Climategate and the Need For Greater Scientific Openness

The Guardian follows up on the recent news that CRU climate scientists were cleared of scientific misconduct with an article that focuses on how the controversy could have been avoided, and public trust retained, had the scientists made more of an effort to be open about their research. You may recall our discussion of a report from Pennsylvania State University; that was followed by another review with similar conclusions. Quoting: "The review, led by Sir Muir Russell, does not mention the media. Instead, it examines the reaction of the scientists at the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to the pressure exerted by bloggers: 'An important feature of the blogosphere is the extent to which it demands openness and access to data. A failure to recognize this and to act appropriately can lead to immense reputational damage by feeding allegations of cover-up.' The review adds: 'We found a lack of recognition of the extent to which earlier action to release information might have minimized the problems.' Pressure on the scientists, whose once esoteric work creating records of past temperatures had gained global significance, was intense. In 2005, CRU head Phil Jones replied to a request: '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?' But, the review implies, the more they blocked, the more the Freedom of Information requests flooded in."

Re:Impressive

[Jawnn]

You imagine correctly. :)
My mistake was in assuming that subtleties like metaphor would be readily grasped by those with a demonstrated inability to think critically (global warming deniers).
[shrug]

Re:That's how science works...

[bunratty]

I thought that's what the email hackers tried to do to Jones and Mann. Maybe you're reading the story right to left or bottom to top.

Re:Impressive

[Anonymous Coward]

The World is grey. More importantly, everything in it is constantly changing. Any deviation from accepting these 2 tenants, and you'll be left behind.

But I don't want to rent to them!

Oh, you meant tenets?

Re:!Science

[Rockoon]

No they're not. Real Climate article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/ [realclimate.org]

Guess who runs realcimate...

Lets find out if Joe Plumber ripped off his last customer. "Hey Joe, did you rip off your last customer? No? Well OK then. Joe didn't rip off his last customer."

Re:!Science

[physicsphairy]

Yes, it's entirely appropriate for a scientist to act to keep his objective knowledge out of the reach of these nefarious perverters of truth. Truly, they sound terrible, so I can see why we would want to keep them from blaspheming the sacred data. Of course, it's not like you can just turn down everyone wearing a Fox News badge--anybody could be acting at their behest! Basically, we need to keep the data locked up away from the public in general. (Frankly, they are not worthy to see it anyway.) Really, I can't even imagine the sort of terrible world in which people are allowed to know things without signing off on their good intentions with the High Scientist.

Re:Impressive

[tehcyder]

the general case is that AGW proponents have an overwhelming influence in the media, in government and in academia. They ain't the underdogs. They're the Establishment.

and the the general case is that heliocentric, non-flat-earth proponents have an overwhelming influence in the media, in government and in academia. They ain't the underdogs. They're the Establishment.

Re:Insightful?

[Rockoon]

Honestly mods, how can the parent get any closer to a school book example of a flamebait?

Just like CLimatology, there arent actually any classes you can take in flamebaiting. No school books in either.