First off if you are going to make such claims, you will need to cite sources (and news sites don't count, original sources only).

Second raw data is never found in published articles due to space limitations and IP issues.

Third I can't blame them much for trying to block requests from unknown parties (read non-scientists), I wouldn't want hacks going over my raw data either, especially under such circumstances.

Fourth, a lot of this data is IP and cannot be disseminated, if people want to look at that data, they gotta go to the IP holder and buy the rights to view the data (which isn't the scientists btw). This is also why raw data isn't included.

Fifth, I don't know if FOIA is really applicable or appropriate for work in progress research which a lot of this stuff is. Most of this research is very cutting edge, and constantly being upgraded and improved on.

Sixth, most of this stuff is available (other then raws), if you have the right database subscriptions. I don't think those databases are subject to FOIA requests given that they are private commercial companies. You want access you either gotta pay, work through a lab who pays, or belong to a university.


Anyhow I do have access to such stuff and I am even willing to verify your claim of a lack of any code or formulas they used in their writings. But you will have to be very specific about the area of research you are speaking of. Exactly which papers or theories.

The CRU leaked code was the first appearance of it in public. If the code is available, it should be easy to search and find it.

CRU made claims that some data was unavailable because it was private, yet they gave that data to 3d parties they chose to. I know all raw data is not PRINTED in a journal, but even some climate journals where this was published have a policy for their authors to publish ONLINE their code, what data sets are used, etc. Much of this data is already online and in the public domain. The code is important because the code doesn;t take every single data point, it omits some data—which is fine when there is a good physical reason to do so and it is documented and explained.

Many of the FOIA requests were in fact from one guy, Steve McIntyre at climate audit. He's published, too. The whole point of freedom of information is that it is free. These "hacks" are apparently anyone who might (or might not) disagree with the author. Many are in fact experts in a related discipline. Statisticians can, for example, find problems with the misuse of statistics even if they are not experts in atmospheric physics. Computer science people have raised some very real concerns about the lack of quality control in and verification and validation in climate model coding—techniques that are used in other mission-critical software applications (spacecraft, as the obvious example). Trillions of dollars on the line absolutely makes this "mission critical."

Again, as long as public policy is involved, it should all be published. If they want to not publish some stuff and it's just for the basic science, I'm cool with that.

As soon as a trillion tax dollars are on the line, the US policy should be that every single line of code, and every single byte of data should be moved to the public domain for examination, or there will be no policy based on it. Note that SOME code and data is available (the CCSM3 and CCSM4 stuff is all online).

If the model cannot survive people running it to test it, it's a bad model.

F=GMm/r^2 works (to the first order ;) ) if you do the experiment, or some kid in a HS lab does it, or if caltech does it. Some loon could publish a claim that it doesn't work, and when no one replicates his bogus finding he'll be shown as the fraud he is.

BTW, I should add that I think the VA statute is BS, my thoughts about openness are simply related.

Let me see if I understand this right Neon.

What you scientists are basically saying to the public is that you have researched the matter and have come to the inescapable conclusion that we will all die if we don't immediately send you the entire contents of your bank account. You won't show us the data you used to arrive at this conclusion because:

First off we're going to need to provide you proof that we won't die if we refuse to send you the money.
Second we wouldn't understand the data even if you did give it to us which you won't because:
Third You don't trust us to even examine your data because we might not arrive at the same conclusions that you did.
Fourth you don't actually have the data any more because it came from someone else and they won't share it (assuming they still have it) unless we're willing to pay for it.
Fifth although what you're asking will cause a huge life style change and quite likely upset our already shaky economy, the data is constantly being modified and updated and it would be obsolete and useless by the time we got it anyways.
Sixth if you decide that we have a valid need to see the data we can have access to a just a summation of it but only if you can tell us what the data says first.

Am I on target here?

Neon - here are some examples - the link to the actual file is at the bottom:

Or how about this"

This is a clear case of well we don't like the numbers the data gave us - so lets call it a bug and change it to what we THINK it should be..... Definition of massaged data..... because in this case had it been a sftw bug it would have been across the board...

Wonder what data that was that simply wasn't included......

This is just in the first 25% - and there is ALOT more in there - stations with no lat/long or WMO number - no way to cross reference station locations, etc etc....

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/docu...RY_READ_ME.txt

Plan on reading for a few hours.

Hmm well I did a bit of digging and found this...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/suppl...iproxyMeans07/

It seems to be all of his data, formulas, etc for his PNAS article. I bet I could find similar for the rest.

Speaking of Steve McIntyre, who btw I do not have major issues with (he seems to be fairly genuine in his criticism, though rather biased). He also has major issues with Cuccinelli
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/t...ginia-statute/

While it is true that some hacks may find flaws in the research (and there are always flaws in the research), it is generally very rare. More often they make a pile of mistakes of their own because they lack the specialized training of that branch of science. You can be a first rate statistician, but it doesn't mean you know what tests you should use on a type of scientific data, or the order you should be feeding that data, or changes that need to be made to the raw data.

The people testing the data, need to be able to fully understand it first, meaning they need the prerequisite training. That is why I prefer to let other scientists in the same branch do the testing, not hacks who think they know better.

Anyhow you are still stating claims without providing any referencing.


I don't believe so. First off Mann is not directly profiting to any real degree. He has his university professor salary, and that's about it. Also I don't think Mann has made any such claims, I seem to recall him doing the opposite and saying that it is to early to make chicken little claims.

If you are going to make claims about the science, you need to provide referencing so that others can see if there is any merit to said claims. I like to know the source of the information, since all of this does not originate from ourselves. I just want to know if the information being provided comes from a reputable source, and is at all reliable. If the best source offered is some conspiracy blog with no further sources, then I will take issue with that.

To understand the data, calculations, etc., you need training in the field in question. You can't expect to be able to fix a car, if you don't have any training as a mechanic (including self taught). This is partly why scientific reports present data in statistical terms, so that anyone with some statistical training can follow the results.

I don't trust people who are not from the field testing the data, as they lack the training to understand what they are doing, and are highly prone to making errors. A fellow scientist in the same field however is more than welcome to look at it, even if they don't agree with my findings. I don't like hacks who have a axe to grind doing so though, as they will definatly find 'problems' and most of those problems they will find, will be mistakes they made. All research has flaws in it, one of the standard practices in writing up a study is to discuss all the flaws in the research you just did, and what can be done in future research to correct those flaws.

There isn't much that can be done about IP data (honestly I hate IP data too, but sometimes its unavoidable). Some company owns that data, and to do the research, the research team had to pay to gain access to it. Its business (and the American way) to charge money for something you own. This is why climatologists are trying to move away from IP data, so that they can publicly make all their raw data available. Loss of data also happens, though most scientists take great care to avoid that. But accidents and mistakes happen.

The research is always improving. Our understanding grows over time, and the formulas and the like change and improve as the models do. Science is never static, nor is it perfect (or even close). However, most scientists seem to believe that the picture is good enough as it is now to give very clear warnings as to what is happening. Wait too long and it would be too late to do anything. Could the science be wrong? Sure it is possible, but I don't think it is very probable given current research.

Lastly, journal articles only contain the calculated data (for space reasons). It is, however, not unusual for the journal article to link to a location where the raw data can be found (if it is non IP data). If you belong to an accredited institution you can usually request the raw data from the scientist in question if it is not publicly available. Though you would still have to pay the source company if the data is owned.


Anyhow there are practices which I don't much care for either in the scientific world. I don't like the private databases which demand access fees that only universities and large research groups can afford access to. I don't like IP data as it cannot be freely disseminated. I am also well aware of the flaws in the peer review system. I also do not like the scientific community snubbing scientists who dissent (provided they offer plausible reason to) from a theory.

I'll have to get back to you on that, maybe in a week or so.


Anyhow I am not trying to turn this thread into another debate on GW. We have done that enough I think, to little resolve (I do not foresee any agreement on this issue). My issues lie with the application of this act, and what Cuccinelli is doing with it. If McIntyre is correct in his http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/t...ginia-statute/ analysis of the law, then Cuccinelli is seriously abusing his position.

McIntyre had to reverse engineer Mann's hockey stick code if you read back on climate audit. Mann and CRU clearly worked to avoid FOIA requests, it's right there in their emails back and forth.

That's my real concern. These are the go to guys for IPCC, and it's clear in their emails they work hard to discredit, or even freeze out ANYONE publishing contrary papers (calling friends who referee papers to in effect black ball authors they don't like, or for all like-minded climate scientists as themselves to cease submitting papers at all to any journal that publishes a contrary paper).

Again, since so much money and regulation revolves around this work, I think it needs to be the model of open science. Without multi-trillion dollar carbon taxes on the line, I frankly don't care about squabbles in academia. As soon as boat loads (container cargo ship loads, lol) of MY cash are on the line, I get worked up, ya know?

I think that the AGW hypothesis is reasonable, and worth investigation. I don't think any of the current models merit being called proper comprehensive theories of atmospheric physics—unsurprising given the complexity of the subject (both in lay terms, and in the sense of classical chaos theory, heheh), and the need to use iterative models to even hope for an understanding.