I Pit the Hadley CRU and the jerks that hacked their emails.

[intention]

@elucidator

See, here’s the thing, and its kind of a Doper esthetic. There’s a rather nasty rhetorical trick which you employed, which is to challenge your opponent to Googleslog and ferret out information to suit your demands. “Well, show me a list of left-handed third basemen who were not Episcoplian!” Legal, but stinky. Shows a weakness of character, a desire to “win” an argument more compelling than the desire to clarify an argument.

Kimstu took up the challenge, and in my estimation, did a solid, workmanlike job. Not as good a job as I might have done, but then I’m lazy and easily…ooh, shiny! Where was I? Right, right, workmanlike, solid, definitely worthy of the effort. Which we recognize was almost certainly tedious.

But its an effort that honors us, gives us face, you included. It makes the statement of trust that the poster believes the effort is not in vain, puts enough trust in us Dopers to make such an effort, assured of a fair hearing, or at least a loud one.

You made demands and your demands were honored. The probability that Lil’ Kimstu thinks you’re stuffed with whale dreck doesn’t enter into it, the effort was made in an entirely honorable and straightforward fashion.

Your response disdains such honor, and your purported reasons wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of a retarded chihuahua. (We didn’t all just fall off a Vinyl Turnip truck, you know, we’ve seen weasels before, we know their habits, we’ve stepped into their spoor…)

No. its not a Big Hairy Ass Deal, certainly not illegal, just as certainly not against any Board rules. Its an esthetic, as I said. And an insight into character, in this instance, unflattering.

Well, you made one valid point. I’m sure you know the habits of weasels. As to the rest, whatever. If I haven’t answered every single point in the thread in question in the next week or so, bust me then. It’s been about 32 hours so far, I’ve posted an answer to part of the questions, I’ll get to the rest. Patience, Grasshopper, someday you will understand more than just the private mating habits of weasels …

[intention]

@elucidator

So you have loads of time to pursue the crucial issue of the amount of secretarial staff/grad students available to scientists, yet somehow cannot find the time to answer substantive criticisms of your opinions?

Nope. I’m countering someone’s claim that the reason the FOIA requests were denied is that the poor overworked scientists didn’t have time to respond to them. Nice try at deflecting attention from the real issue by pretending to misunderstand it, though …

[intention]

From the University of East Anglia, which houses the CRU from which the emails were hacked:

Guidance for staff

5 key facts that all staff should know about Freedom of Information

The Act gives everyone both in and outside UEA a right of access to ANY recorded information held by UEA

A request for information must be answered within 20 working days

If you receive a request for information which mentions FOI, is not information you routinely provide, is unusual, or you are unsure of, you should pass the request to your FOIA contact or the Information Policy and Compliance Manager

You should ensure that UEA records are well maintained and accessible to other staff, so that they can locate information needed to answer a request when you are not there

As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional

[elucidator]

East Anglia has guidelines! Well, damn! Look, I may need a week or so to absorb the implications of this bombshell revelation…

[Blake]

elucidator, you really aren’t doing yourself any favours with that his tactic of avoiding others’ criticisms by misrepresenting them.

The issue isn’t that East Anglia has FOI rules for staff. The issue is that we now have evidence that the staff were made fully aware of those rules and broke them anyway.

[ivn1188]

@GIGObuster

illegally obtained information (the only exception is when officers of the law are involved) is tossed out by the courts and other organizations . . .

No it isn’t. Illegally obtained information is fine to use in a court case, unless the person who obtained it is an agent of the state. I don’t know if you just lost track of that sentence, but you have it exactly backwards.

Your example of McDermott isn’t apt, because he got in trouble for violating the ethics rules of the legislature. The tape in question was never entered nor relevant as evidence – only the fact of his leaking it to the press was relevant.

I also don’t know what the heck you are talking about with the FOIA business. FOIA requests can encompass pretty much anything, and it’s a straightforward business. “The courts” are not going to give a shit one way or another where he got the idea to ask for the emails.

[intention]

Phil Jones, January, 2008, on the proper guideline that should be used to determine whether taxpayer funded information is subject to FOIA requests from plebians like me …

I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from
March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of
grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can
change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at
NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data,
mainly because of McIntyre).

This is of a piece with his famous reply to Warwick Hughes back in 2005, when Warwick asked for the CRU data:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

This perfectly encapsulates Phil Jones’ misunderstanding of how science works. One scientist makes a claim, and other scientists try to find something wrong with it. That adversarial system is the heart and soul of science. And remember that Phil is the Director of CRU, one of the most important and prestigious climate study centers on the planet. Like the old saying goes,* “A fish rots from the head.”, *and in this case the rot seems to have spread to far too much of the rest of CRU.

[Blake]

Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?

Indeed. The hide of the man. Imagine, a scientist trying to falsify an hypothesis by examining the data.

[sleestak]

@Squink

I see, I’m out to get him.
Yes, that’s it!
There’s no point in talking to you if you’re going to cop that sort of attitude.
I’ve little doubt the Hadley people ran into similar when the Republicans decided they didn’t like where climate science was heading; very unpleasant, and not worth encouraging.

Actually, it does appear that you totally misunderstood me. Whether or not is was on purpose I do not know.

The point is that any scientist who push a theory but holds back the data that theory is based upon isn’t doing his job correctly.

You may find this to be interesting reading.

Cargo Cult Science.

Feynman, were he alive, would flip over the crap that the AGW scientists are pulling.

In summary, the idea is to try 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.

Slee

[GIGObuster]

@ivn1188

No it isn’t. Illegally obtained information is fine to use in a court case, unless the person who obtained it is an agent of the state. I don’t know if you just lost track of that sentence, but you have it exactly backwards.

Perhaps you missed the recent supreme court decision:

Supreme Court OKs Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence

But yes, I have to grant that if emails are considered plain letters then the items can be admitted, but IIRC the judges will still ask about the relevance of that evidence, yes emails can be a part of a FOIA request, but the Bush administration demonstrated that the target should be specific or the owners of the emails do not need to answer to the FOIA, there is also the issue that most of the stolen emails were supposed to be private and that also puts limitations to FOIA requests. So far the malice part that would be applied to the accused is coming from the robbers and the cherry picker email quoters.

@ivn1188

Your example of McDermott isn’t apt, because he got in trouble for violating the ethics rules of the legislature.

IMHO it is becoming an ethical issue, and I don’t think the officers or entities that permit a FOIA will ignore the controversial nature of the request.

@ivn1188

The tape in question was never entered nor relevant as evidence – only the fact of his leaking it to the press was relevant.

Like I think also this case will turn out. It seems to me that the ethics panel decided to give a pass to Newt because of that leak.

@ivn1188

I also don’t know what the heck you are talking about with the FOIA business. FOIA requests can encompass pretty much anything, and it’s a straightforward business. “The courts” are not going to give a shit one way or another where he got the idea to ask for the emails.

I was also not quite correct on that, it is not the courts but the officers at the FOIA that will give a shit. And I do not think the deniers have a good reason to demand FOIA requests for this.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

Phil Jones, January, 2008, on the proper guideline that should be used to determine whether taxpayer funded information is subject to FOIA requests from plebians like me …

This is of a piece with his famous reply to Warwick Hughes back in 2005, when Warwick asked for the CRU data:

This perfectly encapsulates Phil Jones’ misunderstanding of how science works. One scientist makes a claim, and other scientists try to find something wrong with it. That adversarial system is the heart and soul of science. And remember that Phil is the Director of CRU, one of the most important and prestigious climate study centers on the planet. Like the old saying goes,* “A fish rots from the head.”, *and in this case the rot seems to have spread to far too much of the rest of CRU.

Back in October the contributors to Real Climate checked on that and I have to agree with their posts:

RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)

Philip Machanick says:
12 October 2009 at 5:33 PM

Another beat-up doing the rounds: CRU is being accused of destroying the raw data on which their published temperature numbers are based. Search for “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” and you will find this all over the denialosphere. This arose out of New Zealand denialist (living in Australia) Warwick Hughes asking after the original data, and getting this response from Phil Jones in 2005. If Jones said this, it’s a bit unfortunate though you can see where he’s coming from. The two problems with releasing the raw data are that limitations on disk space in the 1980s meant it could not all be kept, and much of the data was released to CRU under limited proprietary licenses. There’s not much you can do about the former, but it amuses me how people who would ordinarily be raving loony capitalists are demanding something for free. In a perfect utopian social-ist world (hyphen for spam filter), all data would be free. Let’s see if they keep campaigning for that As for the 1980s problem, just the subset of the data that CRU is able to release publicly (still not raw data but closer) amounts to about 6.5GB per year. The total data is probably at least double this amount. Those who were using computers in the 1980s will remember that by 1990, a 40MB disk was pretty big for a personal computer, and 1GB of storage was very expensive (over the decade, the cost of disk storage dropped from around $200/MB to $12). No doubt in the social-ist utopia these guys would like, scientific organizations would have the kind of funding they need to pay for this kind of thing, and an army of clerks and database administrators to curate the data.

But more seriously, some good answers are: this is not the only data set out there; others like GISS, various proxies and satellite data follow the same trend. If the temperature data is bogus, someone please explain what is causing sea levels to rise, and sea ice and glaciers to melt.

Nonetheless we know the purpose in all this is not to improve the science but to undermine it. I wonder how many other research projects in the 1980s have all their data preserved. Somehow you have to know in advance that you are going to be the subject of an anti-science campaign. In retrospect, the fact that the science runs contrary to the short-term interests of a major industry is clear, but in the 1980s, we had not yet seen the full impact of campaigns like that of tobacco against science.

669
mike roddy says:
12 October 2009 at 11:12 PM

The key point is that McIntyre is way, way out on the fringe, with the same veracity as a 9-11 conspiracy theorist or moon landing was staged type of person. Even these guys apparently have an opportunity to talk at an IPCC public comment session themselves, so what?

Steve Mc showed up at Dot Earth, with several comments, and we gave him a pretty good whuppin, in honor of what Gavin did. Since even the oil and coal companies would be ashamed to come up with the claims that he does, it’s time he was officially assigned to a seat on Planet Ozone. We’re used to the rifraff on Dot Earth. You smart guys need to keep up the good work here.

670
pjclarke says:
13 October 2009 at 5:59 AM

Jones’ wording was unfortunate, though the remaining text where he mentions intellectual propery rights is frequently truncated; remember also that this was meant to be a private communication.

Scientists should of course be delighted to expose their data to scrutiny, and pleased when someone finds faults [Ok I am being idealistic], this being a key aim of peer-review, enabling conclusions to be reconsidered, and understanding refined.

But this presupposes that the scrutiny will be performed with some integrity. Given Hughes’ record of dishonesty a more fitting response would have been along the lines of …

“Dear Mr Hughes, I am refusing your request for data. Nothwithstanding various ownership and commercial issues, your website contains many instances where you have distorted and misrepresented scientific data in a manner incompatible with our standards of academic integrity. This data was collected under the imprimateur of a British University and we are unwilling to risk it being abused in a similar fashion.
We are of course willing to share results and data via the normal medium of journal publication”

or something.

Steve McIntyre publishes some correspondence with CRU here

http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf

he describes CRU’s actions as ‘concealing’ which I guess is one step above ’stonewalling’. A more reasonable observer might see an organisation, limited by commercial, historical and contractral constraints bending over backwards to comply with an increasingly unreasonable request….

I wonder when we can expect a McInytresque ‘audit’ of Piers Corbyn’s data and methods? He does, after all, charge money for his ‘forecasts’….

671
caerbannog says:
13 October 2009 at 12:02 PM
The total data is probably at least double this amount. Those who were using computers in the 1980s will remember that by 1990, a 40MB disk was pretty big for a personal computer, and 1GB of storage was very expensive…

When I graduated from college in the early ’80s and went to work, a 300MB hard-drive cost tens of thousands of dollars and was the size of a Maytag washing-machine. The multi-gigabyte disk-farm in the lab where I worked back then looked like a laundromat! Needless to say, raw data were rolled off to reel-to-reel tapes ASAP to avoid project-draining disk storage charges. I remember many times where I rolled off data to tape Friday evenings (and restored the backups the following Monday mornings) to avoid weekend disk-storage charges.

People forget (or if they are younger, don’t appreciate) what an expensive hassle it was dealing with large raw datasets not so long ago.

[intention]

@GIGObuster

… there is also the issue that most of the stolen emails were supposed to be private …

See the EAU FOIA directive above that says:

As all documents and emails could potentially be released under the Act, you should ensure that those you create are clear and professional

I read this to mean that there is no blanket protection for “private” emails. In any case, the emails in question are about the business of CRU, not private information.

I also find nothing in the FOI exemptions about personal communications. There is an exemption for “Sensitive Personal Data”, which is defined as

• racial or ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious beliefs
• trade union membership
• physical or mental health
• sexual life
• criminal offences, sentences, proceedings or allegations

Personal data which is not “sensitive” appears to be handled on a case-by-case basis based on “relevant considerations” (emphasis mine).

Relevant considerations could include arguments relating to transparency, accountability, the number of people affected by a decision or how public money is being spent.

You will then need to assess whether disclosure is necessary to achieve each of these aims, or whether there is another way to address the public interest that would interfere less with the privacy of individuals. Can any other existing mechanisms achieve the same result without the disclosure? Factors to consider could include a current lack of transparency and absence of other effective controls – for example, because a directly elected official is accountable mainly to the public, or because a system is self-certified without independent oversight – or a long history of controversy, which could suggest that other means have proved ineffective.

The Leapman, Brooke and Thomas case concerned disclosure of details of some MPs’ expenses. The Tribunal considered that there were clear legitimate public interests at stake, related to the objectives of transparency, accountability, value for money and the health of our democracy. Specifically, those interests included the general principle of FOI, public scrutiny of the use of public funds, encouraging MPs to make better value for money choices, assessing politicians’ probity, enhancing public confidence in parliament, and informing public debate on reforms of the allowance system. The legitimacy of these interests was enhanced by a history of mistakes and misuse of the expenses system, and the fact that MPs themselves certified the system without independent oversight.

However, I’m far from an expert on the UK FOI Act. As the Aussies say, I’ll just have to suck it and see. In my case. I’m not trying to get the emails, just the data, so for me it’s not a problem. As I mentioned, others are already requesting the emails. The story continues to unfold.

[GIGObuster]

My point is that in the current case the basis for the controversy is maintained by the requesters of the FOI, good luck in showing to officers or the courts that there is a controversy among current researchers and academics.

I do think that the the FOIA requests will be dismissed as the basis of the requests are dubious as even the “worst” examples of the emais can be explained. And I still don’t think that the officers or entities that permit a FOIA will ignore the controversial nature of the request itself.

[intention]

@GIGObuster

Back in October the contributors to Real Climate checked on that and I have to agree with their posts:

RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)

Thanks for posting that, GIGObuster. So you agree with Jone’s comment? And you agree with this comment, that he should have said:

Dear Mr Hughes, I am refusing your request for data. Nothwithstanding various ownership and commercial issues, your website contains many instances where you have distorted and misrepresented scientific data in a manner incompatible with our standards of academic integrity. This data was collected under the imprimateur of a British University and we are unwilling to risk it being abused in a similar fashion.
We are of course willing to share results and data via the normal medium of journal publication.

And this comment:

Nonetheless we know the purpose in all this is not to improve the science but to undermine it.

Because if so, your understanding of science is as poor as Jones. Science does not, and cannot, progress through “the normal medium of journal publication” when the data and methods are still hidden. It progresses through scientists finding fault with other people’s work. It moves forward specifically because one scientist “undermines” another scientists work by revealing the hidden flaws. And that can only happen if the data and methods are exposed to the harsh unflinching glare of public scrutiny.

The idea that one scientist is justified in refusing to show his data to another scientist because he doesn’t like the second scientist’s work, or because he is afraid of being “undermined”, or because in his god-like view the other scientist is “misrepresenting” something, is laughable. Put it out there and let the fools make fools of themselves. That’s how science works. Only if the conclusions can sustain attack by anyone, scientists and non-scientists alike, is it worth accepting as scientific fact.

All Jones (and the realclimate posters, and you) have revealed is that:

1. You think that a scientist, or any individual, is capable of making some Olympian, guaranteed correct judgement on some other scientist’s work. This is ridiculous on its face. Yes, Jones thinks Warwick’s work is “distortion” … but then Warwick thinks Jones’ work is “distortion”. How can we determine which one is right? There’s only one way. Put the data out there and let the attacks begin, that’s the only scientific way to settle it. We can never settle it if the data is hidden.

2. You think that it is somehow objectively possible to determine the “purpose in all this”, and if a scientist happens to decide he doesn’t like what he thinks someone’s “purpose” is, he is justified in hiding his data from that person.

3. You think it’s perfectly fine for a scientist to give data to people who believe as he does, but to conceal it from those that oppose his ideas. This pernicious idea is choking the life out of climate science. Care to guess what we end up with when scientists do that? It’s called a “consensus” …

Transparency is the lifeblood of science. When scientists like Mann and Jones hide their data and methods, they are doing immense damage to science, and to the public trust in science and scientists. As the recent furore over the emails shows, and as the OP says, this whole episode has been very damaging to public trust in science. In the words of the OP, “Those quotes, those emails, will now make it that much harder for good science to be done. Way to go, assholes”

PS - I find it both hilarious and sad, given the emails, that you actually agree with the poster’s claim that Jones should have said that he (Jones) finds anyone’s work “incompatible with our standards of academic integrity” … yeah, that’ll fly, after all he’s the freakin’ standard-bearer of academic integrity, telling people to delete emails that might prove scientifically embarrassing …

[intention]

@GIGObuster

My point is that in the current case the basis for the controversy is maintained by the requesters of the FOI, good luck in showing to officers or the courts that there is a controversy among current researchers and academics.

I do think that the the FOIA requests will be dismissed as the basis of the requests are dubious as even the “worst” examples of the emails can be explained. And I still don’t think that the officers or entities that permit a FOIA will ignore the controversial nature of the request itself.

As I read it, the issue is not whether there’s a history of controversy about the issues, but a history of controversy about access to the data.

… a long history of controversy, which could suggest that other means [of obtaining the information] have proved ineffective

Finally, it’s not clear which FOIA requests you think “will be dismissed”, or how you can even have an opinion on an FOIA request that you haven’t seen.

[ivn1188]

@GIGObuster

Perhaps you missed the recent supreme court decision:

Supreme Court OKs Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence

You mean the court case that is completely fucking irrelevant? The evidence was obtained during a mistaken arrest by (wait for it) the police. Last time I checked, the police are the state.

@GIGObuster

But yes, I have to grant that if emails are considered plain letters then the items can be admitted, but IIRC the judges will still ask about the relevance of that evidence, yes emails can be a part of a FOIA request, but the Bush administration demonstrated that the target should be specific or the owners of the emails do not need to answer to the FOIA, there is also the issue that most of the stolen emails were supposed to be private and that also puts limitations to FOIA requests. So far the malice part that would be applied to the accused is coming from the robbers and the cherry picker email quoters.

Here you betray your complete ignorance of FOIA. Under the FOIA (which is slightly different from the UK version, btw), any information that isn’t pertient to national security issues or personal (and emails in the course of your work for the government are not personal nor private) must be released. There was a recent scandal at the University of Illinois where the Chicago Tribune FOIA’d emails from a bunch of admins. No one has to determine if there is a controversy or anything stupid like that. The whole point of FOIA is to keep the government from hiding things.

@GIGObuster

IMHO it is becoming an ethical issue, and I don’t think the officers or entities that permit a FOIA will ignore the controversial nature of the request.

Yet again, irrelevant. There’s no ethical issue. FOIA is the fucking law. Period.

@GIGObuster

Like I think also this case will turn out. It seems to me that the ethics panel decided to give a pass to Newt because of that leak.

No, they gave him a pass because he was a buddy. And the senate is not a court of law. The ethics committee doesn’t have anything to do with the court system.

@GIGObuster

I was also not quite correct on that, it is not the courts but the officers at the FOIA that will give a shit. And I do not think the deniers have a good reason to demand FOIA requests for this.

What the fuck is “at the FOIA”? FOIA = Freedom Of Information Act. It’s a law, not a board.

The government entity being FOIA’d has no discretion but where they think the information falls under exceptions such as personal information, etc. A judge is not going to consider if there is proper controversy, etc. The only issue is if the information falls under the enumerated exemptions. Which a bunch of emails between scientists doesn’t.

Now admittedly, the UK version has some differences, but I’m reasonably sure the process is similar to ours. But if the press can get tax info for high ranking gov’t officials, my guess is emails between profs are pretty much fair game.

[GIGObuster]

@intention

You think that a scientist, or any individual, is capable of making some Olympian, guaranteed correct judgement on some other scientist’s work. This is ridiculous on its face. Yes, Jones thinks Warwick’s work is “distortion” … but then Warwick thinks Jones’ work is “distortion”. How can we determine which one is right? There’s only one way. Put the data out there and let the attacks begin, that’s the only scientific way to settle it. We can never settle it if the data is hidden.

Well, it can not be hidden that you omit dealing with the fact that not all data is available nor it is free.

And no, if your peers conclude also that the science is being distorted by someone and the same someone doing the distortion is making a request for data, I do not think it would be strange that scientists will not be helpful, AFAIK scientists still have the right to check first if the people getting the data are relevant to the research. people who demonstrate a willingness to mislead others (Warwick mentions in his site that the hockey stick was debunked in 2004) can not expect help.

[GIGObuster]

@ivn1188

You mean the court case that is completely fucking irrelevant? The evidence was obtained during a mistaken arrest by (wait for it) the police. Last time I checked, the police are the state.

I mentioned it also because you made the point that “Illegally obtained information is fine to use in a court case, unless the person who obtained it is an agent of the state.”

Well, I’m just pointing out that the supreme court found that agents of the state can use illegally obtained information.

And yes, the Freedom of information act is a law, but it still depends on officers at the FCC to process the requests and to deny them.

http://www.fcc.gov/foia/#denial

Can the FCC deny my FOIA request?

Yes. If the Bureau or Office that is the custodian of the records determines that there are no records responsive to your request, or that one or more of the FOIA exemptions described above applies to the documents you request, your request will be denied in writing.

And then the courts can intervene and tell the persons ordering the request to take a hike.

Freedom of Information Act (United States)

Records at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) show Barbara Schwarz, a citizen of Germany,[22] has made more requests under the FOIA than any other person since it became law in 1966.[22] For more than ten years Schwarz has made repeated requests with many federal departments and agencies for public records the government says don’t exist.

Schwarz believes, and her requests are aimed to prove, that rather than having been born in Germany her actual birth was around 1956 inside a secret government submarine base called Chattanooga under the Great Salt Lake. She further believes herself to be daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.[22][23] Further saying that she was then kidnapped, taken to Germany, and given a false identity including a German birth certificate which was doctored to conceal her actual birth in Utah.[22]

Working from her Salt Lake City, Utah home or a nearby library at least one of Schwarz’s lawsuits has been considered by a U.S. District or U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals somewhere in the nation every year since 1993 and has filed unsuccessful appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.[22] One of her complaints to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., set a record for voluminous litigation at 2,370 pages, naming 3,087 defendants, all of whom were employed as FOIA or “Privacy Act” officers in the federal government claiming their denials to be part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from her. U.S. District Court Judge John Bates said the FOIA’s “admirable purpose is abused when misguided individuals are allowed (in this case repeatedly) to submit requests to every agency and subdivision of the government, seeking information about an imaginary conspiracy,” in a ruling against her.[22]

Schwarz has filed pro se litigation in the hopes of forcing these agencies to do more detailed searches and to waive the costs, claiming poverty, so far without success.[22] The Justice Department has advised federal employees charged with responding to FOIA requests that until Schwarz satisfies outstanding search and copying fees incurred by previous filings, future requests may legally be denied.[22]

[elucidator]

GIGO, Ivn:

You guys seem to be arguing about US law regarding FOIA requests. Is it the same in East Anglia, in the place that used to be Great Britain?

[intention]

@GIGObuster

Well, it can not be hidden that you omit dealing with the fact that not all data is available nor it is free.

If the data is not available, then whatever studies are done with that data cannot be replicated. As a result, by the rules of the scientific process, they are anecdotal and not scientific, and should never be published. That’s why journals require the publication of data. (Unfortunately, Science Magazine and Nature Magazine have acted shockingly in this regard, bending their own rules for their pet authors like Michael Mann. But I digress …)

@GIGObuster

And no, if your peers conclude also that the science is being distorted by someone and the same someone doing the distortion is making a request for data, I do not think it would be strange that scientists will not be helpful, AFAIK scientists still have the right to check first if the people getting the data are relevant to the research. people who demonstrate a willingness to mislead others (Warwick mentions in his site that the hockey stick was debunked in 2004) can not expect help.

Your “peers”? You mean Phil Jones’ pals?

See, you put your finger exactly on the problem. No, a community of “peers” is not helpful in this regard. No, a scientist has no “right” to withhold his work based on his and his “peers” opinion. Why? Because Phil Jones would just check with his friends (who in politicized science are those who agree with him scientifically), and then Michael Mann and Tom Osborne and Gavin Schmidt would all nod their heads and agree that Warwick Hughes is “distorting” the science and Phil is wonderful and there’s no need for Phil to give him any data at all.

Which is exactly what happened, and it is a travesty of science. You still don’t get it. The people that the scientist is required by the scientific process to give the data to, and the people he needs to give the data to, are his enemies. Giving it to his friends is meaningless, they won’t find anything wrong with it. That’s the tragedy of Jones packing the jury box of peer review — all they say is “Gosh, youre a friend of Phil Jones, that’s a wonderful paper” and all kinds of crap just sails through.

Your comment on “Warwick mentions in his site that the hockey stick was debunked in 2004” is another apt example. I, and a number of very, very good mathematicians, think that the hockeystick is in fact debunked. Jones and Mann (neither of them mathematicians) think it is not.

Now, how can we settle this? Well, duh, release the data and the code. Do you know how many years we had to fight Michael Mann to get most of that released, and he still hasn’t revealed part of it? Do you think that is a coincidence, or, oh, just maybe, d’you think he had something to hide?

So I don’t give a shit if Warwick Jones thinks the hockeystick is debunked or not, and neither should Phil. That’s not how science works. If Mann or Jones trusted and believed in their work, they’d give their data and their code to their most bitter enemies and say “Do your worst, boys, and let the chips fall where they may.” That’s the only way we’ll know what’s true or not. We won’t find out if they only give the data to their friends, that’s a joke. But if your worst enemies can’t poke holes in it, then we know it is scientifically valid.

Just giving it to your friends is something that a scientist only does if he doesn’t trust his work, and just wants to fool the credulous.

And if the SDMB is any example, that tactic has worked quite well in far too many cases.