Governments should require that funded climate data be posted
My case for requiring the posting of publicly-funded data related to climate research
boils down to three points: C1. It will allow review of the data for error by other
scientists. C2. It will put peer pressure on the originating scientists to use better
methodologies, such as software configuration control. C3. The public has a right
to the products of work paid for by taxpayers. Con did not address any of my three
points. Instead, he introduced two negative contentions. N1. Pro claimed that public
controversy would continue regardless of whether data is disclosed or not. I never
claimed that disclosure would end public controversy. I don't doubt that there are
people among the public who will not alter their positions regardless of what is revealed.
We should not care about that. Dissent is protected, even if it is not well-founded.
However, until there is disclosure of what climate crisis advocates have done, there
is no possibility of achieving a consensus on it, either by the public or among scientists.
We may not ever get a public consensus, but there is a possibility of getting closer agreement among scientists. That will not happen
until disclosure of research data and methods is accomplished. N2. Con goes on to claim, "I will show how unlimited public access
to all, and especially preliminary data will only serve to further fire the flames
of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time."
So for example, if the official position is that the earth is the center of the universe, allowing access to data that shows the earth revolves
around the sun would similarly, "fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure
what may well be the most crucial issue of our time." "Our time" in that case being
the Sixteenth Century. It is precisely because a scientific issue is important that data ought to be disclosed, not suppressed. Con implied I wanted "preliminary
data" disclosed. The resolution makes it clear that disclosure of source data and
processing software is required only one month *after* publication. No preliminary data need ever be disclosed.
It sometimes happens that a particular line of scientific inquiry proves ultimately
fruitless, in which case no results are published and nothing ever need be disclosed
as a consequence. When a result is published it is believed by the originator to be reliable. In the case of climate data, it is used as a basis for public policy decisions. If it supposed to be the basis for decision making, then it is appropriate that the means by which it was derived be disclosed at that time, or
soon thereafter. Returning to my contentions, to which Pro offered no rebuttals: C1.
The revealed CRU e-mails show an intent to further subvert the peer review process.
Peer review is performed by qualified scientists. Climate crisis advocates have a well-established pattern of attempting to conceal data. The
most notorious example is the bogus "hockey stick" in which global temperature were claimed to have been stable
for a thousand years, until they rose exponentially in the past few decades. The hockey
stick graph was included in the 2001 IPCC report as proof of CO2 caused global warming.
The graph was doubted from the outset, because it did not show the Medieval Warm Period
or the Little Ice Age, major periods of natural climate variation. With enormous effort, skeptical scientists finally managed to extract
the source data from those behind the hockey stick construction and to show the specific
errors in data processing that produced the spurious result. Organizations such as
the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics subsequently conducted a massive
review of the scientific literature and firmly established the existence of the past
climate variations. The UN removed the hockey stick from the 2007 IPCC report. The process
of uncovering and correcting the errors took close to a decade, because the originating
scientists would not divulge their data or detailed methodology. CRU was heavily involved
in preparing the data for the bogus hockey stick. The present resolution would prevent
such concealment and would enable skeptical scientists to conduct a proper review
of important research. The errors in the derivation of the hockey stick might have
been revealed before it was included in the 2001 IPCC report. Currently there is considerable controversy over recent temperature data that show sharp recent temperature
rises. Allegations include claims that much of the recent proof of global warming
is derived from the rings of three trees in Siberia, which is claimed to be given a high weight in multiple sets of climate data. Originators of the data are extremely reluctant to reveal their data and methods.
The current resolution would help resolve the issue. Note that NASA has refused to
comply with FIA requests made in 2007. The present resolution would have required
contemporaneous disclosure. C2. The accepted professional practice for industry is to use a software configuration control system. This is applied both to program code and to data files. So if one wishes to recover the results
at some specific time in the past, the configuration control system will automatically
reconstruct the software and data sets for the desired day. CRU could not do that,
so they could not comply with FIA requests even if they wanted to. To my knowledge,
no one has claimed that being unable to reproduce past results is an acceptable practice in the scientific world. Forcing immediate direct disclosure
solves the problem in one sense, because outsiders can then track the data. However,
once scientists at CRU and elsewhere realize they will be forced to disclose, by far
the easiest way to comply is to do what they should have always done -- implement a configuration control system.
The US military systematically requires its contractors to implement such systems,
and they sometimes require that the government be able to access the system remotely
in real time. In other words, the military does not allow disorganized software development.
While the resolution does not require such high standards of scientists, the resolution
strongly encourages improved practices. The benefit is that the taxpayers get higher quality work for their money. C3. Why has Con failed
to address the public's right to get access to what they have paid for? I have allowed
that there are certain exemptions to the general rule of disclosure. Climate research does not fit any category of exemption. FIA requests have not been denied
under any claim of exemption, the requests are just arbitrarily delayed or ignored.
The resolution would put an end to concealment through delaying tactics. The CRU e-mails
include internal requests to destroy past e-mail files so they could not be uncovered
by FIA requests. CRU also admits to having destroyed original climate data, although they claim they did so to save storage space. Immediate disclosure
puts an end to the destruction of scientific data to conceal it. Any one of my three
contentions is sufficient to support the resolution. So far Con has addressed none of them. The resolution is affirmed.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
