Bishop Hill Fred Pearce on scientific data
Dec 1, 2011 Climate: McIntyre Climate: other FOI Fred Pearce has written an article about availability of scientific data for Index on Censorship magazine. A Mr McIntyre is mentioned frequently.
The fuss over climategate showed that the world is increasingly unwilling to accept the message that “we are scientists; trust us”. Other people want to join the scientific conversation. Good scientists, interested in finding truth, should want to encourage them, not put up the shutters. The wider world instinctively knows to distrust those in all walks of life who reject openness. As McIntyre put it recently, “probably no single issue damages the reputation of the climate science community more than the refusal to show the data that supports their work”. There should, for the good of science as well as public discourse, be a presumption in favour of open access.
This is very definitely a read the whole thing article.
Bishop Hill
There is a related debate here.
Join Index on Censorship for ‘Data Debate: is transparency bad for science?’, a panel debate to launch the new issue of Index on Censorship magazine, ‘Dark Matter: what’s science got to hide?’
Scientific data is more freely available than ever. But does the push for openness help or hinder science?
Speakers include Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, George Monbiot, Guardian columnist and Baroness Onora O’Neill. Jo Glanville, Editor of Index on Censorship, will chair.
Reader Comments (34)
You are spot on, Bish. Pearce's piece is a "must read."
Perhaps our political "elite" will consider Pearce's conclusions?
Don't hold your breath.
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6
We mustn't forget that Phil Jones and the Team aren't dealing with fusty old facts. Nothing to do with "science"!
These are the Mysteries of the cAGW religion and only those of the True Faith can be allowed to gaze upon them!
It will interest to see the position Monboit takes , at a guess there should be freedom except when keeping things secret 'benefits the people ' defined as when it suits the outlook of Monboit and Co
I really like Mark Walport. Only met him the once, at the Royal Society do on open science at the Festival Hall in June, with Paul Nurse and Geoffrey Boulton, no less. I liked what he said (as Doug Keenan did too, and said publicly) and I liked him when I talked to him, despite him saying that Doug and I were 'quite wrong' to be climate sceptics. (This was said without any qualification - as if the differences between Doug and me, which I know exist, were already processed and made no odds. It's a strange thing. We were lumped together and we had to lump it.)
But even so, I really liked Mark, not least because of his attitude when I mentioned malaria and DDT, where he seemed sympathetic to my suggestion that more open science would have allowed African leaders to make much better decisions for the children of the poorest - on other words, to save lives. I believe the guy cares, both about science and about real people. We should hope that he begins to see the climate area differently in the Climategate 2 era.
The Shechtman case is very interesting, especially the bit (which I found on wikipedia) where two-time Nobel winner Linus Pauling called Shechtman a quasi-scientist.
Presumably this was because he didn't do things proper scientists do, like fiddle their data to agree with the hypothesis, delete inconvenient findings, and conspire to suppress publication of opinions with which they disagree.
I shall attend the debate. Wonder if the Monbiot groupies will show up as usual?
I'll also be there Maurizio. Fancy getting something to eat afterwards? And anyone else?
Not sure Richard...I have heard all over the internet that climate skeptics are evil sinners and prostitutes, why would I want to be seen eating with them /sarc
ps shall we wear a white armband in the name of freedom?
I presume Fred Pearce is in the social and intellectual whirl of the left (since he works for The Guardian), and of climate change alarmists (I guess the two groups are not congruent) - some of whom will count him as one theirs (e.g. in 2009, with regard to an Australia without emissions cuts 'there is a real risk of the entire nation becoming uninhabitable'. is said without any sense of irony or, for that matter, common sense in http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism). Therefore it is commendable that he is willing to defend, quite lucidly and accurately as far I can see, one of the arch-devils routinely castigated by his comrades. Fred has spotted that McIntyre is in fact a very reasonable and fair-minded man. He may also have spotted that he has been relentless in his investigations, and very successful indeed at exposing shoddy analyses. Perhaps his very success is now so apparent that abuse of him has now peaked, being seen, now, as counterproductive by the thought-leaders of the left? Even Mark Lynas got it earlier this year: 'And why – when confronted with this egregious conflict of interest and abuse of scientific independence – has the response of the world’s green campaigners been to circle the wagons and cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him. Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’. (see: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/).
The Mills of God do indeed grind slowly, but at least we are seeing some grinding going on, if not yet the gnashing of teeth, renting of raiments, and howls of remorse that we the public might feel we deserve from the 'climate alarmists' and their willing helpers.
Surely ALL scientists are sceptics? True scientists will even be sceptical of their own work, and will look forward to it being peer-reviewed, as others try to pick fault with it. Naturally, they would prefer it to be faultless, however, they should also like any faults to be highlighted, so that more accurate information may be obtained.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend this debate but, had I been, I would have asked Baroness O'Neill (a philosophical heavyweight if ever there was one) if she intends handing back her honorary FRS: and if not, why not? Maybe RD or MM could oblige!
Maurizio, it's often tax collectors and prostitutes that are mentioned together - but surely the other side is better on new wheezes for tax collection? Colour me confused.
Whatever, I'll be wearing my white rose of resistance - or failing that I'm 6ft tall, wear glasses and laugh at inappropriate moments. I'm sure we'll find each other.
"If McIntyre eventually gets the data, could it undermine the case that man is warming the world? Certainly not; that is independent of past natural variability."
-is that true?
I believe that Pearce deserves more respect and trust than other science journalists, but his article is really two in one and the two are on separate topics. He discusses McIntyre's attempts to get data from the team and he discusses the very broad issue of public access to scientists' data. I would have preferred that he stay with the topic of McIntyre. Because he did not, my guess is that many readers were surprised when they reached the penultimate paragraph:
"McIntyre, meanwhile, is still hunting. He believes CRU researchers using tree rings to unpick temperatures in past eras may have been cherry-picking their Siberian logs to help sustain the argument that recent decades are warmer than anything in the past 2,000 years. He cannot be sure, because they are still refusing to hand over their full data sets. CRU’s justifications have a familiar ring. Disclosure could do “financial harm” to the university by reducing its “ability to attract research funding”. Really?"
FOI and other issues aside, stonewalling on matters of critical importance to the public remains successful.
In what ways is Freedom-of-Expression the same as Freedom-of-Information?
Is freedom assumed?
Wellcome Trust, George Monbiot, Guardian columnist?
Surely a joke? 1st lot of emails and he was outraged (I am sure we all remember his Guardian outrage!) and then he got involved with an internet site setting trolls onto blogs such as this!
The man (!) is not worthy of any position on any panel!
I recall that Louis Pasteur fiddled the books to get the results he required to support his preconceived ideas on at least two occassions and lied about the fact. This was uncovered only in the late 20th century. If known at the time his results on rabies at least may never have gotten published. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, science is practised by humans rather than saints. It is certainly a thought it would be desirable for all scientists to keep uppermost in their minds and to practise a high degree of sceptism about their own work as much as that of others.
Bish
Does one really have to sign up and 'sign in' in order to see the discussion you reference? I'm sort of sick and bored of this or that site demanding my, admittedly fake, often, ID - the imposition of having to lie is beyond my pale, even!
On topic
The wind is a tidy mam: it will sweep
The leaves from our hats, the gutters and the back
Gardens. And then the rain! I watch, whilst sitting
On a denounced Morecambe bench, the 'political'
Non actors decide my fate when their fate has so assuredly
Been designed. The sea, the grey, blue and green sea
Rages in and out as it has for many ages before.
Politics is petty and beneath it. The Earth is old,
So beyond old, but vital and alive. There is nothing wrong.
What people must realise is the background. In 1988, Hansen's apocalyptic predictions seemed fine because fast warming at the end of an ice age appeared to coincide with CO2 so high feedback was plausible; Hansen's 4.2K climate sensitivity.
However, in 1997 it was shown that CO2 rose 600 years after T. Some questioned cloud albedo effect cooling supposed to hide the Aarhenius' 'back radiation'.
There were two other tracks - find the real cause of delta TSI amplification; devise hockey sticks to justify high amplification from present data. We now know the tree-ring hockey stick was a sophisticated fraud. We do not know the the temperature data hockey stick may have been fraud until we see the data and corrections. The third outcome, losing data means having to withdraw papers.
AR3 and AR4 were fraudulent, the former the hockey stick, the latter the absence of experimental proof of 'cloud albedo effect' cooling and NASA claiming fake 'surface reflection' science justified its claim that polluted small droplet clouds have high albedo when it's rain clouds..
It gets worse: in 2007, it was shown that warming of the Southern Ocean deeps started 2,000 years before any significant atmospheric CO2 rise. The Antarctic ice pack and high level southern hemisphere glaciers retreated; major non CO2-GW regional warming.
Other work showed similar events 35-50 ky previously and phytoplankton blooms. CO2-GW is a minor player in recovery from ice ages. The real cause is biofeedback from phytoplankton. Present cloud physics is wrong. The same explanation applies to the Arctic freeze-melt cycle now ending with North Atlantic OHCs now falling.
The Marxists have been protecting this new Lysenkoism for far too long. CO2-GW is very low, No professional physicist or process engineer can accept 'back radiation'.
Surely ALL scientists are sceptics? True scientists will even be sceptical of their own work, and will look forward to it being peer-reviewed, as others try to pick fault with it. Naturally, they would prefer it to be faultless, however, they should also like any faults to be highlighted, so that more accurate information may be obtained.
Dec 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent
I agree. 'Wrong' is a big boys' word*, and cruel. The members of Team Toddlers don't like it. Personally, I have usually learnt more in a short time from being shown to be wrong, than in decades of being right; one has to shore up the collapse.
*adding "and girls" spoils the flow.
Pete H - what website are you referring to, with Monbiot and the trolls?
Sorry to interfere Maurizio, but I believe he's referring to the aptly named CACC. Which sends out emails to all those registered, mostly deniers, with an alert that a named sceptic has written something on his/her blog so they can marshall the forces of the warmists to attack the blog. The articles aren't checked to see if they are about climate change, so we could be having a discussion on oregami and that would be flagged to their imaginery army of attack dogs.
It's an indication of what life will be like should the enviromentalists get control. Unnecesary, incompetent and ineffective in equal measure.
Pearce: "He [McIntyre] is not even a climate sceptic."
Oh that old chestnut. In which case he's not got a problem agreeing with him in his article. Simples.
"I recall that Louis Pasteur fiddled the books to get the results he required to support his preconceived ideas on at least two occassions and lied about the fact. This was uncovered only in the late 20th century..."--Dr K.A. Rodgers
A lot about Pasteur was
"discovered"invented in the 20th Century by woo-woo cult scientists, including his "deathbed confession" that he didn't believe in germ-based infections." Can you cite a reliable source for this "fiddling"?Dec 1, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Richard Drake:
What a great idea for identifying us! I think I shall take the opportunity of wearing a white rose whenever possible. When people ask me why, I shall be happy to tell them: 'I am resisting. I don't mind getting ever so slightly warmer'.
Fred Pearce has moved a considerable distance since the days immediately after the first email release when Robyn Williams of the ABC Science Show led him gently down the path of "oh its just all normal scientific discourse". Nothing in it at all. I believe that interview was fairly influential in how MSM here covered, or didn't cover, the story.
Consider this. If the Crown wants to prosecute a suspect, it must produce evidence that must be substantiated and withstand some challenge. If a pharmaceutical company wishes to launch a new drug, it has to do more than just produce some data that the drug does the business and no mischief. If must demonstrate the testing procedure, the test results. Then the results normally have to be replicated in independent clinical trials.
So why should we accept the evidence of a "science" when it makes up its own procedures, and does not show how its conclusions were arrived out? We have things back to front. If there is no data and methods of arriving at the conclusions then the "science" should be downgraded to personal opinions.
Fred Pearce related climategate emails:
5152.txt
0654.txt
5266.txt
2887.txt
1414.txt
3973.txt
1736.txt
2576.txt
4664.txt
5047.txt
3991.txt
2630.txt
Fred emerges from these interactions in stark contrast to the BBC shills. He appears to be after the story and facts, and asking for corroboration on many occasions. He apparently believes the warmist line - but is mainly interested in reporting facts and both sides of the discussion. A journalist.
Interestingly, 3991.txt contains an indication that ever straightforward Hulme was accusing others of not being forthcoming with their data (!) and that Pearce asked for corroboration: 'any ideas you have about standing up the cartel charge. How did it manifest itself at the recent meeting? What specific data have you been refused access to?'
I wonder if Hulme considered submitting an FOI request?!
ManicBeancounter,
Exactly. If your experiments/methodology/analysis/results cannot be reproduced then it isn't science. Your comparison with the introduction of new drugs is an excellent argument which, if you don't mind, I will be using in future.
SJ
"If McIntyre eventually gets the data, could it undermine the case that man is warming the world? Certainly not; that is independent of past natural variability."
From a human point of view, Pierce's article sounds like a rerun of Gorbachev's call for 'glasnost' in the 1980's Soviet Union. The argument then, of course, was for the loosening of a different (but related) tyranny-of-the-fixed-conclusion. Pierce might be able to recognise that the idea of Communism - like Warmism - does little more than stupefy its adherents... rendering them incapable of intellectual exchange. The resulting situation, I think, is hugely frustrating not only for an idea's opponents but for those (otherwise clever) people who have driven themselves up a mental cul-de-sac by clinging to it (a lot of the short-tempered, withering cynicism from the AGW camp might be down to their simply having nothing more they can allow themselves to say).
Gorbachev had convinced himself that the grand Marxist idea would survive being opened up to a broader, more inclusive, intellectual inspection and challenge. Subsequent events quickly proved him wrong. It's quite likely that the Klimatbureau clique are well aware of the same dangers.
BTW - I found it very disappointing that in later decades Gorbachev jumped on the global warming bandwagon. I guess the universal praise he received for his earlier bravery left him addicted to noble causes.
The Marxists have been protecting this new Lysenkoism for far too long. CO2-GW is very low, No professional physicist or process engineer can accept 'back radiation'.
Dec 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered Commentermydogsgotnonose
The last I checked the emails there were more men of faith among climate scientists than there were Marxist revolutionaries.
Here's an odd message from Fred Pearce to Mike Hulme: 3991.txt
It seems that Hulme has been complaining to Pearce about having been refused data, and Pearce is looking to confirm the facts of the story.
Anyone know the context to this?!
I don't really give a damn if transparency makes the science better or worse. I don't care if it makes scientists' jobs easier or harder. For me, it is a simple matter of basic human rights. If the government intends to act based on information/evidence/science/whatever in a way that will interfere with people's rights (life, liberty, property), the people should have the right to examine and cross-examine that evidence. In the USA, our constitution gives the accused the right to confront his accuser, in essence the right to cross-examine the evidence. This is simply a matter of basic fairness.
Secret evidence is the stuff of totalitarian states. Obviously, that has a lot of appeal to socialists, watermelons and climate alarmists, but most of the rest of us have an affinity for freedom and democracy.
Maurizio: I'm going to be there in half an hour as planned but sadly I've got somebody I need to speak to at length afterwards for business. My mobile in (44)7906 768867 if you want to text me, if by any chance you see this, so we can sit together.
Monbiot's written an ace article on nuclear power today from what I can see, ending:
He could have chosen a worse theme with the debate happening tonight.