Two years ago I disagreed with a government scientist who wrote an article concluding overfishing had depleted a specific species of fish in a specific bay. (He used computer modeling as the basis for his conclusion.) I emailed and asked for the 30 years of fish population data he cited. 30 years of several different species for a dozen different bays. It was an enormous amount of data, and enormously valuable. He promptly sent it to me.
I looked at the data, graphed much of it to explore my own thoughts on the decline in the population, compared it to other populations in similar bays (where there was no decline) and I verified the accuracy of the graphs in his article. And guess what, I found nothing wrong with the data or his presentation of the data.
I still didn’t agree with his conclusion — based on the computer modeling’s inconsistency with other trends going on in other, adjacent bays. But I could clearly see that he was presenting the data accurately. And if I thought the data was made up, I had enough information to verify it further. (I had no reason to suspect this data’s integrity.)
His willingness to share this data is what science is all about. Especially government-funded science. And this was gov’t funded science.
On a side note, the fact that “we” paid for it is enough reason to share. Did you know any photo (or video) taken by NASA or its astronauts is available to any US citizen? All you have to do is pay for the cost of the duplication (the print). Incredible shots of earth taken from the moon, satellite photos of any part of the earth, pictures the space shuttle astronauts take of each other doing goofy things in zero gravity — all of it is yours for the asking — because your tax dollars paid for it. You do have to pay for the postage, too. And that’s how it should be.
Temperature data taken by a US gov’t agency should be readily available to the taxpayers. As well as any thing the gov’t does related to those temperatures.
Much is being written about the stolen climate science emails. The real story is in the links within these articles — links to the actual documents and actions by the people many of these stolen emails are about. People like me who disagreed. People who wrote to get the data (like I did in the previous case). But these people were told “no” — for political reasons.
Hmmm. Good science?
All of this climate muck is a lot to read. That’s one of the reasons it’s been difficult to challenge global warming alarmists — they hide behind the complexities of the science and calculations. It is very easy for them to bog down any discussion with the EXTREMELY complex way they have built layer upon layer of assumptions, deductions, calculations and theories. And piled this into computer models — where you then have to read computer code to understand what is going on.
And the science itself — radiation forcing and gases and pressure and solar activity and moisture and tree rings and ice cores and blah, blah, blah…
It’s like a big recipe. But by the time you’ve gotten to the end, you’ve died of starvation.
Despite this, as we now know, when dedicated truth-seekers plodded on anyway to get the data, key scientists resorted to unethical (and possible illegal) means to keep the data hidden. And probably the truth. They are more interested in politics than scientific integrity.
These are sad days for science.
If you have the time (who does!?) you can read deeper by clicking on links within any of the climate articles listed in this blog.
Two good recent ones by Douglas J. Keenan, who wrote a paper formally alleging fraud in a temperature article published by a climate scientist. His filed a very formal claim of fraud with the universities in question. There was an investigation and a report — and then a dead end. They wouldn’t show him the report, but told him there was no fraud. When he filed a Freedom of Information request for the report, he was denied. But then, he found the report in the hacked emails. (Links below). And the report said there might be merit to his claim of fraud.
Political integrity is now a contradiction in terms. And I see that in Republicans as much as Democrats. We’re like a corrupt 3rd-world nation, except it’s hidden behind the pretense of “lobbying” and influence peddling and “the system”. You pretty much have to be convicted of a felony first these days for a congressional ethics committee to even review your case.
Who do you think wrote the current healthcare bill? The Senate didn’t… they just published it. Most of our Senators still haven’t even read it…
Scientific intergrity is a must. And certainly now that so much science is political (environmental science).
We can draw the line here, we can and we must.
Always read deeper (the links to the actual emails, and people they are about). That’s where the truth is. The scientific truth. The political truth. And the real truth.
Remember when there just used to be “the truth”?
Keenan’s paper alleging fraud in temperature data collection.
The chronology of Keena’s actions, and the report on his accusations (that he was denied access to) which he found in the stolen emails — and it (the report) shows his claim had credibility.