

Did New Zealand's NIWA also manipulate climate data? - yummyfajitas
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

======
ars
Any scientist who refuses to release all data, and exact methods of analysis
(suitable to allow someone else to reproduce it) should be utterly ignored.

Any conclusions reached - even in part - from data that has not been full
released should be ignored.

That said, is there any evidence of global warming?

I really do want to know - is there any evidence based on data that has been
fully released?

I fail to understand how not releasing data was ever tolerated. Isn't that the
hallmark of science? That someone else can reproduce your work? And if they
can't you are just a crank?

~~~
philipn
Yes. Try going to this website:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming>

and clicking on the images. The first two images have a large amount of detail
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png> ,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_R...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png))

Global warming is real.

~~~
ewjordan
I think the parent was really hoping for a link to the source data, along with
a rigorous explanation of how it was acquired. Too many of these graphs result
from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered data rather than direct results, and
quite often the methodologies have gaps that are left unexplained.

That's not to say that they might not be correct, but it would be nice to see
a link to the graph, the raw data, and a detailed explanation of every step in
the chain between measurement and graph.

~~~
lucumo
_> Too many of these graphs result from massaged/corrected/otherwise altered
data rather than direct results, and quite often the methodologies have gaps
that are left unexplained._

A publication generally has a page limit. Authors generally have a lot to say,
so they leave everything out that would be "common knowledge" amongst experts
in their field. After all, that's the target audience they're writing for. If
someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data, I have no
doubt it will be explained or given.

The problem is, the debate has been heavily politicised. Scientists aren't
politicians. If somebody with pre-conceived notions comes along, they will do
what any non-media-conscious person would do: tell them to get lost. Nobody
wants to be the target of a show-trial. Unfortunately, because of the heavy
politicisation, a strong "us against them" feeling has evolved, which makes
people regard honest criticism as suspect.

It's not right. However, since these are humans, it _is_ understandable.

The best thing we—people interested in an honest scientific debate—can do is
to back out of the political discussion and let scientists handle it. Let
sceptical scientists do their job. Let the debate be held in scientific
journals, not in newspapers and blogs.

~~~
bwd2
_A publication generally has a page limit_

I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't make any sense in the digital era. I can
download closing prices for nearly every traded US stock over its entire
existence in spreadsheet format from Yahoo for free. I downloaded binaries for
an entire operating system to run the computer that I'm typing this reply on
for free. "Page limit" is not a reasonable excuse for a scientist whose work
is funded by the public. I have no doubt that a researcher who was willing to
make data available in a digital format that is compatible with commonly used
tools such as R would be able to find an outlet willing to host this data for
public consumption. In fact, I would almost see this step as a requirement in
today's technological environment. How many extra pages would be needed to
cite a URL from which further details could be retrieved?

 _If someone with an honest intention asks about the methods or the data_

This statement makes even less sense than the last one. The scientific
soundness of data or method is unrelated to the intention of the analyzer.
Publishing full details of the analysis can only strengthen confidence in the
conclusion that has been reached. Only someone with reservations about the
conclusion would seek to obscure the steps in the process by which it was
reached.

~~~
lucumo
_> I'm sorry, but this statement doesn't make any sense in the digital era._

There are very few peer reviewed online journals. So everything posted online
is without the benefit of peer review. Writing exclusively online therefore
will not work; hence you're already page limited for one part of your
publication. You could write two papers, but a) the effort required is a lot
more and b) the longer one (for online publication) will still not be peer
reviewed.

And really, if any competent climatologist can understand and infer some steps
in your processing, why mention or explain them?

As for data, I don't think it will be very hard. It would probably require one
or two days of collecting though. However, I doubt the demand is very high,
among competent climatologists anyway. If it was, I would assume this would be
common practice.

 _> This statement makes even less sense than the last one. The scientific
soundness of data or method is unrelated to the intention of the analyzer.
Publishing full details of the analysis can only strengthen confidence in the
conclusion that has been reached. Only someone with reservations about the
conclusion would seek to obscure the steps in the process by which it was
reached._

If the requests for more information come from competent climatologists, I
would have no argument with you. But that's not the case; at least in those
cases we're hearing about. The requests are made by economists, politicians
and people who have stated—without data to back them up—in the past they don't
"believe" in climate change. Some even going so far as to call it a
conspiracy—it never was clear to me what the climatologists were conspiring to
do, though.

If the requests comes from competent scientists, you can rely on their
personal integrity. If it comes from people with no scientific background, you
can't. They have little to no understanding of the subject or the methods
involved. You can be quite sure that that won't stop them from trying to
interpret the data. Their conclusions are certain to be wrong, and—due to
their preconceived notions—are certain to call into question: the integrity of
the data, the integrity of the scientist, the integrity of his institute and
the integrity of all climatologists. Most of the time explicitly too!

Since those guys are opinion leaders, the only effect would be another news
article stating climate change doesn't exist and that it's all a big lie by
climatologists. An article based on the pre-conceived opinion of an
incompetent "user" of scientific data.

That doesn't strengthen confidence in the conclusion being reached; it weakens
it. People should listen to the climatologist in such a situation, but they
don't. They listen to the one who preaches the opinion they already had.

So refusing the data to those with ill intentions isn't based on reservations
about the conclusion—it's based on the reservations about the intentions of
the requester.

And all that is because people aren't playing "science" any longer, they are
playing "politics". It's a different game and it has different rules.

------
philipn
Additionally, this is a blog-clone of this article
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=962332> and all the same comments apply.

~~~
lucumo
It's interesting to see the differences in comments between that article and
this. The comments on this article seem to be "sceptic"-dominated, whereas the
other one seems to be dominated by "believers". I wonder what's causing the
difference.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Time-of-day

