Suspect AGW science gets a mulligan.

by Mike_Hanks Feb 23, 2010 1:57AM PST

?After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office apparently has decided to wave a white flag and surrender.

At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review.

In other words, conduct investigations into modern global warming in a way that the Met Office bureaucrats hope will end the mammoth controversy over world temperature data they collected that has been stirred up by their secretive and erratic ways.?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britains-weather-office-proposes-climate-gate/

This is the way it should have always been.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -

In fairness, the issue is complex ...

by Bill Osler Feb 23, 2010 6:33AM PST

I don't have a clue about meteorology and climate science, but I have some familiarity with data mining and access to large datasets.

There may be good reasons for not offering the whole unfiltered data for public examination. Certainly in the case of medical data the data collection methods and the data representation are not always self explanatory and there can be methodological differences over time that make comparisons/analysis difficult. I do not know how much of that happens with climate data.

Also, datasets are rarely complete. One of the major challenges in interpreting large experimental datasets is figuring out what to do with missing data points.

Simplistic approaches that do not take these complexities into account might give misleading results.

OTOH I do understand the skepticism about non-intuitive results based on data accessible only to the chosen initiates.

- Collapse -

You are correct.

by Mike_Hanks Feb 23, 2010 7:18AM PST

It is an extremely complex issue that certain types ONLY want to point to CO2 as a cause.

As far as the data sets, there should be absolutely no reason they cannot be public records unless obtained from a private source(ie not government funded)

Science certainly is not about hiding data, methods and results.

- Collapse -

There are other issues ...

by Bill Osler Feb 23, 2010 9:23AM PST

The question of what to do with data paid for by the public has been debated a good bit. In the current academic environment there is another issue I did not mention earlier. People do research with the expectation that they will be able to publish the results. That becomes problematic if the researchers have to share the raw data immediately. There is something to be said for allowing researchers exclusive access to the data they produced, regardless of who paid for it, for a while after it is collected.

Also, as I mentioned previously, there are problems related to data integrity and interpretability. Those problems can be addressed, but it would not be unreasonable to set some standards regarding who has the right to access data. People who know absolutely nothing about science, statistics, experimental methods and such could easily misrepresent the results.

- Collapse -

You are very good.

by Mike_Hanks Feb 23, 2010 11:19AM PST

Your statement:
"Also, as I mentioned previously, there are problems related to data integrity and interpretability. Those problems can be addressed, but it would not be unreasonable to set some standards regarding who has the right to access data. People who know absolutely nothing about science, statistics, experimental methods and such could easily misrepresent the results."

Is the entire core of the "skeptics" debate and viewpoint.
Those who worship at the AGW alter refuse to acknowledge much less have an honest debate about those issues.

Also, if there is a thermometer (bought and paid for with tax dollars) on government property (bought and paid for with tax dollars) and being researched (funded with again, tax dollars) John Q Public has every right to have that data. Especially when considering that trillions of dollars and vast amounts of personal freedoms are at stake based on that research, John Q. Public has the right to see how any "conclusion" was reached by said publicly funded researcher.

- Collapse -

Johnny Canuck has every right to have that data

by JP Bill Feb 23, 2010 11:43AM PST

National Climate Data and Information Archive

I imagine you have access to American data.

But does Johnny Canuck and John Q Public, Joe the Plumber and Joe Six Pack know what to do with the info?

And what good does that do...a bunch of ordinary citizens with information but no organization.

You have access, What are you going to do with it?

- Collapse -

I agree with you both. It is a very difficult situation when

by Ziks511 Feb 23, 2010 11:57AM PST

interpretation is often in the eyes of the interpreter. The biases of the various political factions in this argument twist their responses.

It's like watching the anti-war sentiment of the 1930's ruining the British and French ability to respond to Hitler. After the First World War those sentiments may have been understandable, but the unreality of their understanding of Hitler's intentions, which were pretty clearly written out in 1924. Part of the problem was that the English translation of the book was atrocious and confused, and inclined people to dismiss Hitler as a potential threat.

Rob

Suspect AGW science gets a mulligan.

CNET Forums

Other Forums

Forum Info