Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 Next
Comments 56501 to 56550:
-
Bernard J. at 02:59 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Heh, it seems that KR and Professor Rabbet think similarly... -
Bernard J. at 02:55 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
If you don't trust a scientist, it doesn't matter what he says the science is, because you don't know if what he says is reliable... People are generally quite well equipped [really?!] to judge for themselves whether an excuse is plausible or not, or whether behaviour is acceptable... I'm trying to gauge Dr Karoly from his behaviour.
It's interesting that even before I finished typing, an example of several of my points was provided. I find it extraordinary that in none of these points provided by 'dubious' was there any mention of testing the veracity of the work itself. It's this irrational and essentially ad hominem knee-jerking to the implications of human-caused global warming that underpins the necessity for a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. I'm surprised that 'dubious' so easily admitted to his motivations, especially after it's already been explained to him that Karoly's comment about legal sabre-rattling is validly-based. Frankly, I would have thought that anyone who genuinely wanted to understand the veracity of the science would first investigate whether the science was reliable, by testing it rather than the people who conduct it. -
EliRabett at 02:48 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
What is revealing is that the language of McIntyre's letter was obviously interpretable as a threat and that McIntyre should have taken responsibility for that. Mr. McIntyre incessently holds others to a very strict standard of being guilty even when shown to be innocent, and never accepts that others have been shown to be innocent. OTOH, what we see is careful parsing from the usual characters. The same thing that we saw with the infinitely fine parsing about whether climate scientists had received threatening Emails. The normal human response to such is to simply walk away from the nonsense being uttered about how, if in a particular light, using this dictionary, and some interpretation etc. What it really does is establish who is playing with 53 cards. This whole thing is much more revealing about McIntyre than Karoly. From Karoly's POV the logical thought is who need the agro from this clown. -
KR at 02:48 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dubious - "If you don't trust a scientist, it doesn't matter what he says the science is, because you don't know if what he says is reliable. Therefore conduct is the top issue. It is absolutely the #1 issue for me." That is absolutely not the case for me, and I would venture to say for most people in the sciences. Science is the top issue, the #1 issue for me. That means results supported by the data, replicable by others using other data and other methods, results that advance our knowledge. While I may have expectations of various scientists (Church, for example, consistently produces interesting results regarding sea levels), "trust" is not what supports science. Strong, replicable results are. That doesn't mean (for me) pushing everyone to put out all of their raw data - that's the equivalent of asking every scientist to also post the contents of their lab notebooks with every paper. It means evaluating the results of their work, and whether it holds up under examination. The current kerfluffle over raw data is, in my opinion, simply the results of folks who (like ATI) produce little or no primary science, but who take it upon themselves to criticize the works of others, resorting to what are essentially ad hominem attacks and lawsuits rather than producing any results - politics and policy, not science. We've managed (oddly enough) to accomplish a great deal without poking through scientists sock drawers in the past - doing so now is simply not part of the scientific process. Judge the results. Not the scientists. The conclusions in light of other data, not the raw data. Reanalysis of raw data and "audits" are usually the work of the lazy. -
Bernard J. at 02:41 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Kevin C at #138. Yes, it is indeed a peculiar phenomenon. I suspect that this tendency to often focus on the people rather than on the facts has its roots in several separate psychological ætiologies. With a hat-tip to the subject of this thread, doing so distracts scientists from their serious work, which is desirable for anyone opposed to hearing what the results are of such work, or who might want to avoid the permeation through to public policy of the consequences of such results. There is also the propaganda value of an ad hominem approach - a tried and true strategy for stirring the lizard brains of the scientific laity in our societies. Another visceral appeal is that which engages the common propensity of many for giving credence to conspiracy, that bastard child of gossip. And I suspect that for many people predisposed to deny the validity of the consensus science, actually constructing a defensible, scientific counter-argument is simply too difficult (heck, even maverick scientists have failed to date), so they go for something that they are capable of doing. I'd be intersted to see more additions to this list. -
dubious at 02:28 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Kevin C: "...the conduct of scientists generates a prolific and heated discussion, with many contributors who would not normally post here. Why?" I'd like to suggest a few possibilities - as someone who hasn't posted here before. 1) If you don't trust a scientist, it doesn't matter what he says the science is, because you don't know if what he says is reliable. Therefore conduct is the top issue. It is absolutely the #1 issue for me. 2) Conduct is something people deal have been dealing with every day since childhood. People know what office politics is. People are generally quite well equipped to judge for themselves whether an excuse is plausible or not, or whether behaviour is acceptable. 3) In my specific case, I was interested (my comment @11) in seeing whether Dr Karoly could support his comment that "I have just received a threat of legal action from Steve McIntyre". As I mentioned in my comment (@48), I'm trying to gauge Dr Karoly from his behaviour. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:20 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Kevin C... That's a really great observation and cuts straight to the heart of much of the debate in my opinion. For myself, I really don't worry too much about the conduct of individual scientists. Ultimately that doesn't matter. If some scientist mucks up his work and it gets through sloppy peer review, so what? What matters is the consistent message that is coming out of the overall research, not the precision of any given paper. That's where the overall picture of any field of science is judged. And what if all the scientists were mucking up their work and all the peer review were sloppy? Then the results would be all over the board and no one would be able to make heads or tails on anything. This is my big problem with Steve McIntyre. If he really wanted to contribute to the understanding of climate change, and he felt like there were researchers out there getting it wrong, the correct way to go about it is to produce research. If that research shows that previous conclusions were wrong then we have to figure out why and who is correct. As it is all McIntyre is doing is turning up what he considers to be niggling points that ultimately make no difference in the overall research. BUT what he knows his work does do is, it creates doubts in the minds of a segment of the public perception. And I think that is what his ultimate goal is. It's not to improve the understanding of climate change, it's to influence public perceptions of climate change. -
Kevin C at 01:56 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
There is something interesting going on here. SkS posts on science do not generate this sort of discussion. However the conduct of scientists generates a prolific and heated discussion, with many contributors who would not normally post here. Why? -
chris at 01:51 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Carrick, "open source" (by which I think you mean open access) is another matter altogether, and refers to research outcomes in the form of scientific papers. In fact a fair amount of UK and US medical research is already open access; i.e. that funded by the NIH in the US and by some research charities (especially the Wellcome Trust) in the UK. And you'll notice that everything that NASA Giss publish is immediately deposited on their website (i.e. completely open access already). This diverts a significant amount of money (around £1500 per published paper), from research funds. However this doesn't refer to the primary data which is the subject of the harrassment FOI requests discussed on this thread, although as already discussed, this is increasingly being deposited for wider access anyway as computer storage capacity evolves. In addition most published papers are now accompanied by sometimes voluminous electronic "Supplementary Information" files which are already in many cases freely downloadable. Scientific publishing is in a state of flux as the traditional paper-based practices evolve towards various electronic models. The open access model favoured by the current UK government isn't completely satisfactory since it will divert a large chunk of unreplaced funds from research to publishing costs without reducing the costs of scientific journal subscriptions (since direct UK-funded open access papers constitute a small proportion of the total scientific output, and so everyone will still have to pay journal subscription costs to access the vast majority of scientific papers). It's only when a critical mass of countries adopt the UK approach (of funding open access models) that there will be something approaching a cost-neutral switch from scientific dissemination funded by journal subscription to that funded by the author and their sponser. It does mean that those who do research on a shoestring with little or no funding are going to find it hard to publish.. -
Daniel Bailey at 01:30 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Further comments about the usage of terms such as denier should be placed on the thread delineated by Tom above. As such, they are off-topic here. Please return the discussion to the OP of this thread, What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund? -
Carrick at 00:45 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Eli & John, there are even crazier reasons I've seen for sequestering data: The fear that NGOs who live to harass legitimate military-based research will use the fact that the data are being collected to prevent the research from going forward. (See Devine Strake, which by the way, there would have been no mushroom cloud, that was a misreporting by the press.) Also, British research it seems is going open source. Hopefully they give them the extra money needed for this. -
Gingellenator at 00:40 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Sorry - thanks for the link - wrong page to post. Not trolling!Moderator Response: [d_b] And we'll draw a line under the skid right here. -
Albatross at 00:37 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
All, While I understand the impulse to address the strawman argument made by Gingellator@119, can we please try and stay on topic. Specifically, the post @119 is off topic, the term "denier" was not used once in the main post, and what is more this "argument" has been addressed many times before. To me @119 has the appearance of concern trolling. -
Tom Curtis at 00:36 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Gingellenator @128, further discussion of this issue is unquestionably off topic on this thread. May I suggest you go to this thread, read the linked Drum article and then, if you have any questions, ask them there. -
Gingellenator at 00:33 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Fair enoughs, perhaps its just me - thanks for your input. -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:31 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Gingellenator I live in the U.K. and as far as I am concerned "denier" is not very strongly connected to holocaust denial. It is just one of the ways that the term gets used. The most normal sense of the word that applies is "someone in a state of denial", i.e. someone who is unable to accept an unpleasant truth for one reason or another. It doesn't relate to any particular piece of climate science, it is to do with the inability to accept what the science actually says. As for extremists, the term is usually "alarmist", and as I have already pointed out is dealt with in the comments policy, which anyone new to SkS should read before their next post. -
Gingellenator at 00:27 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Tom, Lotharsson, KR. Intersting. Perhap cultural meaning is different in other countries, here (in the UK) I would say that the link is quite clear. Separate question - is this a useful term? Given that (rightly or wrongly) it generates controversy. If it is going to be used, I would suggest robust definition is necissary so that the terms Sceptic and Denier are not conflated. For my information, how exactly would you generally differentiate a Sceptic and a Denier? Does the former, accept that: (1)Man has increased Co2 concentration. (2)Co2 causes warming. but questions the level of warming and its impact. Whilst a denier, rejects either or, or both (1) and (2)?? Or is this too simplistic? Lastly, could the term be applied to climate extemists who have been shown to misrepresent the risk and impact of climate change? -
Alexandre at 00:27 AM on 17 July 2012AGU Fall Meeting sessions on social media, misinformation and uncertainty
Wow, it's quite a team of speakers! Any chance of having it recorded & posted? Even if it's only audio? (although video wouldn't hurt...)Response: AGU video record and post select sessions but which they select is up to them. They posted my talk on misinformation at last year's AGU Fall Meeting (thanks to Peter Sinclair for YouTubing it) -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:16 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
The comments policy notes that: No ad hominem attacks. Personally attacking other users gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words 'religion' and 'conspiracy' tend to get moderated. Comments using labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' as derogatory terms are usually skating on thin ice." emphasis mine so while denier has nothing to do with holocaust denial, and is a valid term to describe certain behaviours, it is a term that should perhaps be avoided in a scientific discussion, unless it is a discussion of the science of denial. The comments policy also includes: "No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives." -
KR at 00:02 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Gingellenator - I would have to agree with Tom Curtis above. If, when faced with the data, the physics, the last several hundred years of data (climate change having been predicted from the physics in fairly close detail in the late 19th century), folks insist that it's all wrong, that whackadoodle cycle, cosmic ray, or unsupported feedbacks override the physics we do observe, or (in many instances) claim conspiracy of all of these scientists over decades for nefarious purposes, they are then in denial. That is the correct term for the behavior. The association with Holocaust denial (note the additional adjective) has to my understanding has primarily been drawn by those who are indeed in denial of the science, not the people using the term "denialists", and in that regard (in my opinion): "Methinks thou dost protest too much" This is in fact those in denial playing the victim card. I remain unimpressed. -
EliRabett at 00:01 AM on 17 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
John B, you are perhaps aware that the navies, armies and air forces collect and analyze serious amounts of climate data? and that much of it is classified at least in the US? that sea surface temperature records are basically from the navies of the world, who have been collecting it for a couple of hundred years? that what we know of ice thickness in the Arctic before recently comes from submarine cruise? So yes, climate data and data from military records are often the same. Getting access to these records has been pretty hard. Perhaps you and Steve should send them some FOI requests?Moderator Response: [DB] Having worked with much of that data in the past, I can share with you that some of it is classified simply because of its existence (in a nutshell). -
Tom Curtis at 23:58 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
EliRabett @120, and excellent suggestion. May I suggest instead, however, that any climate scientist with any data should offer to sell the data to McIntyre at a reasonable cost; with the condition that the researcher may continue to use the data for research only, and pass it on to any person wanting to use it for research only. Should McIntyre choose to purchase the data, he would then be free to make it publicly available to anyone he desires. Further, any self appointed auditors can simply be referred to McIntyre, whose data it is and who has the responsibility for passing the data on, if he chooses. Should McIntyre accept the offer, he will finally have managed to actually contribute towards scientific research. If he declines the offer, any future requests for data by him can have a simple response: You know the price. Why should McIntyre have free what has cost others much labour to obtain? -
Lotharsson at 23:58 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
This is a hugely insulting term,...
Only if it is inaccurate...or if one takes offence by asserting connotations not asserted by the user. Speaking of which:...with conotations of holocaust denial.
Well, no. Firstly, the use of an adjectiveless noun generally does not connote a specific adjective out of the pantheon of possible adjectives. Secondly, if you suspect an adjective is intended to be connoted and are looking for the most appropriate connotation, "denier" in this context clearly means climate science denier. Similarly in a forum discussing Creationist attacks on evolutionary science, the most likely connotation of "denier" (by far) would be "evolution denier". In a forum discussing anti-vaccinationism, the most likely connotation of "denier" (by far) would be "medical science denier". And in a forum discussing fake moon landing conspiracy theories, the most likely connotation of "denier" (by far) would be "moon landing denier". See the pattern yet? There are very few forums discussing any form of denialism - perhaps even none - except those discussing Holocaust Denialism where the most likely connotation is "Holocaust denier"!Essentially what its use suggest is that I am 100% right, this is self evident and any individual in disagreement is as ignorant as a holocaust denier.
When I use it (typically at other forums) its use denotes that I am claiming the individual in question advocates claims that cannot be substantiated as (one of) the most likely inference(s) from the weight of all the scientific evidence, and always after suitable evidence has been brought to their attention and they have been given plenty of time to substantiate their position. You'll note that ignorance - or the lack of it - has no part in that definition, as denialism (in any evidence-based domain) can clearly be (and often is) engaged in by informed individuals. -
EliRabett at 23:56 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Ging, as Eli has said climate science denial is an ACCURATE description, as is vaccine denial, AIDS denial, tobacco causes cancer denial and many more. The fake fee fees of those who engage in same for fun (and in a few cases profit) is not the Rabett's concern. If you want to read about a Holocaust survivor's opinion on this issue take a look at Micha Tomkiewicz's blog. -
Tom Curtis at 23:52 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Gingellanotor @119, you are incorrect. The term "denier" no more has the connotation of "holocaust denier" than the term "rubber" has the connotation "rubber duck". "Denier" is an adjective naturally formed in the English language from the term "deny", and has existed in that language since at least 1642 (the date is is first recorded in the Shorter Oxford English dictionary). Through out most of that history, if it has any particular connotation it was that of "Peter the denier", referring to the Apostle Peter, but it has been used to refer to people who deny something through out. At no stage in history has "Holocaust Denier" constituted even 10% of uses of the term. The suggestion that we should not use a perfectly good, and accurate English word because some people take fake umbrage due to an association they insist upon, but which is not justified by linguistic usage is absurd. -
EliRabett at 23:51 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Doug, Eli has the solution, let us send Steve McIntyre all the disks, tapes, piles of paper and more that we have. We can rent a couple of eighteen wheelers and dump the stuff on his lawn, with a note that we hear you wanted some data. . . -
Gingellenator at 23:34 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Hi all I am new to the debate surrounding global warming and have found this site very interesting and the discussion informative. One point surrounding the word 'denier' that is used frequently in the debate above (and in other places on this site). This is a hugely insulting term, with conotations of holocaust denial. Essentially what its use suggest is that I am 100% right, this is self evident and any individual in disagreement is as ignorant as a holocaust denier. John, you do a great job editing comments, could I ask that you try to limit the use of this word in others posts.Debate is good, lets try to encourage it and assume the best intentions of those we disagree with. It acually scares me to see terms like this used more and more frequently in society as it shuts down debate. We demean any cause through the use of this language. regards AlexModerator Response: [d_b] Rather than explode an interesting discussion of climate scientists in collision with the legal world and related matters of data preservation, etc., would folks interested in the subject of descriptive terminology for actors in the matters of climate science and climate policy please express their thoughts here? Thank you! -
Kevin C at 23:26 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
dubious: Interesting. It seems Phil Jones was already suspicious of the motives of the requester in that correspondence. I wonder why? -
EliRabett at 23:17 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
The best data storage story that Eli knows actually involves one of the climate denialists, Dennis Wingo, going well beyond the call of duty and rescuing key data from the pre-Apollo missions to the moon. This shows that data sometimes can rise from the data morgues, but also the expense, time and money that has to be spent to rescue the dead. Frankly, most of the stuff is not worth it, but now and then. . . -
dubious at 23:08 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Kevin C: "A polite note saying what you are trying to do is probably much quicker and more effective than a FOI request - it certainly wastes less taxpayers money. Maybe this is where McIntyre is going wrong?" Phil Jones's 2005 email (not to McIntyre) is notorious on this topic: "I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider." Alternatively, google McIntyre Crowley and take the first result. You'll see McIntyre spending about a year and a half of his time trying to get data, starting with very polite emails which were generally ignored and maintaining a much greater level of civility throughout - and persistence - than many people would have managed. Crowley then (2005) wrote an article making a number of allegations about McIntyre, which McIntyre said were untrue. In 2011, Crowley wrote to McIntyre, saying that he had found original correspondence and realised that what he had said about McIntyre had been untrue: "I was shocked when the mails did not reveal what I had totally come to believe Steve had written... "...Whatever, for the record I now apologize to Stephen for that matter and request him to post it on his climateaudit site. I know some people will not believe my (proposed) explanation, but that’s life – I for one know I did not lie (intentionally tell a falsehood) because I try quite hard to say what I think is the truth, by all means to not lie, and teach my children likewise." -
Lotharsson at 22:55 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Do Australian scientists feel there is a need for something like the CSLDF in Australia? If so, is there a suitable vehicle already? -
Dikran Marsupial at 22:15 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
FWIW I sent Prof. Murry Salby an email on 08 June 2012 asking for details of how a slide in his talk was generated so I could try and replicate it for an article I was writing for SkS. I haven't recieved a reply from him to that email, or indeed any other email I have sent (other than the standard "I'm swamped and can't respond to all the emails" reply I recieved from Jemme Wu in response to my first email). -
Kevin C at 22:08 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
One other comment which might be relevant: I have so far requested data from 3 climate scientists (all high profile figures). In each case I had what I wanted within 24 hours. (A polite note saying what you are trying to do is probably much quicker and more effective than a FOI request - it certainly wastes less taxpayers money. Maybe this is where McIntyre is going wrong?) -
JBowers at 21:19 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
BBC News, May 2010 - Climate sceptics rally to expose 'myth'Professor Roy Spencer, for instance, is a climate sceptic scientist from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. But when I asked him about the future of Professor Phil Jones, the man of the heart of the UEA e-mail affair, he said he had some sympathy. "He says he's not very organised. I'm not very organised myself," said Professor Spencer. "If you asked me to find original data from 20 years ago I'd have great difficulty too. "We just didn't realise in those days how important and controversial this would all become - now it would just all be stored on computer. Phil Jones has been looking at climate records for a very long time. Frankly our data set agrees with his, so unless we are all making the same mistake we're not likely to find out anything new from the data anyway."
-
Kevin C at 20:25 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB: You've got some interesting questions there. I don't think the issues are quite as simple however. These comments are from my own field, which is not climate.- For much of my career, we couldn't store the raw data long term, only the results. The raw data were to big. This changed in the late 90's, but is now changing back due to the introduction of new high speed detectors. There have been a few cases of wrong results which might have been fixable with the raw data, but in the vast majority of cases the raw data is never needed again. So there is a cost-balance argument to make - is it more cost effective to store the raw data, or to redo the experiment in the rare cases where it is needed?
- We now often deposit data and/or methods with papers. I've been trying to do that with my posts here (or at least have enough ready to pull it together in an hour or two). But it is time consuming. Software even more so - I've been developing scientific software for 20 years, and to produce releasable code rather than something you run once (even with careful testing) to get a specific result usually increases the amount of work several times. So again there is a trade off.
- We lost a lot of our data from the 80's in the switch from reel-to-reel tapes to cassettes, and we did a lot better than many labs, because we were big enough to have a full time system manager. Data management was hugely manpower intensive. To some extent it still is - if we didn't have someone who could manage network appliances for us, then buying in storage either commercially or from the university would significantly inflate the cost of our grants.
-
JBowers at 20:12 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
"Given that Monnett and Gleason are biologists being persecuted for a paper on polar bears, would it be considered not 'climate science'?" PEER were already helping Monnett before becoming involved with CSLDF, IIRC. But Monnett's 2006 article discussed polar bear population within context of sea ice loss, and biological sciences can be part of the climate sciences. "Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics" -
CBDunkerson at 19:29 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Is there a clear line between what CSLDF and PEER will be handling? For instance, I recall that PEER has been dealing with the witch hunt and smear campaign against Charles Monnett and Jeff Gleason. That travesty has been conducted entirely in the workplace and the press because the chief inquisitor's repeated requests for prosecution have all been turned down by the DoJ... presumably for being insane. If it DID become a legal matter would the CSLDF become involved at that point or would PEER continue handling it? Given that Monnett and Gleason are biologists being persecuted for a paper on polar bears, would it be considered not 'climate science'? -
JBowers at 19:13 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
For some perspective on archiving costs: A History of Storage Cost (1980-2012). For instance, cost per GB (2012 adjusted price in brackets)... 1980: $193,000 ($538,280) 1985: $71,000 ($151,644) 1990: $9,000 ($15,825) 1995: $1,260 ($1,900) How many researcher salaries could be covered in 1985 or 1990 by the cost of a GB of storage? How many field trips, even? And then you'd have to do what dbostrom did, which still doesn't mean "plug'n'play". For example, requesting 1990 data in 2007, seventeen years after publication, isn't being very realistic, IMHO. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:43 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Further to tlitb1's questions, I should add that I think my writeup of CSLDF didn't sufficiently emphasize the larger role CSLDF intends to play in terms of helping scientists and institute staff quickly get up to speed on efficiently dealing with FOI/FOIA requests, being a clearinghouse for pertinent information and resources. This will benefit everybody, including those who choose to launch inquiries. To the extent the wheel does not need to be reinvented with each new request, that's good. Again, it's easy to lose sight of how strange and unfamiliar it is for the research community to be confronted with "out of band" activities that ignore tried-and-true means of conducting science. For researchers it's a new form of communication, arguably inefficient, distracting, not very useful in terms of growing our sphere of understanding but nonetheless something that cannot be ignored. -
Doug Bostrom at 18:26 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
Good questions, tlitb1, and (presuming one of the principles does not reply here first) I'll endeavor to obtain an answer about CSLDF's process of deciding who needs help. I'll hazard a guess that CSLDF won't be in the business of "offense" or countersuits but that's worth asking about as well. Regarding people directly benefiting from CSLDF assistance, so far the roster includes Mann, Hayhoe, Dessler. -
tlitb1 at 18:11 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
First time I have heard of the CSDL. If I may I am going to ask a couple of questions here since this seems a good place to ask them, but if they cannot be answered here, or have been answered elsewhere (please tell me where) then my apologies. Firstly, I wonder if anyone could point me to a more detailed charter of what this organisation will do and who would qualify for its support? I have been through the rather sparse CSDL site and don’t see anything that would qualify for that. For example one thing I am curious about is will the “Defense” part of the name mean it will limit the organisation so there will be no supporting litigating against other parties? Secondly I went through all the press links via the CSDL and I think the CDSL need to explain the versatility of the benefactors so this doesn’t just seem a one man organisation. As far as I can see only Michael Mann seems to be benefiting from the CSDL. Whilst I understand there has to be a first case to launch the organisation – the following statement is madeCurrently several climate scientists have litigation in the courts.
Are these litigants being supported by CDSL? If so why can't they be named? ThanksModerator Response: Regarding selection of cases, Joshua Wolfe of CSLDF tells us "...we deal with things of a case by case basis. Some people just need referal to a pro-bono lawyer or a quick conversation, others need litigation support. Our goal is to keep people out of a courtroom if at all possible."
Further to choosing whom to assist, Joshua says CSLDF is keen to avoid joining in unnecessary scraps; indications that an applicant for help might be spoiling for a fight would be a negative for deciding to lend support. Of this, Joshua says "Our goal is to keep scientists out of the crosshairs, not pick fights for the sake of picking fights. All this litigation around scientists is a distraction from important issues…we want to end the distraction not perpetuate it."
CSLDF does not have any plans for proactive litigation but does not rule it out if the benefits of so doing appear to be worthwhile.
--Doug Bostrom -
Doug Bostrom at 17:24 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB: I doubt that I've ever seen such overblown self importance. Not even here? That link isn't randomly chosen. We've established that storage of data isn't free and isn't being accounted for and we have not even touched the matter of paying for retrieval. Surely the fecund imagination behind the writing at that post can picture the problem? Sure, data should be available but there needs to be a means to pay for that. When does Joe Public get to see the data that he paid for? At the whim of the researcher? After he dies? When? When the bill for storage is paid? My family shares a rented storage unit; when the credit card it's charged to expired we discovered that the lock on the unit was changed. We got access to our stuff when the payment data was renewed. Seriously, thanks for the acknowledgement of the problem, John. Obviously there are better ways to archive data. Thinking of McIntyre's beefing about Lonnie and Ellen Thompson immediately leads my mind back to the pile of hard disks and dormant or dead computers here at my home. There's data frozen in the garage museum that cost many thousands of dollars to obtain but the operating systems and software providing the support framework for that data have long since shuffled their mortal coils. Naked disk drives need host hardware, then they need an OS capable of mounting the partitions on the drives, then they need software able to read the data storage formats. Quick: the person with a 1986 version of SPSS, raise your hand! Is it reasonable to expect that somebody should have continuously maintained the native host environment for 25 year old data? No, obviously not; simple hardware mortality and lack of replacement availability makes that an unreasonable demand, let alone the issues with maintaining software with terminated time-based licensing schemes, etc. How about a rotating program of migration? Should Lonnie and Ellen Thompson have maintained a data management plan that was able to navigate serial obsolescence of multiple iterations of hardware platforms, operating systems and application software? Is that reasonable? Maybe, with a commitment from funding agencies to maintain support continuity on long-dead grants. Is it the fault of Lonnie and Ellen Thompson that they could not build such a perfect world around themselves? Paradoxically the best course available short of a overarching system akin to what John describes would have been paper copies of the data. But guess what? Rummage through McIntyre's site and you'll actually find him fussing about the trouble of transferring numbers from a PDF to his spreadsheet. In fact, he implies that he was supplied with PDF data specifically to thwart him. A PDF printed and scanned is the same as any other piece of paper printed and scanned. So paper's not good enough. There's no pleasing some people. Faced with the Thompson situation, McIntyre's confronted with choices. Instead of following a counterproductive rising trajectory of insult and fulminations McIntyre could sweetly inquire of the Thompsons as to the status of their data, whether the problem is that their material is in a fossilized electronic state, or if it's in paper form and in need of sorting or some other manual labor input. McIntyre could offer to help. I wonder why that never occurs to him? I'm thinking about what I'd need to do to get one of the drives in the garage research data boneyard here going. Most of them are SCSI; I'd need a machine with the correct SCSI interface. Assuming I found the drive still operable, I'd then need to identify the partition scheme and filesystem on the drive. With the right version of Linux I could probably mount almost any partition and filesystem. Then I'd need to deal with data formats. I'd most likely not be able to deal with the data in native fashion with the software that processed and wrote that data; it's not impossible that I'd need to actually do some reverse engineering to get anything useful at all off the drive. Somehow all of this does not sound like something somebody's going to be able to do in their spare time; if professional services are needed the job would require serious amounts of cash to complete. Maybe McIntyre could exert himself to imagine these challenges, instead of simply bitching about not being helped to avoid doing the hard work of basic research himself. -
skywatcher at 17:17 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
When does Joe Public get to see the data that he paid for?
Interesting question. A more interesting question is this: What would Joe Public do with such raw data? Joe Public gets to see the results, as published in the scientific journals. Depending on access, they can get articles for free, bought from publisher, or for a small fee through their local library. These articles will digest the data, methods used, and results into a format accessible to many. If Joe Public does not understand the journal articles, then Joe is not going to be in a position to perform their own analysis on the data. They will not realise or understand the elementary methods, and elementary errors to avoid, in analysing such data. If there are errors in the paper, Joe Public is not going to know what they are, or whether they are important. Joe has a lot of learning to do! This sort of process is painfully evident with many of the self-styled 'auditors' of climate data who, being charitable, make dreaful errors in reanalysing the copious quantities of raw data they have ample access to. But alternatively, if Joe Public really thinks he can understand the science and the methodology, why does Joe Public not do something much more powerful? In science, replication is a hundred times better than repetition. Joe can see if he gets the same result, using a different dataset, different methods, or both. Of course the key results in climate science have been replicated many times over, including those favourites of the skeptics, the Hockey Stick and the surface temperature record, so this is actually a rather fruitless exercise. But maybe you can find an oil company with massive daily profits who would fund such a venture? After all, it's in their interests! Of course Richard Muller already did that with BEST, and replicated the existing results on the surface temperature dataset! Key datasets are already freely available online. Where are the skeptics' own dendrochronology datasets, or surface temperature analyses, that are both robust and in conflict with the accepted science? Has Steve McIntyre gone to the remote forests of the world and done the hard work collecting, analysing, interpreting and publishing his own dendrochronology record? He hasn't. Why not? Is he afraid of replicating the currently-accepted science? -
Uncle Pete at 17:04 PM on 16 July 2012Welcome to the Rest of Our Lives
Here in Qld Australia,in a number of inland towns the insurance companies are refusing to insure some homeowners against flooding. So far not many people seem to have connected the dots. -
soo doh nim at 16:08 PM on 16 July 2012CO2 limits will make little difference
I followed this link from the Spencer slip ups page. This doesn't seem to rebut Spencer's point that even massive reductions in CO2 output will only marginally decrease warming. Is there a link to a more direct rebuttal? -
JohnB7198 at 15:56 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I doubt that I've ever seen such overblown self importance. Comparing climate data or data in general to Department of Defence and Treasury? Seriuosly? Do you get a little light for your car and "Access" passes? "I'm from the Department of Climate and it's vital to the Nations security that you let me pass"? Seriously?We aren't talking security restricted stuff here so why in the name of sanity it is being compared to that I do not understand. @#96 Tom. (Wasn't that a TV show back in the 70s? :)) I don't think your argument quite works. In the first part you are agreeing with me that the artifacts/data does not belong to the researcher, which was my position. I agree with your second part and lump that type of thing in with "Publication rights". To be very clear here. I expect any researcher to have first publication rights from any data etc he collects. I also expect that govs should pick up the badly dropped ball and provide data storage facilities. Years ago this would have been expensive but not now. The data that a paper is based on must be collated somewhere, otherwise you don't have it in one place to work with. To my mind a system where the paper is written and submitted, then the data is zipped and sent to central archives is the way to go. I notice that every responder so far has failed to answer the simple question I posed. When does Joe Public get to see the data that he paid for? At the whim of the researcher? After he dies? When? Note that what I'm talking about is not what is, it's how I think it should be. There is a difference. The present system is a mess and FOIs are flying, so rather than bitch and moan, how about improving the system? @ Doug. I'm assuming that you're in the US. I see the problem you face and I do "get it". If we do nothing then the problem will only get worse. I'm sure that there are Oz researchers in exactly the same boat. I think that it is required that Democratic govs provide the people and facilities to empty those garages. I would certainly back any effort on the part of the Oz gov to set up something like that. So from a given date all new data is in central archiving and anything before that date is "in process" of being added. Which allows you to handball any enquiry for data etc to central archives. Once data is collected and the paper published it's become old (so to speak) and should be the purview of the librarian. I'd like to see a system that empties your garage and puts all the information to easy availability. If Joe public wants to see it then fine, just ask the online librarian and download it. Let's take the burden away from those whose time is better spent than hunting around old records. I think that this is the sort of system we should be aiming for but a prerequisite is to know who actually owns the data to be stored. @97 Bob. I don't know where you are but with a population of 35 million it isn't Oz. Australia is a Democracy and we have a Parliament that sets the rules. After the next election, how about we change the rules so that anybody who won't go the "Archive your data" road gets no further funding? Since Parliament represents ALL of the people, that saves trying to divide the work into tiny packets. -
Bob Loblaw at 14:23 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
As for the "it wasn't a threat, yes it was" argument: - I used to work for a fellow that lost his temper one day and said that if I was going to "be that way" then perhaps we should "end our working relationship". He later denied threatening to fire me. Perhaps that wasn't what he meant, but I'm damn sure he wasn't planning on quitting. Even if he just meant he'd have me transferred somewhere else, it was clearly intended as a threat. Knowing him (and his previous problems with subordinates), I suspect that he actually had used the words "I'll fire you" once before and got in trouble for it - and had learned how to make sure he had "plausible deniability". Perhaps he even got legal advice on how far he could go without getting into trouble (but given that he tended to do these things in a rage, I doubt he could think that quickly). I've also known people that were owed money that just sent polite letters to former employees asking for it - on their lawyer's letterhead... No threat to sue, but but it sure stakes out ground. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:20 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
I should add the final twist to the waxy data buildup situation in my garage: it's not even my data. My garage is choked with my SO's work product, not mine. That's ok; I'm signed on to the scientific enterprise, joined in holy matrimony for better or worse. I understand the value of the data and I'm committed to playing my little role in helping the scientific enterprise along by tending the data dehumidifier and stacking more boxes in my garage. But when a Stan McSwain comes along, disparages my kitchen, asks for a free sandwich and then either doesn't get his free sandwich because it turns out lunch is not actually free or complains that his sandwich is no good, he's not going to earn my sympathy and cooperation. -
Doug Bostrom at 14:06 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
JohnB: Doug Bostrom in #73 gave a testimonial which demonstrates how difficult things have been in the past and how inconvenient it can be today. However Doug, if the data etc is yours, then storage is your problem, why should the taxpayer help? The taxpayer doesn't pay for storage of my personal items, why shoould they pay for yours? but if it ultimately belongs to the taxpayer then of course they should pay for storage. The clue to the answer is here: NSF et al are coasting on our dime. I'll spell it out: it's your data but I'm paying to store it, forever according to the rigorous standards set by the "blauditor" community. Imagine that a year or so from now I decided to unleash my inner child, obtain a clapped-out Jag XJ and nurse it back to life. I'll need some room for that. Casting my eye around I see that not only do I not have room for a restoration project but my treasured table saw is already jammed in the corner of my garage because the space is stuffed with moldering research components. Well, it's all years old and frankly I'm sick of taking care of the taxpayer's data and not being paid for it. Out it all goes and in comes the rusty XJ. Now let's suppose somebody (we'll call him Stan McSwain) notices publications built on the termite attractant in my garage as a bit player in a gripe he's got with another researcher's work. McSwain needs to call into question the publications sourced from the moldering mound as a means of undermining the target in his sights. He can't find anything overtly wrong with those publications so he needs some other means of casting doubt on the work. Suppose a mistake was made in the analysis of the fusty source data? There's no reason to believe that's the case but that doesn't really matter; doubt is the product here, not scientific progress. McSwain asks to see the data but not before publishing suspicions and speculations about errors in the work based on the data. The reply he gets is "Sorry, pal, no can do; NSF's free ride ended a little before you got here. And you're a rude SOB so don't expect a box of chocolates as a consolation prize. Buzz off." For McSwain this is the perfect situation; now he can go on a sermonizing crusade about feckless scientists not preserving their data, martyr himself for being mistreated by the object of his bile while simultaneously farming doubt about whether the publications in question are properly founded. For me, it's a bad arrangement. I have to store the data for free, forever, because if I don't I run the risk of a deranged McSwain invading my life and smearing me in public, forever. -
Tom Curtis at 13:59 PM on 16 July 2012What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?
"..but if JohnB happens to be one of the people that paid taxes to help pay for my work, I'll be glad to send him one thirty-five-millionth of my code and data, because that's all he's paid for. "
ROFLMAO
Prev 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 Next
