

WSJ summary of climate research center data breach - nwatson
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

======
tokenadult
"In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers
asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the
upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific
journals that require them to make their data public."

That's all the more reason for all reputable journals to be united in
requiring that authors publishing in their journal be required to make their
data sets available to independent researchers, so only disreputable journals
publish articles by authors who engage in such research-slowing tactics.

------
jpcx01
This seems important because WSJ reporting on it, which will give the story
exposure to all the talk radio stations and fox news who will probably cause
some political ruckus over the next week, especially given the upcoming
copenhagen conference.

------
camccann
Seriously, how many posts about this do we _really_ need?

~~~
robotrout
I'm loving it, but I do get your point. This particular posting, however, is
especially relevant to me, as I had been noting with dismay, the silence of
the mainstream media on this. To have the WSJ acknowledging the event (which I
didn't know before this post) is reassuring.

~~~
camccann
Well, frankly, I think it's obnoxious.

I wouldn't mind if it had anything to do with actual _science_ , but this is
just political fluff to make people feel good about their preconceived
notions. HN's front page got spammed with it because it appeals to the
political groupthink here, and the scientifically-illiterate mainstream media
talking it up is only going to create more drama and less insight.

But I guess being more interested in science than ideology puts me in the
minority around here, so whatever. Time to collect more downvotes, I suppose.

~~~
robotrout
I would be interested in discussing, offline (email in my profile) your actual
knowledge of this issue.

The men and women that post and comment here are, in my opinion, among the
best and the brightest. To dismiss the opinions of some significant proportion
of them as "political groupthink" seems strange. Anyway, email me if you wish,
so as not to pollute your 97 day experience with HN by continuing this subject
here.

~~~
camccann
_Anyway, email me if you wish, so as not to pollute your 97 day experience
with HN by continuing this subject here._

Your condescension is duly noted. Regretfully, I think I must decline your
offer of a "discussion".

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_...I guess being more interested in science than ideology puts me in the
minority around here..._

When engaged and offered to take the conversation offline, replied with:
_...Your condescension is duly noted..._

The best way to try to cover up your tracks when you're doing X? Point it out
in other people. That always works!

If you're going to make generalizations about the entire board, people are
kinda stuck having to downmod you because it's obvious you've already made
your mind up and don't have a lot to offer to the conversation. It's an ad
hominem on anybody who might want to talk to you.

Not such a good move.

~~~
camccann
Okay, you're right.

No matter how annoyed I am with the discussion the least I can do is not make
things worse. My apologies.

------
sleepingbot
Isn't it a _bit_ strange that this comes just weeks before COP15 in
Copenhagen, the same summit the United States and China will not take
seriously?

Lobbyist already working on it, as I see.

~~~
cwan
Seriously? Let's assume that it was timed for maximum exposure and maximum
impact. Let's also ignore the fact that many oil lobbyists are now for a
climate pact so that they can make billions off the trade of carbon credits.
Don't you see an issue with the underlying substance of the emails if they
turn out to be true?

I find it remarkable that there are so many people here who would argue
against accountability - especially when public funding and the public
interest is involved (per your previous comment, accountability and
transparency isn't just for banks). If these emails turn out to be true, if
anything this shows that these scientists are not disinterested empiricists
but have activist agendas. But this also doesn't mean that they aren't right.
The issue could be solved by publishing their data sets and code for their
models for public scrutiny and yet they do not - despite being largely
publicly funded. Do you not see a problem with this?

