

A Summary of the Great CRU Data Hack Emails - miked
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

======
jacoblyles
Is this evidence that Global Warming is a Hoax? No. And commentators that are
attempting to respond to that point are obviously setting up a straw man for
political purposes (hi Nate Silver!). What we have here is blatant evidence of
scientists behaving in a closed, secretive, political, and _unscientific_
manner. And that ought to worry people. I am frankly shocked that some are
trying to brush this away as "boys being boys". In what universe is this
acceptable behavior?

This is not a call to abandon global warming research. This is a call to shine
a little sunlight on it, open up data sets and source code to the public, and
get politics the hell out of our science. We need to rethink the standards we
hold science to in the modern world.

~~~
jeremyw
I'm struck that code/data openness is an interesting point in the history of
science. On one hand, how can we be in 2009 and still be having this argument?
Most fields of science don't require this dissemination. On the other hand,
it's amazing the species has progressed to the cusp, where we realize baring
your soul to the criticism of all benefits everyone. The transparent society
cometh.

------
patio11
A reoccurring them seems to be "I would rather delete this data than let it be
publicized due to a [Freedom of Information Act] request."

If I had an _abundance_ of charity in me, I would say he's a pompous git who
can't stand the thought of The Enemy winning even a single centimeter against
him. The uncharitable explanations all rhyme with fraud.

~~~
antonovka
If I had a persistent gadfly like Stephen McIntyre who would use every
opportunity to twist my data and words to his own political ends -- and the
media accordingly -- I might also behave in such an untoward manner regarding
the release of data and internal communications.

I find the theft of internal communications abhorrent, the politicalization of
the issue uninteresting, and I seriously doubt there's any real science to be
gleaned from this entire sophomoric debacle.

~~~
jacoblyles
How dare he ask for data series and attempt to reproduce analyses on his blog!
How dare he uncover faults and discrepancies which are subsequently
acknowledged in published research! If science and data are not interpreted by
the right people, how can we be sure that the world is getting the right
message?

I can't believe people would defend deleting data rather than responding to a
FOI request. Well, actually, I can. You just did. Which is sad.

~~~
antonovka
He has a clear political agenda. He's not an independent scientist (he's not
even a scientist).

What possible good can come of interacting with someone who -- in addition to
being grossly underqualified -- has a consistent history of applying a
political agenda without fail to their "science"?

This is the equivalent of Fox News factual reporting. Sometimes they get the
facts right, but that doesn't mean they aren't twisting them.

~~~
jacoblyles
So who does have a right to look at the data, assuming we first disqualify
anyone that antonovka thinks has the wrong political opinions? Isn't the
scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses? These emails
make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct" political agenda.

~~~
antonovka
If Stephen McIntyre is all about openness and taking advantage of the
abhorrent disclosure of internal communications, why doesn't he follow suite
by posting all of his personal e-mail correspondence, unedited for external
review?

I'm sure there are more than a few gems.

 _Isn't the scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses?_

Yes, but when someone applies such a strong political ideology to twisting
those analyses, how do you propose scientists respond?

Climate change has been so politicized by unqualified ideologues that I can
hardly blame scientists for wishing to defend themselves from the worst of
them.

If anything, these e-mails demonstrate that the data _IS_ shared independently
evaluated, but that the community has established political defenses to deal
with political -- not scientific -- opponents.

To do otherwise would be naive. Complex topics fall easily to those who would
politicize them.

 _These emails make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct"
political agenda._

No, they demonstrate a clear interest in defending against the attacks of a
very specific set of ideologues.

As someone who has had to defend engineering projects and people from angry
corporate politics, I don't envy these climate change scientists in the least,
and I certainly don't begrudge them their defensive positions.

------
crux_
Thought experiment: What would internal correspondence look like in
evolutionary biology circles if the intelligent design movement had the
resources of those who seek to refute the man-made climate change hypothesis?

For a taste of what they already deal with:
<http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair>

Thought experiment continued: What if the intelligent design movement is
right, and the theory of evolution had subtle flaws that were kept under
wraps? Would the hypothetical internal correspondence be different in any way?

All this release does is shine the light on the inevitable politicization of
the process; it says nothing about the conclusions. (The sausage-making
process doesn't necessarily make them wrong -- or right.)

~~~
jeremyw
Point taken. But the opposition (in any game) plays a critical role in
disrupting safe methodology and keeping data/rules honest.

Note IPCC reports have substantially lowered earlier predictions and findings
have more weight. The science is better for the effort to "prove it."

~~~
crux_
The issue would be that the intelligent design people are playing the game of
politics while evolutionary biologists are playing the game of science. (This
should be mostly uncontroversial, I hope ...)

This may or may not be the exact same situation with climate science, but I
don't think think many would dispute that at least a significant portion the
opposition to global warming is purely political.

At that point, what paths are left besides losing the game or entering the
politics/PR arena as well? The science has suffered as a result, not been
strengthened; the most damning excerpts are evidence enough of that.

~~~
jeremyw
Errors are errors. It doesn't really matter from what source they are
discovered. It's important for future work that they be eliminated.

The number of times I been able to talk to a climate scientist is few, but
always full of hedging. It's a young science and predictions are always
difficult (to say the least.) Scientific certainty is a sham. The best bet is
to consider near-term action an insurance policy against potential outcomes.

~~~
crux_
I don't agree with your premise that any opposition is always a net benefit.
Do you really believe that the intelligent design movement is making the
science of evolution stronger or better?

(Please don't misread this: I do believe that climate science needs and
benefits from skeptics, dissent, and alternative theories. I just don't
believe that any opposition is good opposition, and in particular I believe
that _political_ opposition makes for worse science.)

~~~
jeremyw
I made no such point.

------
robotrout
My favorite comment ...

    
    
        The used car salesmen must be pleased that a 
        lower form of life has been identified.

