Comments on: Crowley Tries to Get Data from Jacoby

By: Punksta

Punksta — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:14:22 +0000

The obvious answer to the data hiding problem is surely for journals to
- make full archiving a condition of publication
- delist / retract (or whatever the word is) any papers later found to have been inadequately archived.

However, since journals like Science and Nature are so doggedly opposed to genuine openness in science, and so do not insist on archiving, what can anyone do about this?

My suggestion is to start compiling a register of all climate papers, with each entry having
- an openness rating and details of how to access the archive (if applicable)
- what journal is is published in
- reports (eg the IPCC’s) that cite it

This would provide a quick reference point for anyone wanting to know if data for a given paper is available, as well as shine a light on the openness or otherwise of journals and reports.

The overall effect would be to highlight what parts of climate science and its core institutions depend on data hiding, the idea being to name and shame them back to more honest practices.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:17:45 +0000

The BCS polls do not release methodology and data to the public. Only one poll does, and that poll was found to have an error, which would have changed the 10th and 11th spots.

http://cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/14395939/glitch-leaves-lsu-boise-state-in-wrong-order-in-final-bcs

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:59:19 +0000

“It reports a new finding that contrary to some “skeptics”, white spruce trees indeed grow faster with higher temperatures, and that the “new” indicator of tree ring density gets around the “divergene problem” that TR width sometimes does not correlate well after 1950 or so. This is odd, given that TR max density (MXD) is what Briffa’s notoriously divergent series measures. The press release specifically mentions that it refutes doubts arising from Climategate.”

I find these pronouncements from the consensus (primarily from the media but also from the science community) to be so general and vague and unconnected with specific instances and details as to be worthless. I can only hope that so-called skeptics and those criticizing the consensus can avoid discussions of generalities and rather delve into the details of the matter.

By: Moderate Low Weight « Climate Audit

Moderate Low Weight « Climate Audit — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:35:11 +0000

[...] NH series has the same six proxies as the main reconstruction plus Jacoby’s Mongolia series (discussed by Steve yesterday) and Fisher’s West Greenland series, both shown in the Eos Figure [...]

By: P. Solar

P. Solar — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:17:22 +0000

Damn, wordpress screwing around again. To ensure it does not remove this text with less-than and greater-than signs I’ll post with source code tags.

Ed Cook #3253

    the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fuck-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

By: P. Solar

P. Solar — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:13:34 +0000

Since Ed Cook’s name came up in this discussion , I thought something Jeff Id found from him may be relevent.

Ed Cook #3253

the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all).

Yep that last bit sums it up nicely, it would make a good by-line for the next IPCC report: summary for decision makers.

By: Richard T. Fowler

Richard T. Fowler — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:03:51 +0000

“[. . .] one other reason some of them would not want the data made public: they knew the work was refutable, but they published it anyway because it aided the “cause.” ”

You know, I’m pretty cynical when it comes to dendros, but I have to admit that it strikes me as being possible that he didn’t _know_ if it was refutable, but didn’t want to take the chance, because to do so posed a _risk_ to the “cause”.

Just a thought.

RTF

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 10:36:05 +0000

Frivously,
Dendro has not been the same since heating and temp were replaced by eating and hemp.
While Dendrochronology still seems relatively ok, I deleted Dendrothermometry from my reading list a year ago because it failed several essential tests of science – and scientists – but it’s hard to avoid accidental encounters.

By: P. Solar

P. Solar — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 08:22:32 +0000

That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

We see, yet again, that the very basis of science: reproducibility, is being deliberately and steadfastly thwarted.

Scientific validation *requires* reproduction.

In refusing to release his data for over ten year he is taking the very clear position that he does not want his work validating.

It is difficult to imagine any other motivation for this other than he knows it will not stand up to inspection.

Steve; it’s not as simple as that. Jacoby was a field guy and got annoyed at his data being used in multiproxy studies that got more attention than the studies by the guys that did the collection. So Mann annoyed him on that basis. Jacoby’s problem was that he didn’t publish or archive the “bad” data – the data that didn’t show the pattern he was looking for – thereby biasing the literature.

I think

By: P. Solar

P. Solar — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 07:54:08 +0000

>>
Both Hegerl and D’Arrigo complained back to IPCC about being required to supply data and IPCC WG1 Chair Susan Solomon said that I would be expelled as a reviewer if I asked for data.
>>

I think that is probably the most succinct and damning evidence I have seen of how the IPCC functions.

Is that response in IPCC records?