I don’t really feel like digging into that story, but just perusing the articles it looks like the FOIA requests were for more than just data. In my line of work, I have always been relatively free with data and explanations of how the data was collected, but I would fight pretty hard to protect my emails, code libraries, lab books, etc… Not because I have ever done anything fraudulent or unethical, but because this is my stock in trade. If you want to learn how or why I do things, you need to pay me for that access and it will not be cheap as it took me decades to get as good as I am.
That said, I have had trouble getting data from colleagues on occasion. I have found that some scientists can be pretty cagey with their data and will not give it away or will give away only limited sets or lower resolution data than they have. I always thought this was kind of silly because it is not the data that is valuable or rare, it is the ability to get it or to know what to do with it that holds the value. These colleagues are typically more helpful if I explain to them exactly why I want it and what I plan to do with it.
My guess is that the raw data is preserved and will be preserved above all else. It is the only part that cannot be replicated.
Do you have an example of this, because I have found in my line of work that scientists do explain to each other how data adjustments are carried out. It is, as you say, vital to allow other to replicate your results. If people can’t replicate your results, the results are worthless and nobody will believe anything you say.
My guess is that you are listening to the media or those with an agenda when they claim that scientists are saying “trust us”, because scientists don’t say things like that. That is not how science works.
Of course the data conversions are published. Even the raw data is available. If anyone wants to redo the data analysis, all the information is out in the public domain, just be prepared to spend several years redoing the work. It isn’t a quick process.
I don’t know if someone is deliberately misunderstanding, or if they just have no clue about how data safety is handled in large organizations.
If you work in a large public organization like a government agency or a university, do you personally backup your work data and make sure they’re saved safely offsite? Or do you save them to the company’s server and assume that the computer department admins do the job they’re supposed to do (i.e. make sure that the data are safely backed up)?
The point isn’t to copy the data to another physical location, but to copy them somewhere where Trump’s minions can’t “lose” them or tamper with them.
“The sky’s gonna fall, the sky’s gonna fall!”, as Chicken Little cried. It didn’t in the story and it won’t now. Whatever your view Trump isn’t President for Life and 4 or even 8 years of climate change inaction don’t mean diddly-squat in the long term.
The doom and gloom merchants, including these alarmist scientists, need to get a grip.
I agree with your first point, but not your second and I wonder if we are even talking about the same thing. The OP was not addressing the fear of 4 or 8 years of climate change inaction, but the fear that the incoming Trump administration would actually go out of its way to destroy archives of climate change data. I don’t think this is a very likely scenario, but it is possible. We have already seen climate change deniers in the government legislate that no money can be spent on climate science and that climate science cannot legally be taken into account when planning. It is only a small step to demand that a server be erased and unplugged as it is a waste of money to keep it running or to archive the data on it.
Why don’t you think it is possible that this could happen as many of the people in congress think that this work should not be undertaken by the government?
Regarding the 4 or 8 years of inaction; personally I thought that a Trump win could be better for climate science as Clinton would have been stymied at every turn by congress and we would have the same 4-8 years of inaction. This would have been likely followed by a Republican (most likely a science denier given the current state of the party) and we would have another 4 or 8 years of inaction. Hopefully with a Trump presidency, we may actually see some progress with the next president.
That’s great news! If (when) Trump thoroughly f’s up the country/world, we can just go back and restore it from the point we backed it up.
Or am I misunderstanding what they’re backing up?
