My experience of the taxman is that they never call you a liar but just strike out your expenses if you can’t prove them. Why shouldn’t we do that with science papers? Archive your source data and all you calculations and computer code or your paper is struck out.

However if you do lie to the taxman and submit fraudulent data and he finds out you are likely to pay a hefty penalty to avoid a criminal record. Why not have the same system. Climate Change science is a lot more important than most people’s tax return.

Certainly this HAS TO BE resolved if their papers are guiding the whole freaking world.

Why is anybody so protective of scientists who find Hockey Sticks in every study they conduct when the Hockey Stick is flawed as flawed can be? Why does anyone want to trust them so much? Why does it make anyone feel good if they see anything that supports the belief in AGW? Why does anyone have to make stuff up? This is a fantasy PH:

“”I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect scientist to have to hand every notebook, every scrap of paper, everything they’ve ever written – and for critics to draw unfavourable conclusions if that’s not the case.

It’s mind boggling that even a Congressional Hearing doesn’t matter to some people. RC continues to make fun of it. The arrogance and self serving behavior on top of data manipulation is also a clue to character and honesty if you ask me.

I’ve made sure that I archive my own code for publications – and I’m really glad that I did. I keep working on things and change how I do some calculations and it’s easy to lose track of what you did.

The systems that I’ve recommended are already required in economics journals. It’s a “best available practice” and there is no valid reason for paleoclimate scientists to oppose.

I guess I struggle to see the unprovided data and code as being the kinds of things that get misplaced. If I proposed a new interpretation of data, using special statistical techniques and it got incorporated into a UN document, I would keep the data, code and other methodology. If I later wrote supporting papers, I’d keep my data, code and methodology.

Documentation, and providing it when asked, is a regular practice in the workaday world. It’s a healthy habit.

I believe that all sides of this great debate support open access to data, code and methodology, which is great. I asked the question of the most reasoned and articulate “CA skeptics” (Lee and Peter) to confirm my belief and get it in public. The request for open acess is an issue we can all rally around, all sides of the debate, in a joint pursuit of truth.

Thanks!

Re #22, don’t see why not – but why the suspicion of these people? I’d try not to distrust people first. I trust Steve when he say is he does this blog on his own. I trust Steve when he say’s he’s not being paid to do it. I trust other people here who say like wise. Why can’t we just trust these scientists? We do people here think them inherently dishonest?

Umm… because they stridently refuse to disclose their data and code?

Would you react well to someone (the tax (IRS?) man say) asking you for every detail of your past financial life for decades back and if you can’t find it all calling you a fraud and a liar? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect scientist to have to hand every notebook, every scrap of paper, everything they’ve ever written – and for critics to draw unfavourable conclusions if that’s not the case.

I’m a terrible horder of stuff myself, but my ‘office’ is consequently piled high with stuff I ought to chuck and things I can’t find for all the other stuff. Don’t expecet all people to hord everything.