Research Data: Share Early, Share Often 138
Shipud writes "Holland was recently in the news when a psychology professor in Tilburg University was found to have committed large-scale fraud over several years. Now, another Dutch psychologist is suggesting a way to avert these sort of problems, namely by 'sharing early and sharing often,' since fraud may start with small indiscretions due to career-related pressure to publish. In Wilchert's study, he requested raw data from the authors of some 49 papers. He found that the authors' reluctance to share data was associated with 'more errors in the reporting of statistical results and with relatively weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis). The documented errors are arguably the tip of the iceberg of potential errors and biases in statistical analyses and the reporting of statistical results. It is rather disconcerting that roughly 50% of published papers in psychology contain reporting errors and that the unwillingness to share data was most pronounced when the errors concerned statistical significance.'"
mixed policy in space sciences (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is this "share early, share often"? (Score:4, Informative)
What? The IPCC was just collecting already published data, there was no 'new' studies done.
Careful - your bias is shining through.
NSF requires sharing already (Score:4, Informative)
This is a fairly major project at the university I work for, both from the in-process data management perspective (keeping field researchers from storing their only copies on thumbdrives and laptops) and from the long-term repository perspective for holding the data when the grant is completed (that's what I'm involved with).
Storage is cheap. Convincing university administrators to pay for keeping it accessible is another problem, but the NSF position is helping.
Re:You Mean... (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of these errors have been found in neuroscience journals, too, which fancies itself a harder science...
Re:Psychology (Score:2, Informative)
sstamps wrote:
>First, he has never stonewalled requests for the raw data. It's been out there for ANYONE to obtain. The problem is that, for some of it, you have to PAY to get it, and UEA was forbidden by contract to give away said data for free...
No. Those who requested the data requested that if all the data couldn't be provided, then the freely available data should be provided. They were refused. When asked for a list of what data was used, but not the data itself, they refused. Even if the data is available for free on the net, how can the results be replicated if they will not say which data was used?
>Mann's work has been vindicated and replicated time and time again...
It has only been replicated by his buddies. It's like a study by an oil company being replicated by another oil company. There can be no vindication for trying to "hide the decline". It is a well established rule of science that you don't leave out data that casts doubt on your conclusion.
You've fallen for their story. Many of us used to think the alarmists were good willed, and we assumed they were honest. I still think they are good willed, but we now know they are not honest. They hide important information that casts doubt on their theories. And worse, when their colleagues are caught doing corrupt science, their community maintains a code of silence or defends the indefensible. This casts doubt on all the evidence brought by the entire climate science community.
Re:Psychology (Score:5, Informative)
No. Those who requested the data requested that if all the data couldn't be provided, then the freely available data should be provided. They were refused.
Bzzt. Wrong. Try again. [realclimate.org]
30.First, in answer to the question of whether the raw data are accessible and verifiable, Professor Jones told us that:
The simple answer is yes, most of the same basic data are available in the United States in something called the Global Historical Climatology Network. They have been downloadable there for a number of years so people have been able to take the data, do whatever method of assessment of the quality of the data and derive their own gridded product and compare that with other workers.
31.In addition, of course, there are the sources of the data, the weather stations, to which any individual is free to go and collect the data in the same way that CRU did. This is feasible because the list of stations that CRU used was published in 2008.
41. Professor Jones contested these claims. According to him, “The methods are published in the scientific papers; they are relatively simple and there is nothing that is rocket science in them”. He also noted: “We have made all the adjustments we have made to the data available in these reports; they are 25 years old now”. He added that the programme that produced the global temperature average had been available from the Met Office since December 2009.
51. Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.
When asked for a list of what data was used, but not the data itself, they refused. Even if the data is available for free on the net, how can the results be replicated if they will not say which data was used?
Jones PERSONALLY refused. The information about what data was used has been available since the original papers and research were performed! IT'S IN THE RESEARCH, DURRRR. Have you ever read any of it?
It has only been replicated by his buddies.
Bzzt! [globalwarmingart.com] Wrong. [skepticalscience.com] Try again. [berkeleyearth.org]
BEST was funded by the Koch brothers, owners of a giant oil/petrochemical company. Most DEFINITELY NOT "buddies" with Mann. Even still, being "buddies" in science doesn't mean diddly-squat; it's not about WHO you know, but WHAT you know, and HOW WELL you know it. So far, Mann's work has been REPEATEDLY vindicated.
There can be no vindication for trying to "hide the decline".
Ya know, for a minute there, I thought you might be trying to be genuinely serious and skeptical. Then you trot THAT out. /facepalm
It is a well established rule of science that you don't leave out data that casts doubt on your conclusion.
You are correct, it is, and the vast majority of climate scientists and their research faithfully follow that rule, no matter how many intellectually dishonest, ignorant, and gullible idiots falling for charlatans and snake oil salesmen lke Watts, Michaels, Singer, et cetera ad nauseum, try to spin otherwise.
You've fallen for their story.
No, I've fallen for the FACTS of the matter. I've done my homework; I've looked beyond anyone's story; what's YOUR excuse?
Many of us used to think the alarmists were good willed, and we assumed they were honest. I still think they are good
Re:Psychology (Score:3, Informative)
So you admit that they stonewalled on the station list till 2008? And you admit that they didn't release their software until after they had been exposed by the climate gate email release? I may not have been clear, but I didn't mean to imply that they still haven't released stuff, but only that they were stonewalling at one time.
Do you know what a "station list" is? It's a list of weather stations all over the world. It's not exactly a secret, ya know. He didn't stonewall on releasing anything that wasn't already accessible by the public. You get a list of all the Meteorological offices across the world, and you ask them for their list of stations. Some may require you to PAY for that information. What's so super seekrit squirrel about that?
They didn't release their software until they had PERMISSION to do so. I bet you also didn't know that some weather station data is STILL not published to this day. You have to get it from the MOs who SELL it, if you want a copy.
If they have proprietary info that they CAN NOT release, by contract, no amount of whining about "stonewalling" is going to change a damn thing about that. Get over it.
Strange. Why didn't he just give the URL for the files instead of refusing. But of course you've quoted a source admitting he didn't release the station list till 2008. So it doesn't look like it was "IN THE RESEARCH".
Because..he..didn't..have..rights..to..release..the..data. What part of this is unclear? The SOURCES (the MOs) of the data WERE in the research. He said that much in the report.
You cite BEST as replication by some other than buddies, but I was referring to replication of the hockey stick. BEST did not replicate the hockey stick. Furthermore, BEST was lead by an alarmist, so that is not clearly replication by other than buddies.
No, BEST does not do paleoclimate reconstruction, but the "blade" of the "stick", which is what many deniers actively dispute about it anyway, matches with a high degree of confidence to the BEST results.
Also, Richard Muller and Judith Curry are HARDLY "alarmist", considering Muller sided with McIntyre and McKittrick over the MBH98 reconstruction. He still voices opposition to it, but he's no longer doubting the temperature record, and where it is heading. Curry has been dissenting against the "mainstream" climate take on purely social grounds for a while now.
Anthony Watts admitted after his own study that the average temperature trend of the urban stations was no higher than the good rural stations. Of course he then minimized it and tried to make a seemingly insignificant issue of the difference between the trends in the diurnal temperature range.
Anthony Watts doesn't admit he's wrong about squat. In that dodge, he avoided any fallout from any admission of fault. It wasn't "mea culpa, I was wrong, maybe I should rethink things a bit", it was more like "meh.. even if I was wrong, it doesn't matter anyway; AGW STILL IS WRONG!!!!1!1!!oneoneone!1".
I see tons of ignorance on the skeptic side. The alarmist side actually seems to be much more grounded in facts.
That's nice of you to say, but...
But now we're seeing that the alarmist facts may not be as solid as was once thought.
Such as? Got the data? Research?
And you simply dismissed my criticism of the attempt to "hide the decline", but you gave no reasoned defense.
That's because it is an irrational and stupid canard that has had the snot beaten out of it so much that I can't see how anyone can STILL use it with a straight face.
OK, if you insist. Reasoned defense: You DO understand the context of that comment, right? Here, this video [youtube.com] will 'splain things.
That is understandable given it appears to be indefensible.