Some of you may recall the memorable climate science phrase: 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. Here’s the story behind this and some updates on it.
Category Archives: Disclosure and Diligence
We get considerable criticism from paleoclimate scientists that complying with requests for data and methods sufficient to permit replication is much too onerous and distracts them from "real work". However, the problem is not our request, but that any request should be necessary in the first place. In my opinion, a replication package should have […]
Some time ago, I posted up some information on data archiving policy of the U.S.Global Change Research Program (USGRCP) and its guidelines to various agencies. I’ve identified 4 other policy statements from other institutions, including the National Science Foundation, which pertain to present matters.
"Full, true and plain disclosure" is a fundamental obligation in the offering of public securities. As someone with experience in this field, I’ve been reflecting for some time about the following questions: Is there a duty of “full, true and plain disclosure” or its equivalent in science? If so, how is it expressed in journal […]
Richard G. Anderson, William H. Greene, Bruce D. McCullough and H. D. Vinod have some very interesting comments in a recent Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis Working Paper about the importance of archiving data and code, in which they cite our work approvingly. Here’s a nice cut phrase that they quote: An applied economics […]
Here are the current top fifteen climate science reasons for not disclosing data or code:
I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use “multiproxy” reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980 and bring the proxies up-to-date. I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with policymakers.
This post seems to have caught a chord and has quickly become the most read posting on the site. It was was cited approvingly by Roger Pielke at his blog [now here] and re-printed with slight edits by National Post on Feb. 15, 2005.
In the aftermath of the Bre-X fraud, quite naturally, there was a great deal of examination of procedures, methods and due diligence. One of the standard – actually it would be more accurate to say universal – practices in mineral exploration is that diamond drill core is split in half on site. The core is […]
Here is an interesting contemporary report from a stock market observer about a Bre-X skeptic: I n our Stockex Issue 6/96 of October – November last year we wrote as follows, at about the time Bre-X was being asked to go on a blind date with Barrick. “Remarkably, given the involvement of groups like Kilborn […]