Dunno about that. The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was the one about "adding in the real data to hide the decline", or whatever the exact wording was, and they explicitly discuss that one. (I am making no comment on whether what they say about it is convincing, nor about whether it's correct.)
How about this, for a start, on their impartial 'scientific debate'
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics
camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this,
we could go through official AGU channels to get him
ousted.
Agreed. But I think the political skulduggery based on your position regarding the data is also concerning. If you define the enemy as someone with an opposing viewpoint you are obviously not in a position to properly consider that viewpoint. I'm not a sceptic but this sort of attitude does open up the possibility in my mind that the scientific consensus in climate change could in part be an artefact of this political skulduggery.
which is probably worse: their supposed to be climate scientists :)
(I do think it is pushing the boat, though, to make any serious accusations from the mails. Although the few I read did feel a bit, well, distasteful. The scientific nature in me didn't approve of the language being used - however I dont think it is in the least bit unique)
If you think there's no politics in science, I have to ask if you have any familiarity with it. University research, for example, is CHOCK FULL of politics.
No, I didn't download them. (As I said: "The single worst-looking one on the examiner.com page was ...".)
As mcantelon said, that (while certainly unpleasant and possibly unethical or illegal or both -- but it's hard to be sure in the absence of context; ousted from what? The proposal to go "through official AGU channels" suggests that what's being proposed is unlikely to be too nefarious) has nothing to do with falsifying data.
What I don't get is why some of these climate scientists have been so antagonistic to those like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre who question the data and simply ask for the data sets to be made public. To the credit of RealClimate they seem to be acknowledging the need for greater transparency that would allay some of the allegations of collusion.
What is a bit troubling though is RealClimate could be interpreted as defending the status quo and the monopoly on data in their response to comments. They seem to suggest we should simply accept the studies if they are peer reviewed. They create something of a straw man in saying that there is no evidence of a global conspiracy (I'm really not sure how many serious people think that one really exists nor is it necessary to believe that there is one in order to question the data and the policy responses being crafted).
They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists - particularly given some of the substance in some of these emails. Surely, given how heated and politicized the debate has become there should be some acknowledgment that there could be confirmation bias. Is (more) empiricism too much to ask for?
When I have time and climateaudit is back up, I am going to reply to this comment with specific instances of McIntyre being refused the data he would like in order to replicate studies. I would like for you to tell me if you think that behavior is befitting the scientific community or not.
Please support the claim that they "hid" their data. Note that citing an unqualified politically biased source is not adequate support for such a serious scientific claim.
I was specifically addressing the claim that any scientist not entirely forthcoming with their data clearly has something to hide. This is clearly false - in the same way that one cannot presume someone is guilty because they won't let you search them.
Think of this from their perspective: they're sick and tired of crackpots and conspiracy theorists taking their data, running ludicrous analyses on them, and misinforming the public. They don't have the time to shoot down every single terrible interpretation of the data there is, so the best action is to hide it.
Not saying this was the right move, but entirely understandable given their situation. The fact that they were not volunteering their data around is certainly not by itself damning evidence of any sort.
Nobody is being payed to help some random fool. If he wants them to assist him sign up for a masters at a major university and plenty of people will help him because they are then being payed to be helpful. It's not that they are trying to cover something up they just don't feel like wasting time when they get zero benefit from it.
PS: Call up a research assistant and say I will pay you 200$ an hour to help me, and they will fall all over themselves to help you out. Although buying the computer time to actually run some of these simulations would get real expensive really quick.
As a scientist why would I invest my time in providing additional support to someone that will simply twist whatever assistance is provided to support his own agenda?
As a programmer I wouldn't certainly not waste my time assisting someone who merely intended to smear my project in his blog to meet his own political ends.
"They also don't address the allegation of whether some of these scientists have started with the conclusions and searched for data to show that it exists"
Isn't this sort of normal? Present a hypothesis and then set out to see if it is true.
No, you present a hypothesis and try prove it wrong. And best science is done when many people try to prove it wrong. Less scrutiny is not better science.
> Wild accusations by people with political agendas hardly counts as "scientific scrutiny".
Actually, it does.
More to the point, you're cherry-picking the skeptics. The skeptics found that all of the ocean-rising data is due to a single measurement station. The skeptics found that the "hottest year in the US" data was wrong. The skeptics found that the hockey stick wasn't. And so on.
And no, motivation doesn't actually matter. Only facts and interpretation do.
More to the point, you're cherry-picking the skeptics. The skeptics found that all of the ocean-rising data is due to a single measurement station. The skeptics found that the "hottest year in the US" data was wrong. The skeptics found that the hockey stick wasn't. And so on.
You don't have to be a "skeptic" to look for faults in scientific papers. That's how the process is supposed to work.
And no, motivation doesn't actually matter. Only facts and interpretation do.
Of course it matters. Ulterior motives in science have reliably blinded people from facts for hundreds of years. Just look at how long it took people to agree that tobacco was harmful--and how much money was being paid by the tobacco companies to try to avoid that conclusion.
Even if every single thing that someone says is factual, they may have committed dishonesty by omission of relevant information. Merely validating the words of someone with ulterior motives cannot ensure that you have not been misled. If you cannot trust someone's motivations, you cannot trust them at all.
>> And no, motivation doesn't actually matter. Only facts and interpretation do.
> Of course it matters. Ulterior motives in science have reliably blinded people from facts for hundreds of years.
The ulterior motives in question are not blinding people to data. They're exposing data.
"I want to see all the data to prove them wrong" is valid no matter why the person wants to prove them wrong. If they're wrong, they're wrong, regardless of why the person went to the effort.
