good science, but defense and government folks have always been horrified the openness that is the norm in academic science.

In both those cases, the lid is being clamped down externally, not by scientists themselves.

3) Finally, the only instances I know of self-secretiveness among colleagues are some cases of "temporary" secretiveness by researchers who want to compete with their colleagues to be the first, or only lab to report something. These researchers hide their current activities and their progress out of competitiveness, but winning the accolades they seek requires that they eventually reveal all.

4) I'll add a fourth category-- people with something to hide-- because some folks DO falsify data and results, etc, but that has ALWAYS been a problem but it's always been a relatively minor problem. It's one of the reasons peer review is the standard in scientific reporting.

[JonQ]

50. I've yet to read of anyone on here

defending the refusal of scientists to release their data on any other issue than this one.

If it were anything else, no matter how mundane, reluctance to part with the raw data would be seen as proof of a cover up.

[mike_c]

34. but how would you propose that be done...?

As I said, few of the folks that *I* send research results to ever want anything more than standard format manuscripts and reports. If they wanted more, I'd be happy to send it to them, but how would that work? Would reviewers be expected to reanalyze data to make certain that peer reviewed researchers didn't make any mechanical mistakes? Should they look for bugs in analysis code? As a reviewer, I'd find that a major pain in the butt!

[JonQ]

36. I think a good start

would be for every publicly funded research center to post their papers in entirety on a website, along with supplemental data. And links to the raw, unaltered data.

"Would reviewers be expected to reanalyze data to make certain that peer reviewed researchers didn't make any mechanical mistakes? "

Considering the stakes on this, yes.

"Should they look for bugs in analysis code? "

If the code is wrong then all data derived from that code must be suspect, no?

"As a reviewer, I'd find that a major pain in the butt!"

We're talking about spending trillions of dollars here. Allocate a few million to hiring people to make sure everything is up to snuff.

[Junkdrawer]

24. Someone's going to break into your lab, and if they find ANYTHING...

you haven't published, you're in BIG, BIG trouble.

[mike_c]

33. I suppose that demonstrates how little the general public knows...

...about how science is done. I could stop working now and still not get all my lab's data published during my lifetime, I think. Every project generates loads of notes, specimens, computer code, binders full of analysis output, etc, not to mention manuscripts. On several occasions I've BEGGED federal representatives to take a bunch of that stuff off my hands-- they often require pledges to keep everything connected with public funds or collected on public land, but NEVER provide facilities. Eventually it falls between the cracks.

On the other hand, 90 percent of what most biologists do-- and I assume it's true for most other scientists-- we do in our heads. That work generates thoughts, models, ideas, and conclusions that emerge from observations and data but which are far less tangible than data. Much of that never gets written down in any coherent sense-- it just gets expressed through hypotheses or analysis. It's the education that underlies "educated guessing."

It's also true that science, like most other human activities, is a social endeavor. Most research is part of constant verbal and written exchanges between colleagues-- much of that either never gets written down or is not intended for publication any more than backstage talk is intended for singing onstage. It's part of the context for all science, but like many communications, much of it makes sense only in context, and can be downright misleading out of context.

Anyway, as someone mentioned upthread, data and scientific notes have traditionally been shared among colleagues as part of the process of science, but that sharing process also works as a filter to remove the stuff that would waste everyone else's time.

[CreekDog]

122. I honestly don't think most people even know what they are asking for anymore

I don't know how to feel about them asking. I would be more patient if people showed some willingness to *consider* what they are asking for.

[JonQ]

3. Nothing good can come from hiding data

you have to make it available for peer review to be possible. Might as well make it user friendly in the process.

Seriously if they did nothing wrong what harm is there in making it public?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. The only thing scientists should release is what they submit to peer-review.

But that's a tautology.

If somebody wants to examine their findings, they're welcome to repeat the experiment.

[Forkboy]

6. End of thread.

[JonQ]

8. Wouldn't repeating the experiment exactly

require a release of all pertinent info? Like what materials and methods they used? And if relying on historical data that cannot be repeated, wouldn't that be worthwhile? As well as the protocols they followed to adjust that data? You can't simply recreate another earth and repeat the last century worth of data collections.

So to recreate these experiments they'd need the original data, info on what was done to adjust for it, as well as any proxy data used and how that was figured in to the experiment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Ever read a scientific paper?

They include a list of details about how experiments are performed so that others can repeat them.

If it's not reproducible, then it doesn't get published.

You can't repeat history, no. But it's not like anybody was sitting around and collecting data during the ice age. They went out and gathered data themselves. And people are welcome to repeat that.

[JonQ]

11. Yes, they do

and are we dealing with something that can be repeated in a lab? Or historical data?

"If it's not reproducible, then it doesn't get published."

Apparently not.

"You can't repeat history, no. But it's not like anybody was sitting around and collecting data during the ice age. They went out and gathered data themselves. And people are welcome to repeat that."

Why would they want to keep the data hidden? For the most part it was collected via public grants (ie, our money). And if they didn't do anything sneaky then releasing it would only strengthen their case and reaffirm peoples faith in them. Right?

Serious question: who is harmed if these scientists are asked to release all their data?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Oh, nevermind.

I didn't notice I was talking with a global warming denier. Of course you don't read scientific papers.

"and are we dealing with something that can be repeated in a lab? Or historical data?"

Historical data gets analyzed in the lab. Or in the field. People count and measure tree rings. People sample ice cores.

"Apparently not."

And if it doesn't get published, it's irrelevant to everything and everybody.

"Why would they want to keep the data hidden?"

There's any number of reasons to keep information hidden. Maybe they want to get a patent. Maybe they're on to a big finding, haven't got enough data yet, and don't want to get scooped.

Really, this is basic stuff for anybody who knows anything about science.

[JonQ]

16. Sorry, but no

you are incorrect. Once you publish a paper on the subject (and are publicly funded) you must make all relevant data available to the public.

Trust me on this, I've read far more legitimate journals than you have. You have to present the data used to make your conclusions or else you have nothing other than expecting the reader to take your word on faith.

However, in the actual journal article they typically do not present all data, only snippets to save space. Could you present, from your subscription to nature or any comparable journal, a study where all data is published in the actual article (relating to MMGW).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Once you publish the paper...

you already have made all relevant data to the public.

If you're talking about extraneous or supplemental information, sure, that has to be available. But only if it's relevant.

[JonQ]

27. Who get's to decide what's relevant

when it's publicly funded?

Anyway, I responded at length in post 25, no need to repeat myself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. The peers.

Funding has nothing to do with the research findings, or where and how it gets published.

Again, this is basic stuff for anybody who knows anything.

[JonQ]

66. Here's where you screwed up:

"Funding has nothing to do with the research findings"


This statement is an absolute baldfaced lie.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. It doesn't.

Funding only involves the topic of research.

Scientist wants to study global warming? He submits his proposal to the granting agency, they like it and they fund it.

From there on it's his business to decide what to do with it. He can choose not to publish anything. He can publish in a prestigious journal. Or one nobody's ever heard of. If the data supports global warming, that's what he publishes. If it doesn't support global warming, he publishes that.

The funding body has nothing to do with it.

[JonQ]

72. Again, you screwed up

continued funding absolutely has to do with past results.

Anyone who seriously tries to argue otherwise has never been through the process.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. If one wants to renew a grant and get more money, sure.

If the scientist doesn't do any work and doesn't publish anything, they won't get more money.

But that doesn't have anything to do with findings.

[JonQ]

77. So findings do affect funding

thank you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. No, output affects funding.

But funding does not affect the findings.

[JonQ]

81. Incorrect

there is a reason the labs that have shown global warming to be manmade have had their funding increase exponentially while those who have shown the opposite have had their funding cut to next to nothing.

Science is, unfortunately, not above the affects of politics. Anyone who claims otherwise is just ignorant.

And the politics are solidly behind wanting man to be at fault.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. All labs show global warming to be manmade.

Those that get funding and those that don't.

There aren't any labs that don't show global warming. If a scientist could prove there's no global warming, that scientist would instantly win the Nobel prize. That's not going to happen. Not because there's a conspiracy, but because it's actually happening.

Oh, and this "funding" business is another denialist joke, been debunked many times before.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=5

[JonQ]

85. Incorrect

not all labs show that. A very few do, and those recieve the lionshare of the funding.

"There aren't any labs that don't show global warming. If a scientist could prove there's no global warming, that scientist would instantly win the Nobel prize."

Or be cut off from funding, denied access to peer review journals and generally shunned and prevented from speaking? So exactly what has been outlined in those emails? Yeah . . .

"Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense"

Yeah, that's a good unbiased source. It's hard to have a debate when one side starts with the conclusion that A) they are right, and B) everyone who disagrees is a moron who should be prevented from speaking. It's also not conducive to the whole peer-review method.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. Scientific American's a biased source, eh?

Not "Fair and Balanced" enough for you, eh?

[JonQ]

87. An editorial within it is

yes. Nature, and science also have editorials. Those are not the same as scientific papers.

You know that right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. I never argued they were scientific papers.

It doesn't have to be scientific to debunk your nonsense.

[JonQ]

163. So you believe an editorial

is what it takes to refute accusations against their research?

Sure, if an editorial is also all it would take to discredit them.

[JonQ]

88. I remain curious though

as you keep grasping at straws, what is your argument in favor of less transparency?

[Nederland]

96. The science is not settled

You obviously do not understand the global warming debate. It's clear from your post that you have a naive and boolean conception of the debate: people either think global warming is "real" or they don't, and all reputable scientists think it's "real". This is a gross oversimplification of the debate going on in the scientific community today. There is a wide range of opinion among scientists regarding global warming, but a small select and vocal few would have you believe there isn't. The truth is that the only thing that is settled is the idea that human activity is causing CO2 to increase, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is only a fraction of what you need to know before you can start pushing policy changes like Copenhagen down the world's collective economic throat.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. That's the same thing George W. Bush says about evolution.

You're both wrong.

[Nederland]

159. I'm not wrong

Consider Roger Pielke, who believes that AGW is real and needs to be addressed, but who claims that IPCC models overstate CO2 effects and understate the effects of deforestation. Is he a denier? No. He's just a guy who thinks that Jim Hansen is wrong and that our current efforts that focus almost exclusively on CO2 are misguided. The point is, when you make the naive assumption that there are only two positions on AGW you are going to make bad policy decisions.

[Nederland]

37. Clarify Please

I'm a little confused by some of what you've written, and I think an example might help clear things up.

The example I'm thinking of involved Michael Mann and the so called Hockey Stick controversy. Steve McIntyre requested for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code. Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available. Most would say it happened because Congress was investigating the detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre. Mann's research was eventually found to be valid by a National Research Council Report.

In my opinion, Mann would have been much better off if all his code and data had been easily available to anyone who wanted it from day one. Even though he was vindicated in the end, for much of the ordeal Mann looked like someone with something to hide.

Would you agree?

[GoCubsGo]

29. It's still reproducable

They can go get their own ice cores, or whatever was used to collect the historic data. If they don't believe the results, they need to go out and measure them themselves.

[JonQ]

30. That would neccessitate

making the same amount of time and funding available to those researchers as was made for the current crop. Would you be ok with investing billions of dollars and decades in reproducing their results? It's not really fair to say go ahead and try to reproduce our work from scratch, but you get days instead of decades and no budget to do it with.

And of course, while that is being done we'd have to put a moratorium on any policy decisions based on the data that is being reviewed.

[GoCubsGo]

38. Oh, bullcrap.

The argument was to reproduce one paper. That does not cost "billions of dollars", nor does it require reproducing every last bit of data produced up until now to do that. Grad student, eh? That is obvious. And, I doubt you are even a science major. BTW, I have a string of scientific publications a mile long, and I know fully well what goes into funding and conducting research, and publishing the results. From everything you have posted here, you don't.

[JonQ]

43. No, I suspect you are lying

you haven't indicated any knowledge in this field thusfar.

"The argument was to reproduce one paper."

No, it is the entire theory. Unless you believe MMGW is based on one paper? Surely as someone who claims to be scientist you must know that denying money to any particular area of research essentially shuts that area of research down? Funding is important you know. And this isn't something that you'd likely get private funds for (nor would the data be considered acceptable by many if you could).

". That does not cost "billions of dollars", nor does it require reproducing every last bit of data produced up until now to do that. "

So to test a theory based on decades of data, costing billions of dollars where the original data will not be released and everything must be repeated will cost us nothing? And would require what, just a sketchy outline of what they had previously done?

[GoCubsGo]

48. Nope, just you that's lying.

You responded to:

10. Ever read a scientific paper?

They include a list of details about how experiments are performed so that others can repeat them.

If it's not reproducible, then it doesn't get published.

You can't repeat history, no. But it's not like anybody was sitting around and collecting data during the ice age. They went out and gathered data themselves. And people are welcome to repeat that.


I pointed out that if one wants to reproduce that paper, they can go out and take their own cores or whatever it took to produce THAT PAPER. You are just obfuscating by trying to claim that one has to repeat all studies ever conducted on the subject. It doesn't. I said nothing about testing a theory. This is about repeating the work in one scientific paper. The vast majority of scientific publications provide only a small fraction of the data used to prove or disprove a theory. If you were really a scientist as you claim, you would know that.

[JonQ]

52. What's the point of reproducing one paper

when the theory that is in question, and the scientists who have been caught, and the data that is suspect is attributable to many papers? Sorry but you are trying to twist the conversation and you know it.

"The vast majority of scientific publications provide only a small fraction of the data used to prove or disprove a theory. If you were really a scientist as you claim, you would know that."

Well, good thing I never claimed this to be about one paper then. (wipes the sweat from his brow!). Hehe, this is funny/sad/pathetic/disheartening.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. The purpose would be to satisfy concerns about the data.

The same reason a person might want to look at raw data.

Duh.

[JonQ]

59. If that's the case

then what would be the purpose in not releasing that raw data?

And as the question relates to the entire theory looking at only one paper would be meaningless. As you and others would say "well yeah, that one paper is flawed, but MMGW isn't based on just that one, so that proves nothing!".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Oh, I already gave you several good reasons.

And I'm sure your research advisor could give you several more. Lulz.

"As you and others would say "well yeah, that one paper is flawed, but MMGW isn't based on just that one, so that proves nothing!". "

If you're that concerned, you're welcome to reproduce any and all of the thousands of scientific papers on the subject.

[JonQ]

64. Give me 10 years

and several billion dollars and I will. Ah but you're going to insist that we completely reproduce all the work they've done, tonight! And with a budget of shoestrings and pocket lint. Double standard, but not surprising. You need the work to not be done.


"Oh, I already gave you several good reasons."

No, you haven't. Not a one, actually. Arguing for less scientific transparency is kind of an uphill battle. You'll need some pretty good reasons to hide data for publicly funded research. National security would be one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. Alright, go for it.

You should right a grant to the petroleum industry.

If you could disprove global warming, you'd be a huge name in the scientific community. That would be like disproving relativity, or gravity. Instant fame.

[JonQ]

69. Ah but of course

anything funded by the petroleum industry would not be accepted, even if they presented all their data and were meticulous in every detail. You know this to be true of course. So what we need is government funding to the tune of billions of dollars on this subject.

Come on, if you are confident then funding people to test it will only result in strengthening the theory. So will you write your senator with me and ask for funding to be dedicated to testing this theory? :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. If the research is legimate, science would be happy to accept it.

Contrary to what you and Sarah Palin think, there's not some global scientist conspiracy to conceal the truth.

"So will you write your senator with me and ask for funding to be dedicated to testing this theory?"

Senators don't award scientific grants. Again with the embarassing naivete.

[JonQ]

76. Ahem

NSF: With an annual budget of about $6.02 billion (fiscal year 2008), NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States' colleges and universities. In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.

The NSF's director, deputy director, and the 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB)<1> are appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the United States Senate. The director and deputy director are responsible for administration, planning, budgeting and day-to-day operations of the foundation, while the NSB meets six times a year to establish its overall policies. The current NSF director is Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., and the current acting deputy director is Dr. Cora Marrett.<2>

Yeah, clearly the government has no role in this.

You realize you are embarrassing yourself? That's why no real scientist (even those that generally agree with you) are backing you in this line of argument.

Funding has nothing to do with results, where that funding come from in no way influences how it is recieved. It's really sad.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. JonQ, all real scientists back my line of argument.

And they all laugh at people like you.

Yes, the NSF is a government body.

But nobody ever got a NSF grant by calling their congressman.

[JonQ]

82. Sigh

you have clearly demonstrated you have no experience in this area. I'm sorry but you don't. You really shouldn't be trying to pretend you do. You've made a number of telling mistakes that show quite clearly to anyone who does have experience that you do not. It'd be about like you trying to claim to be a mechanic, then referencing having to change the headlight fluid. We're talking about pretty basic stuff.

And of course, you keep working around to the unenviable option of defending a lack of transparency (I'm not sure how you justify that to yourself because you've yet to justify it here).

[PVnRT]

109. So, was the NSF in on the conspiracy when Bush was in office?

You know, when his administration was scrubbing scientific reports for political reasons?

I suppose you were OK with that, since the scrubbed reports met with your preconceived conclusions.

[JonQ]

114. How is bush

acting like these guys are, acceptable? I oppose all politicizing of science, for whatever reason.

Do you have the intellectual honesty to do the same?

[PVnRT]

120. You're avoiding the question

Was the NSF in on the global warming conspiracy when Bush was when office? You like to keep throwing around this whole funding issue (never mind that many denialists are funded by groups that would benefit from less environmental regulation) - well, the NSF has been funding this stuff through multiple administrations, including Bush's. So, were they in on it then?

Please explain how government "benefits" from global warming being real and all of the attendant problems. They would save money and grief by simply denying it out of hand. You claim there's an agenda, then prove it.

[JonQ]

124. Big push was never from US based enterprises

it's always been a largely international occurrence. Hence, the CRU in europe is heading it up, and the major meetings have been in europe and asia.

Surely you don't think the US is the only country in the world?

"Please explain how government "benefits" from global warming being real and all of the attendant problems. They would save money and grief by simply denying it out of hand. You claim there's an agenda, then prove it."

Cap and trade, a massive expansion in government that would provide more tax revenues, more employees and more ways to reward/punish supporters/opponents.

Can you think of a time in history when a government has voluntarily turned down more money and more power? A few perhaps, usually following a bloody revolution. But not often.

You really don't see putting more money in the governments coffers as a reason for them to act?

[PVnRT]

131. You offer no proof, only conjecture

and bad conjecture at that.

"Cap and trade,"

Cap and trade will provide far more money to those companies selling credits and the firms managing the transactions. The government will get a small stream of cash from the abnormally low capital gains tax this country has.

"a massive expansion in government that would provide more tax revenues,"

A tax on what? Carbon? Such taxes will be going to clean up the mess that those who fund the research you like have left behind. Or does the government have a secret Caymans account no one knows about?

"more employees and more ways to reward/punish supporters/opponents."

More employees = more payroll. So, uh, yeah, whatever. As for the rest, it's pure paranoid right-wing bullshit.

"Can you think of a time in history when a government has voluntarily turned down more money and more power?"

How many tax cuts and spending cuts have we had since Reagan? Ever heard of BRAC?

[JonQ]

143. Not really conjecture

to anyone who has any understanding of politics.

Anyway, you are getting off topic.

Please explain how less transparency in global warming research is a positive thing.

[Nederland]

95. It can cost billions of dollars

According to your ridiculous principles, scientists running experiments with the Large Hadron Collider shouldn't have to release all their data because anyone wanting to reproduce their results should just go off and "build their own LHC.

I'm sorry, but that is idiotic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

158. Yes, that's right.

They can either build their own LHC, or wait for instrument time and do it themselves.

The obligation for reproducing the experiment is on the person who wants to reproduce it, not the original author.

[Nederland]

160. LHC scientists disagree with you

They don't believe the raw data from their experiments should be hidden. They believe they should be made availible to scientists all over the world, which is why they created this:

http://lcg.web.cern.ch/LCG/public/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

161. Not really.

For the LHC specifically, they've all pre-arraigned to share the data, but we're talking about theory, not practice.

[JonQ]

14. And since you are such a prolific reading of scientific journals

(I average about 2/day not amazing, but not too shabby, part of my job) could you post the full text of one of the major name journal reviews that you subscribe to where all relevant data is presented in the article (referring to MMGW of course).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Two per day?

No you don't.

I'm not going to post the full text, and if you were scientifically literate you'd understand why. But if you want a scientific paper involving global warming, with all the experimental details included, you can go ahead and look at this weeks Science. "Tracking the Variable North Atlantic Sink for Atmospheric CO₂. 326. 1391-93.

[JonQ]

25. Sorry, but yes, I do

part of being a grad student, it's expected. Lately I've been reading more (got a paper due!).

It's not really that hard, they average around 10 pages. You can read 20 pages per day can't you? (it's not even that scary, they usually have lots of pictures and charts to take up space).

And that paper you picked, bad choice. Only 4 pages. They present their conclusions. Not the raw data.

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post it here, most likely not as you have to pay for it (we get it free through the university). But they present their data in chart form, with the normalization done. Now they explain what they did to the raw data to get there, but the raw data is never presented. If you had reason to believe they had manipulated their raw data to get a particular answer you would not be able to prove or disprove it with just what was presented there.

That is why most have supplemental (as this one does, but in this case it includes only further explanation of the materials and methods and some of the statistical work, not tables of the raw data).

You did read the full article right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Hmmm, no you don't.

"Only 4 pages."

And if you were telling the truth, you'd know that's more than adequate for scientific appers.

"They present their conclusions. Not the raw data."

They present the relevant data and their conclusions. If you're skeptical about the raw data, you're welcome to write them and ask for it. Or reproduce the work yourself, and they've told you how.

[JonQ]

45. You misunderstood

as you tend to do. "only 4 pages" had nothing to do with the veracity of the paper. Watson and cricks was only 1 page and that revolutionized our understanding of genetics. It meant that I could read the thing in it's entirety fairly quickly and report back. Had you picked one that was say, 50+ pages then I wouldn't have been able to respond quickly. That's why it was a poor choice, you had an excellent opportunity to obfuscate and delay but did not take it. Not that the paper wasn't "long enough" as you seem to think.

"And if you were telling the truth, you'd know that's more than adequate for scientific appers."

Never said otherwise, your ability to read my mind appears to be somewhat diminished.

"They present the relevant data and their conclusions. "

Data you and they have decided is relevant. Not all the data.

"f you're skeptical about the raw data, you're welcome to write them and ask for it. Or reproduce the work yourself, and they've told you how."

Yes, that is the issue. So far many scientists are refusing to do exactly that. Here some instances are listed: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

So yeah, we seem to be in agreement. If you write and ask for the full data set and they tell you to piss off (in so many words) then we have a concern now don't we?

[JonQ]

47. And do you really think

that reading two papers per day is some impossible feat? I wasn't even bragging, just stating a fact. Actually my boss insists that I should be reading more.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Oh, it's entirely possible. I read three or four today.

I just don't think you do it.

[JonQ]

53. Well sure, if that's what you need to believe

not that it makes a bit of difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. JonQ, you're a global warming denier.

You shouldn't be expecting anybody to believe anything you have to say.

[JonQ]

58. In a few years

once all this has come out, you will be desperately trying to prove that you had been a skeptic all along. Hehe.

But I do appreciate how well you have demonstrated the typical hysterics viewpoint: everyone agrees with me, we have a consensus, but that requires ignoring everyone who doesn't, which is ok since they are deniers so they don't count! Perfect circular logic. No one disagrees with me because no one who disagrees with me counts.

I don't mind though. I have confidence in the scientific method, even if abused by certain individuals. Eventually all the facts will be known.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Now you're sounding like doomsday cultists.

2012 apocalypse theorists.

Oh, you're laughing at me now, I'll show you! I'll show you all!

No, JonQ. You'll always be embarassing yourself with this global warming denialist nonsense.

[JonQ]

63. ?

My predicting a lack of apocalypse makes me an apocalypse theorists? Who are predicitng our imminent demise unless action is taken immediately? Who has consistently declared that we will be suffering dire affects in the 90s, no early 2000s, no after 2010, no after 2020, and so on, constantly bumping the date back when their predictions failed to be met? You have a bad case of projection my friend.

"Oh, you're laughing at me now, I'll show you! I'll show you all!"

You could just buy a hummer and use more than one piece of toilet paper, apparently that will kill us all by 1990, no I meant 2000, no I meant 2010. That' hasn't happened yet? Ok, yeah by 2010.

"No, JonQ. You'll always be embarassing yourself with this global warming denialist nonsense."

It's not nonsense and you know it. That's why you're reacting with such childish rage.

[GoCubsGo]

51. A whole TWO papers per day?

Wow. Don't knock yourself out.

[JonQ]

55. Some people seem to think it is impossible

It works out to over 700 per year, well above average I'd say. Not that this really matters. I knew once I said that we'd have people coming out of the woodwork with "oh yeah, well I read over 200/day, so I win!". Typical. I know my statements are true, for everyone else, can't verify.

[GoCubsGo]

71. No. I don't think it's impossible.

I think it's shameful. Two crummy papers a day? That's all you can handle? You act like it's a monumental task. That's only 30 or 40 pages, including references.

[JonQ]

74. Like I said

I knew the moment I stated that people would try to claim they'd read hundreds, every day, for the last 60 years! The internet is great for unsubstantiated bragging.

Hey, if it's important to you to try to convince me that you are the greatest scientific mind on the planet, go ahead and try. But I don't think you will succeed.

[GoCubsGo]

80. Oh, please.

You come here and brag that you read two papers a day like it's some big feat, and then accuse me of bragging when I point out that doing so requires very little time and effort. What a joke you are. And, I don't really give a rat's ass what you think of my "scientific mind."

[JonQ]

83. So saying it's

"Not amazing" is bragging to you? Snicker. Wow.

Yeah, you've got the biggest dick when it comes to reading papers. This is so juvenile. Next you need to mention that your dad can beat up my dad.

All of this is obfuscation from the main argument: you are arguing in favor of less transparency. Please justify that somehow.

[GoCubsGo]

99. Hahahahaha!!!

Yes, you are being juvenile, not to mention grossly dishonest. When did I ever argue for less transparency? All I ever said was that if someone wanted to disprove something in an individual paper they could go ahead and repeat the experiment themselves. You are the one obfuscating, and your "I know you are but what am I?" tactics are beyond juvenile. That's all you have, because as Nederland pointed out, you have no idea what you are talking about, and that is obvious. You are not fooling anyone.

[JonQ]

102. Sigh

it's amazing you have time to post on here, what with reading every single paper published every single day.

:rofl:

So you think peer review works by saying "these are our results, don't like em? Do your own damn study, we don't have to share anything with you people". That's pretty funny.

And you are in the camp saying they shouldn't have to release their data, so yeah, less transparency.

"You are the one obfuscating, and your "I know you are but what am I?" tactics are beyond juvenile."

Yeah, except that I never did that. But thanks for playing!

[Rabrrrrrr]

104. Thanks, JonQ!

Your posts were some of the most hilarious stuff I've read in the last few days.

But, I better let you get back to reading those whole 2 papers you read each day! (though I will point out that the first time you mentioned how much you read, you said you read 2 JOURNALS each day, not two papers).

[JonQ]

107. Believe me

when I tell you I very much look forward to the backpedaling that will occur when this finally comes apart.

It was never global cooling, it was always global warming. It was never global warming it was always climate change. It was never climate change it was always . . . um . . . global cooling, haven't done that in a while have we?

So yeah, I'm really looking forward to the hysterics when that rolls around. Some will quietly slink away (as they've already started doing). Others will be unwilling to change and will cling to the old religion. I wonder how many will resort to violence?

[PVnRT]

110. Wow, you're full of right-wing talking points, aren't you?

The original paper on "global cooling" was produced in the late 1970s and was shown to be false after a lot of peer review and subsequent research. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that it's "global cooling" again, except possibly that a shutdown of the north Atlantic current would likely trigger another ice age.

No, you go on being the selfless martyr, fighting the System that's holding you down! You and Glenn Beck know the REAL story!

[JonQ]

117. RW talking point?

That's it, the best you've got? You left out paid big oil shill. As trolls go, you didn't do so great.

[PVnRT]

123. Let's see

Whining about the original global cooling stuff and saying that scientists can't make their minds up? Check.
Claiming that there's some kind of bullshit war coming from the evil tree-huggers? Check.
Claiming that global warming is basically a religion, like evolution? Check.

The only troll here is you with this unending nonsense.

[JonQ]

126. You really don't understand the debate

I'm afraid this is beyond you.

[PVnRT]

132. LOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the admission of defeat.

[JonQ]

135. And there it is

proof that you don't get it. You think the valid of science is tested through internet pissing matches. I don't.

[GoCubsGo]

105. That is EXACTLY what you are doing, loserboy.

It's amazing that YOU have time to post here. You claim you are a grad student, yet here you are, spouting lies and playing your childish games on a political board, instead of working your ass off on your degree like every other grad student out there. You are a fraud, and every time you post, you expose yourself even more. Like I said, you aren't fooling anyone. You want to keep up your game, go right ahead. Keep digging yourself in a little deeper.

[JonQ]

106. No need to get testy

simply because your religion is unraveling before your eyes.

Behold, the unquestionable science!



For some reason more adjustments had to be made (that appear to be in the exact same direction as the "global warming" trend") right at the same time they needed global warming to start.

If some master student were trying to defend this they would be torn to shreds by their committee.

The science is settled! Let there be no debate, now is the time for smarminess!

I really do not envy your position right now. It's about to get really awkward.

[GoCubsGo]

112. LOL!!!

You slap up some chart without providing its source or context, and you expect me to comment on it? Talk about "smarminess." Yeah, it's got me "quaking in my boots" right now.

[JonQ]

119. You could always do your own study

make your own chart, why should I have to provide my sources or relevant data to you? Just accept it as fact!

Oh wait, I can't do that.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

It's based on the raw data collected by the GHCN, compared to the corrected data they presented.

See, transparency, it's a good thing.

[GoCubsGo]

128. A blog?

Your source is a blog? You're kidding me, right?

[JonQ]

139. The data is there

what hasn't been destroyed, for anyone to look at. Of course what is not made available is exactly how they adjusted from the raw to corrected numbers, that they are keeping pretty close to their chests. And that chart gives a good indication why.


Do you believe graphs work differently depending on who is compiling them? You're free to do the research yourself, but you won't of course.

I would like to hear why the raw data and the adjusted differ so much, but only after a certain point in time. Looking at the code they used would be a good start, but they, and you, have decided we don't need to see that.

[bridgit]

129. Climate Change Fraud, they got charts too

http://climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5808-the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero

[GoCubsGo]

145. Yup.

Also a nice lesson in "How to spot a fraud."

[PVnRT]

116. Funny you didn't provide a source for that image

Fortunately, it's easy enough to find that it goes to another global warming denialist site.

If the post that this image has come from is accurate, why has not been submitted to scientific journals for review? Oh, that's right, the "big money climate scientists" are conspiring against you!

[JonQ]

121. It's based on

the raw data stored by the GHCN, which as you know is where the CRU gets most of their data, and the corrections published based on that data. Simple enough to verify.

I notice that all of a sudden you've decided posted all data is important, for a debate on a blog, with stakes of a well nothing. But not for a worldwide debate concerning trillions of dollars.

Why the double standard?

[PVnRT]

125. What the hell are you talking about?

1 - I haven't even voted in your poll
2 - I've said absolutely nothing about transparency one way or the other, save for ITAR issues downthread.
3 - I asked why it hasn't been submitted for peer review in a journal. That says nothing about "transparency."

So, answer the question. Or are you just going to keep doing your little dance?

[JonQ]

127. So are you in favor of transparency or not?

Should these scientists be expected to release their data and code? Yes or no.

Also, it isn't my poll.

[PVnRT]

133. Answer my question.

You've dodged it twice now. Answer it.

[JonQ]

137. Not really

it wasn't much of a question anyway.

I suggest you reread the emails that have been uncovered recently (I'm sure you've heard of it, big news item) as to way views skeptical of MMGW are rarely found in peer review journals dominate by MMGW proponents.

[Johonny]

35. Not all data is peer reviewable

There are black projects where you can not release your data no matter how much you want to. There are procedures for oversight of those projects, but often the public only has access to what their money was spent on many many years after the fact and the peer review can be lacking. Some scientists would welcome a relaxing of these restriction so they can join the rest of scientific community.

Do I really want to see all the bad "data" someone collected during an experiment? Do I have enough time in my life to shift through other peoples mistakes to get to the relevant work? God knows I don't. Granted over the years real value in data was thrown out because it was considered of little value by the researcher that collected it. But that information is vastly smaller than the pointless useless data people generated when conducting experiments. It's generally faster to generate your own data than to find a nugget in the rough shifting through someone else's disregarded data.

[JonQ]

40. If it can't be peer reviewed then it isn't science

and these aren't "black projects", this is data collected via public funds that has no need to be kept secret.

I have yet to see a valid argument against making all the data available. So far the closest is that it would be difficult and expensive. Um, we're using this data to set policy for the entire world, that would impact every sector of our lives. If it is less difficult and expensive than that I say go ahead and release it.

Seriously, what is the harm in making the data public? Who loses? If they have done nothing wrong then the scientists are exonerated (a win!) if they have then we get to know the truth and avoid an expensive and pointless boondoggle (a win!). So why should it be kept secret?

[Johonny]

97. clearly then

you believe a person that gets social security should have to inform you of every thing they buy with your tax money, same for medicare, the same for every tax credit. I want to know what you are doing with my money!

You make it sound like people get free money. You are stupid. To get money scientists have to write a grant. It gets reviewed. Then they have a few years to produce products. They get reviewed. Everything you buy over a certain dollar value gets tracked and audited. It never depreciates. There are lots of checks on your money.

There are valid reason not to release some information from top secret projects. If you don't understand this you are both stupid and insane.

Your posts will make me laugh all day. You neither understand science or the process. You have no clue what you are even asking for.

[JonQ]

98. Are you really trying to equate the two?

Come on, surely you know better.


"You make it sound like people get free money. You are stupid. To get money scientists have to write a grant. It gets reviewed. Then they have a few years to produce products. They get reviewed. Everything you buy over a certain dollar value gets tracked and audited. It never depreciates. There are lots of checks on your money."

Please, don't try to lecture me on how the grant review process works.

"There are valid reason not to release some information from top secret projects. If you don't understand this you are both stupid and insane."

Ah so the climate research funds are secretly being diverted to some james bond villian style weather controlling device that they government needs to keep secret! :rofl: Seriously, that's your argument for not releasing this, that their data is top secret and we can't know the levels of CO2 they found in ice cores? My god, no one can be that misinformed, not even you.

"Your posts will make me laugh all day. You neither understand science or the process. You have no clue what you are even asking for. "

As that's coming from you, someone who thinks social security checks are the same as research funds, I'll take that as a compliment. It is nice I suppose, to make a clown laugh.

[PVnRT]

111. ...and you've never heard of ITAR, then.

I work with destroying chemical weapons. Virtually everything we do is covered under that regulation, meaning we have to be very careful about who we send anything to. Peer review is done within the DOD.

Yet, according to you, because we don't issue everything to the public, nothing we do is "real science." I'm sure the UN's OPCW would be very interested in hearing that.

[JonQ]

130. Reread the poll question being asked

and see if it deals with chemical weapon disposal.

It references instead the specifics of the CRU proposed theory of MMGW. Nice try, really, at diverting the conversation.

[PVnRT]

134. You are the expert at diverting the conversation

Since you refuse to actually answer most of the questions posed to you.

[JonQ]

136. Still no rereading of the question being asked?

Still think its about chemical waste disposal, or whatever strawman you've moved on to now?

[bridgit]

92. That's true, the applied nature of the data isn't always 'peer understood' either...

Nor why access to it may be deemed limited for a host balanced reasons. The poll's q regarding the "CRU hack" was innocuous enough and we all agree with that kind of transparency which, again, I don't see anyone here arguing against especially where events such as the "CRU hack" are central - but this poll, however, led away very quickly to degrees of scientific transparency *in general* which is able to fly into the face of copyright and intellectual property and yes...

Who is funding and what are the various if any applications of scientific code and data

Associates of mine performing research at the UC level do so in their offices in their labs on campus and elsewhere, working from home, tele this/tele that, it's all already out there; but they're able to fly for an hour or so down to UCSD pull up a screen and there's their updated results and conclusions

Those systems speak to research facilities pretty much round the world and people involved with that data, on a peer level, understand when a newly configured piece of code floats past. They understand when methodologies or ethics have been called into question too

I'm not talking about left or right wing think tank laboratories agendas or sources of funding - but science. Pure Science has a clue about it's importance and it's perils. One of Pure Science' perils is to tip every card in it's hand in front of a riverboat gambler...

I'm not going to recommend Pure Science do that

[Traveling_Home]

7. Depends on Who pays for it!

Simple

[bbinacan]

9. Release all and let

the chips fall where they may. Why hide anything?

[Junkdrawer]

15. Arrest records and the juicy bits of any affairs would also be helpful...n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. If they get public funding, their methodology and data should be public knowledge. n/t

[JonQ]

19. I find it amazing that some people are actually arguing against transparency

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. I find it humorous that global warming deniers are pretending to be scientifically literate.

[JonQ]

26. Sorry, but right now it's the proponents

who are coming off as unscientific.

From people claiming that publicly funded scientists have no need to present anything to the public, to those who believe it is impossible to read 2 papers in a day, to those who believe every paper contains every detail of the research (including all raw data). The scientific illiteracy on this thread has been in the MMGW camp, not the skeptics (or actually not even that, just those who see no problem with transparency and have nothing to fear).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I'm reminded of Ben Stein's movie about Creationism.

Wherein he accuses scientists of intellectual dishonesty and not teaching both sides of the controversy.

[JonQ]

46. Haven't seen it

so can't comment.

Question: which side of this current debate is arguing for less transparency?

Typically, not always perhaps but the majority of the time, the side that is trying to hide data is more likely to be wrong than the side that is not trying to hide data.

Perhaps they have legitimate national security reasons to keep it under wraps, but I find that unlikely.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Agree. Strange. n/t

[timeforpeace]

62. At least the poll results above have changed dramatically as time goes on.

[yawnmaster]

28. real science requires others to attempt to repeat the experiment to either...

achieve the same results or not.
If the experiment is based on raw data, then the data should be released, if you are going to actually call it scientific.
If the procedure of the experiment requires code to be run, then it should be released, also.

Its not science, otherwise.

[baldguy]

31. Scientific papers should be subject to peer review.

Stealing data & private communications between researchers, then deliberately misconstruing & misrepresenting their conclusions does not constitute "peer review", though.

[bik0]

32. In 1974 Richard Feynman spoke about scientific integrity...

“… scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.”

“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.”

“In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. “

“The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest; it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will–including Wesson oil.”

“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right … although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work.”

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that.”

“I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is … bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.”

http://rogercostello.wordpress.com/category/richard-feynman/

[RoadRage]

41. Release Everything..

The way science moves forward is when experiments are redone by other scientists and hypothesis are reconfirmed, or denied based on new evidence.

Considering a majority of scientists are interested in finding out the truth, and not just disproving things for the sake of it, I say release everything. That way if something is "disprooved" then that scientists methodolgy will also have to be revealed.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. I'd like some transparency on how many of the leading Global Warming "skeptics" are funded by

the Petroleum Industry, personally.

[JonQ]

68. How about all scientists

release all their data, their funding sources/amounts and methodology?

Does that seem fair?

Somehow I suspect that if a paper came out disproving MMGW, and they refused to give anyone their data, people on here would take that as a sign that they had something to hide. Yeah?

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Oh, yes, it's all a big conspiwacy.

On the part of the entire scientific community, that is.

Certainly not the multi-trillion dollar global industry-- with profits at stake.

[GoCubsGo]

100. If you read all those papers you claim to read...

...you would know that the methodology and funding sources are in those papers. You want to know the amount of funding? Go look at the researchers' CVs, which are most likely on their web pages. Nobody is hiding anything.

[JonQ]

103. " Nobody is hiding anything"

Except for their codes, which they refused to release, and their raw data, which they have refused to release.

Come on, keep up. I can't be expected to replay the entire debate every single time.

Here, take a look at this and see if you can understand the concern:

[GoCubsGo]

108. Like I said...

If you actually read a scientific paper in your life, or knew anything about the process of getting a scientific paper published, you would know that the reviewers and editor know enough about the subject to spot fraud, regardless of whether or not they have raw data sitting in front of them. Doesn't your arm get tired from tossing around all those red herrings?

[JonQ]

113. How do you "spot fraud"

that involves the adjustments made to raw data when you don't have the raw data to compare it back to?

As someone who has read every paper ever written surely you know that they typically provide only the bare minimum amount of info necessary to get published, and reserve the rest for special requests. You must have seen in your vast literary experience, and your roles on the review commitees for both nature and science journals that very often you have to accept what they have stated as fact to be so because there simply is no way to review every bit of data imaginable. Which is why, as you already know, they review it for the validity of the paper, not the data, which explains why many peer reviewed articles that are published later turn out to be wrong or at best misguided. You know this, as many contradictory papers have come out (all of which you have read).

[GoCubsGo]

138. Nice try.

I never claimed to have read every paper out there, but I know how much you like to make things up. Just like your claim that "many peer reviewed articles that are published later turn out to be wrong" is a lie. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. And, yes, reviewers do consider the validity of the data when they review papers. They consider the validity of the statistical methods, and the interpretation of the data. As I said, if you actually read a scientific paper, you would know that. Can't wait to hear what kind of junk you are going to make up next...

[JonQ]

140. My gosh

your response indicates to me that not only have you not read every paper ever written, but I doubt you've read many at all!

"Just like your claim that "many peer reviewed articles that are published later turn out to be wrong" is a lie."

Articles come out contradicting the findings of previous articles all the time. Pathetic claim on your part. Next.

"And, yes, reviewers do consider the validity of the data when they review papers. They consider the validity of the statistical methods, and the interpretation of the data. "

All of which is meaningless if the original data was tampered with. They don't go to your lab and read through your lab notebook to make sure you haven't altered anything. So your statement is incorrect, in other words.

You're trying to make up a strawman and argue against him. How is that going for you?

You also have yet to explain how less transparency is a good thing.

[GoCubsGo]

141. I see that reading comprehension is not one of your better skills

I guess that's why you keep making stuff up

[JonQ]

142. To you

that is no doubt a witty argument, that completely proves the veracity of MMGW and glosses over any errors in their work.

[GoCubsGo]

144. You sure like to project your ignorance on other people, don't you?

Lies and distortions and "I know you are, but what am I?" It's all you have. And, you keep on dishing it out and proving my point. Do you really think people here take you for anything other than the obfuscating fraud you are?

[JonQ]

146. I'm not the one defending

a lack of transparency in research, you are. I'm not the one resorting to petty and childish attacks, you are.

You claim to be an expert on this but you've revealed through a number of casual errors that it's unlikely you've ever even taken a science course (above perhaps the required for non-science majors).

These aren't insults, this is the truth. You are defending scientists who refuse to divulge their "secrets". You are defending people who have been caught actively working to silence opposition. You seem to think you understand what is going on, or can fake it well enough but I'm afraid this is beyond you.

[GoCubsGo]

147. There you go again

Obfuscate and make stuff up and project your own fraudulence on me. It's all you have. Phoney.

[JonQ]

149. So no answer eh?

As to why you're defending what is essentially an impossible position to defend?

I don't blame you. It really can't be done. Of course that would argue for not putting yourself in that position in the first place, but live and learn eh?

[GoCubsGo]

150. Thanks again for proving my point.

Keep on obfuscating and making stuff up. You make it so easy.

[JonQ]

152. Obfuscation:

def; attempting to redirect a conversation back to the original topic.
Unfairly reminding someone of stances they had previously taken.



Courtesy of the GCGonline dictionary.

[GoCubsGo]

153. Funny, but I never took a stance either way

All I did was tell you how things are, not how you want to believe they are. Once again, you like and make stuff up.

[JonQ]

154. So what is your stance on this then?

I ask after you weigh in heavily in defense of the people who are pro-secrecy.

[bridgit]

148. If no one else understands, and you're the only one that does: then what is going on?

[JonQ]

151. I'm not the only one

and other people do understand.

Just not the folks I've been arguing with, they aren't very scientific, as we've seen.

Essentially they believe scientists, funded by the public, can and should be free to say "fuck off, we're right, don't ask us to show how we came to those conclusions".

I feel that as we are paying them, we should be free to see what they are doing (on top of the usual free exchange of information that should accompany any valid research).

I don't see how this is a controversial opinion to hold. But apparently many people are in the "keep it all a secret" camp.

[bridgit]

155. "Scientific Transparency", as mentioned above I have a problem with how quickly...

the matter in this simple little DU poll was led from "the hack" into scientific transparency *in general*, and if that's to be suggested - scientists may as well post their results with stick pins onto the community/information cork boards of supermarkets round the world...but that's not going to happen

Transparency ~

How much transparency is enough? Not me per se but allot of people like window shopping just fine, maybe especially round these holidays, and when you're shopping for a doggy you need to be able to see through the window like the song says, right? That's transparency too. But do you need to clean the window with, oh, I dunno, like-some: streak-less Windex, or Lysol with a Sham-Wow, all the way up and into the now-streak-less corners of the window (look quickly, nano particulates are already settling back down) to achieve "acceptable" transparency? Would a squeegee with a handle extension have been better? Or do you need just enough transparency to see the pooch sitting there tail thumping big smile drippy little tongue wide brown eyes saying somehow in return, "I'm a good dog!"

ClimateChangeFraud.com, however, is not here to buy a doggy in a window. They are here to obfuscate not only this subject but any subject that impinges upon their world of un-maturated fossil based commodities, technology, world economies and international finance and they have no intent to slow any of what they do down unless & until they see the last drop of crude oil coming down the last pipeline and a new technology to replace it

As pithy a subject as it is; it has much less to do with climate change for that matter, and even less to do with flatulent cattle in New Zealand. That's just smart ass shit that smart asses throw up if indeed not vomit - that's been a Limbaugh Hallmark for years now, but he makes no bones about it: the Global Warming peeps are here to end all capitalistic free market enterprise freedom liberty all the yada-yada stuff and so Limbaugh doesn't just understand; he knows why he does what he does. I think it's to our collective advantage we understand as well

I think these kinds of oligarchical, capitalistically reckless forces get a little chubby when they locate someone with enough smarts to tow their line. Fresh faced and semantically inclined, a little pat on a pointy head or two and a fresh diaper and off they go - heralding science as flawed if found - Nay! *discovered* - with one bad penny in a package of multidimensional funding and on behalf of people that believe any science/all science is skewed unless it supports dominion, endless war, oppression, economic world domination by less than a handful of people so that in short? There'll be no science today...

But that was the plan all along


^

^

^

^

^

^




edit: "not"

[Iggo]

89. I was gonna say "Yeah, sure, why not?"

But after reading those four educational sub-threads up there, I'm voting the other way just to piss that guy off.

[Cleita]

90. I think it would be great if you tell us what you think first. n/t

[Nederland]

94. Release all code and data (nt)

[moc]

91. This is already required for NIH funded projects with >500k/yr direct costs.

Sounds like a lot of money, but it's relatively easy to hit in my area of research (public health).

The question is not as easy as "to release or not release". There's the issue of how and who's going to pay the expense of providing the data in a form usable by other researchers. Addressing the latter is no minor expense, which is why, I think, NIH limits the requirement to projects with larger budgets.

There are also human subject protection issues. In our studies, we often collect videorecorded data of parent/child interaction. I don't think the actual data, the video, can be released without specific permission from the participant, something virtually impossible to obtain. I'm pretty sure only the resulting codes for the video data are included in public use data sets, not the raw video data itself.

[Overseas]

101. As soon as we get corporate transparency, sure.

As soon as polluters drop their multimillion dollar lobbying and PR campaigns I'll listen to them about being transparent.

Right now, hearing the outrage from the corporate sector that Heavens to Betsy, the scientists may have occasionally slanted the way their data is presented is laughable.

But the deniers have to wave around the purloined emails to distract us from the leak of The Danish Text

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

[liberal_at_heart]

115. Sadly trying to get funding from the government and private sector creates too much pressure

Scientists have to get funding from somewhere. If they can't get it from the government they seek it from the private sector. I think that too much pressure has been put on scientists to come up with results in just a few short years. In the past scientists just did research. They would build on the research that previous scientists had compiled. Finding answers using the scientific process can take decades or even centuries. But we have a different society now. We have a instant gratification society. Government, private industry, and even the public want answers and they want them now. Then when the scientists make mistakes people want heads to roll. All of a sudden instead of being about research it is about getting results quickly so they can get their next grant. We need to go back to when science was just science and we didn't demand results right here and right now or their funding is cut off. If we could get back to research oriented science then I just bet scientists wouldn't mind taking the time to provide all the data and codes involved in their research.

[CreekDog]

118. you forgot to say "from the 1980's"

:eyes:

[n2doc]

162. non specialists can do nothing good with the data

They are either too stupid, too blinded by ideology, or don't have the background knowledge to interpret data and complex models. Sorry to burst your bubble.