[QUOTE=jshore]
In other words, “Everybody is out of step but my Johnny”. I think that one of the important personal characteristics that makes a climate change skeptic a skeptic is an ability to believe that everyone else is wrong and he is right. This the skeptic community seems to think that they (despite most not being trained scientists) have a monopoly on understanding how science does and should work, the nature of replication in science, and so forth. I think a good step to start on the road out of the wilderness is to begin to recognize that maybe sometimes when you disagree with respected authorities about science, it is because they are right and you are wrong.
At any rate, I still believe you were leaving out a lot of information when you quoted NSF policy without discussing how they had interpreted their policy, so call that what you will. You may think you are the one who gets to decide how to interpret NSF policy and that they have no say in the matter…but they probably think otherwise. And, the idea that scientists’ codes are not their own intellectual property would be a gigantic shift in the way that NSF policy is actually carried out…and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to many scientists deciding simply to do without NSF funding if such a policy was enforced. It would also open up a huge can-of-warms when someone publishes results using a third party’s commercial propriety code, in which case they don’t have the ability, let alone the right, to release this code.
Mind you, I am not saying that there could not be improvements made in the way data is archived in many fields of science…and I am not opposed with efforts to do so. I think they can be quite useful. However, to decree what you think the solution should be and demand everyone else conform to your ideas (which are, frankly, pretty different [to use a euphimistic word] than how things are done now) is not the way progress is going to be made in this direction.
As the NSF clearly stated, there was sufficient access to data to allow other scientists to check the work…And, indeed other scientists were able to check the results of Mann et al. without having access to his code. And, even the big complainers about all of this seem to arrived at most of their conclusions before Mann ever released the code. If anything, this whole episode shows that not releasing the code sooner was a tactical error on Mann’s part in that it probably would have shut these people up sooner.
[/QUOTE]
jshore, your response is appreciated. I’m not asking anyone to conform to my ideas. I’m asking NSF and Science Magazine to follow their own policies in regard to a very simple matter – archiving all the data used in a study, so that it can be replicated. Not part of the data, not just the data the scientist wants to release, all of the data.
Once again, you seem to avoid doing the obvious - read the policies, and decide for yourself. The Science Magazine policy says:
[QUOTE=Science Magazine]
Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets must be deposited in an approved database and an accession number provided for inclusion in the published paper.
[/QUOTE]
I leave it up to the reader to decide what “must be deposited in an approved database” means.
Asking for the archiving of data is neither “out of step”, nor is it asking anyone to conform to anything other than standard scientific practice. Your gyrations to justify Mann not revealing his data, while amusing and amazing, are like watching the performance of a circus contortionist. It makes for good light entertainment, but I wouldn’t recommend that anyone try it at home, you’ll get your ethics all twisted into a knot.
Is everyone out of step but me? By no means. Some climate scientists, like Rob Wilson and Judith Lean, archive their data promptly and completely.
Others, like Lonnie Thompson, have done some very important data gathering (ice cores in his case) but have consistently refused to archive the data. Tragically, the practice is widespread in the climate field. Mann said that asking for his data was “intimidation”, and Phil Jones refused to reveal his data saying “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”.
Well, d’oh, Phil, that’s called “science”, one scientist makes a claim, others try to find something wrong with it. Phil clearly doesn’t understand this arcane process … do you?
You have consistently refused to condemn these practices, hiding your opinion under a rubric of “I am not saying that there could not be improvements made” and the like … when will you ever come out and take a stand on these questions, instead of pussyfooting around? What Thompson and his ilk have done is a disgrace to science, and by not speaking out against it, you are encouraging scientific misconduct.
I’m still unclear why you are so unwilling to take a stand supporting full disclosure and transparency in science, and condemning those who don’t follow standard scientific practice … but like my previous inquiry about whether you support trials for scientists who disagree with the “revealed wisdom”, I may not get an answer to this question either.
But it is an enduring mystery to me why time after time, in case after case, you want to defend climate scientists who hide their data … you keep trying to divert the discussion to things like the exact wording and interpretation of the policies, which is not the point.
The point is that science requires transparency and openness, and you are refusing to take a stand against people who don’t do that, “scientists” who to hide their data and refuse to disclose it.
Why?
w.
PS - there is further discussion of this issue here and here.
