Thread: Scientists complain about scrutiny

I actually cancelled my subscription to Nature because they published an editorial bitching about FOI requests after the climategate fraudsters got exposed.

If they want to make public policy, they need to expect the public to pay attention.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

When your science is used to justify disruptive public policy, you should expect a high level of scrutiny. I found this quote to be humorous -



from - Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate | Politics | The Guardian

Yes, the vast majority of requests will be for the purpose of validating - which means looking for problems and errors. You know, science stuff.

Anyway, I don't think these scientists should be compelled to create documentation of any kind in support of these requests (explanatory notes, answering emails, etc.), they should only need to provide what's available.

Well. Let's take the criminality that got us into Iraq for comparison.

Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq even before they were elected to office. Day 1, Cheney goes to Langley and tells Tenet that he wants information on terrorist links an WMDs in Iraq. Eash time they came back and said there was nothing so Cheney asked that they give him all the RAW intelligence (something the CIA never really does). Cheney then picked out little tidbits of things like the yellowcake uranium deal and though it was flatly disproved by several sources including Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) they still included it in the President's speech despite Tenet saying not to.

Same thing goes with Climate change. It is not hard to peruse raw data pick out parts that make the case to debunk the claim while leaving out tidbits that actually prove the opposite. Once it goes out into public, that's it. It won't matter what the real facts are. Simple minded people, like the OP, will believe anything that supports their veiwpoint and they refuse to consider any alternative explanation and this is why it makes the scientists pissed off. They do not care about sharing the info; they care about how untrained, amateurish, charlatans will try to interpret the data leaving out key data points just to try and debunk their work. These guys are about getting answers not politicking and defending their position. This does not happen in science, they fight with data and test results. They just want to work not be bothered with brazen politicians looking to boost their popularity with their base.

I completely agree with the scientists, 100%. And if anyone reads the article outside of the cherry picked part in the OP, they'd understand why.

Basically, the scientists have no issue with making their work public and they're working on a way to do this:

Nurse's comments follow the launch of a major Royal Society study into how scientists' work can be made more open and better used to inform policy in society. The review – expected to be published next year – will examine ways of improving access to scientific data and research papers and how "digital media offer a powerful means for the public to interrogate, question and re-analyse scientific priorities, evidence and conclusions".

Nurse said that, in principle, scientific information should be made available as widely as possible as a matter of course, a practice common in biological research where gene sequences are routinely published in public databases.

The FOI requests, however, seem obviously aimed at asking for ridiculous information in an effort to slow the work of the scientists down. Keep them more focused on fulfilling FOI requests and the less chance they have to do actual science:

"I have been told of some researchers who are getting lots of requests for, among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions. If it is true, it will consume a huge amount of time...

TL;DR scientists believe in openness and are working toward that, but some people are being total dickwads and abusing FOI requests as a form of harassment.

"It is essential that scientists are as open and transparent as possible and, where they are not, they should be held to account. But at times this appears to be being used as a tool to stop scientists doing their work. That's going to turn us into glue. We are just not going to be able to operate efficiently."

The climate science needs to be fully transparent because the 'solutions' of AGW call for a global leftist government that would manage the world's resources and as a direct result, control the economies of all nations, a redistribution of wealth both within and between countries, and developed countries giving away their tech and high tech know-how to the world (these same things were desired under the NIEO).

We better well damn well have access to ALL climate science data before this move to an egalitarian socialist utopian hell occurs.

Kramer

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

These guys are about getting answers not politicking and defending their position.
This does not happen in science, they fight with data and test results.

Getting the answers is defending their position, that is what happens in science.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Same thing goes with Climate change. It is not hard to peruse raw data pick out parts that make the case to debunk the claim while leaving out tidbits that actually prove the opposite. Once it goes out into public, that's it. It won't matter what the real facts are. Simple minded people, like the OP, will believe anything that supports their veiwpoint and they refuse to consider any alternative explanation and this is why it makes the scientists pissed off. They do not care about sharing the info; they care about how untrained, amateurish, charlatans will try to interpret the data leaving out key data points just to try and debunk their work. These guys are about getting answers not politicking and defending their position. This does not happen in science, they fight with data and test results. They just want to work not be bothered with brazen politicians looking to boost their popularity with their base.

I don't think they want to be bothered with Steve McIntyre either.

Stephen McIntyre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

Well. Let's take the criminality that got us into Iraq for comparison.

Bush and Cheney wanted to invade Iraq even before they were elected to office. Day 1, Cheney goes to Langley and tells Tenet that he wants information on terrorist links an WMDs in Iraq. Eash time they came back and said there was nothing so Cheney asked that they give him all the RAW intelligence (something the CIA never really does). Cheney then picked out little tidbits of things like the yellowcake uranium deal and though it was flatly disproved by several sources including Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's husband) they still included it in the President's speech despite Tenet saying not to.

Same thing goes with Climate change. It is not hard to peruse raw data pick out parts that make the case to debunk the claim while leaving out tidbits that actually prove the opposite. Once it goes out into public, that's it. It won't matter what the real facts are. Simple minded people, like the OP, will believe anything that supports their veiwpoint and they refuse to consider any alternative explanation and this is why it makes the scientists pissed off. They do not care about sharing the info; they care about how untrained, amateurish, charlatans will try to interpret the data leaving out key data points just to try and debunk their work. These guys are about getting answers not politicking and defending their position. This does not happen in science, they fight with data and test results. They just want to work not be bothered with brazen politicians looking to boost their popularity with their base.

An unsurprisingly elitist attitude towards who should have access to data. Just like the scientist quoted in the OP complaining about people "trawling" through his data looking for errors.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I completely agree with the scientists, 100%. And if anyone reads the article outside of the cherry picked part in the OP, they'd understand why.

Basically, the scientists have no issue with making their work public and they're working on a way to do this:



The FOI requests, however, seem obviously aimed at asking for ridiculous information in an effort to slow the work of the scientists down. Keep them more focused on fulfilling FOI requests and the less chance they have to do actual science:



TL;DR scientists believe in openness and are working toward that, but some people are being total dickwads and abusing FOI requests as a form of harassment.

These ones were not being open...

In an independent inquiry a year later, the scientists at the UEA's climatic research unit (CRU) were cleared of any misconduct, but Muir Russell, the former civil servant who led the investigation, found a "consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness", although he stressed he had no reason to doubt the CRU team's honesty or integrity.

The argument against seems to be something along the lines that it's bad because it allows those who disagree to dig into the data, and that is inconvenient. Er..too bad.

Originally Posted by CharlesDavenport

These ones were not being open...



The argument against seems to be something along the lines that it's bad because it allows those who disagree to dig into the data, and that is inconvenient. Er..too bad.

No, the argument against it is that people are abusing the FOI requests to stymie the scientists' research. No one is saying the research should be hidden or unavailable for review. But it should be available in a manner that doesn't hamper the scientists' ability to do their jobs.

Everyone wants to know what an mechanic has done to their cars and a mechanic is usually more than happy to say so. However, it'd be absurd if a mechanic was working on the car while the customer stood right next to them constantly saying "What are you doing? What are you doing? What's that thing? What are you doing now? Where are you going? What are you using now? What's that? Where's that go? What are you doing?"

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

No, the argument against it is...

Sorry Speak, got to disagree with you here.

Suckle at the government teet, you have to put up with the BS rules.

Don't like it? (And I know I wouldn't) find yourself some fine private funding.

Years ago I gave up the opportunity to do government funded work (Schools, muni buildings, community centers, firehouses, etc, etc.) for this very reason.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Sorry Speak, got to disagree with you here.

Suckle at the government teet, you have to put up with the BS rules.

Don't like it? (And I know I wouldn't) find yourself some fine private funding.

Years ago I gave up the opportunity to do government funded work (Schools, muni buildings, community centers, firehouses, etc, etc.) for this very reason.

And if the rules are being abused, wouldn't you suggest some sort of change in the rules should be made? And would you say any science that is done with tax payer dollar should be made completely available to the public?

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

No, the argument against it is that people are abusing the FOI requests to stymie the scientists' research. No one is saying the research should be hidden or unavailable for review. But it should be available in a manner that doesn't hamper the scientists' ability to do their jobs.

Everyone wants to know what an mechanic has done to their cars and a mechanic is usually more than happy to say so. However, it'd be absurd if a mechanic was working on the car while the customer stood right next to them constantly saying "What are you doing? What are you doing? What's that thing? What are you doing now? Where are you going? What are you using now? What's that? Where's that go? What are you doing?"

That's not even remotely comparable Speaky.