Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:My heart goes out to those researchers. (Score 0, Flamebait) 882

You have partial email chains. That's it. You have people taking things out of context and making mountains out of mole-hills.

Raw data? Sure. Which raw data are you referring to? Would that be the raw data where you have several weather stations reporting -999C temperatures? Or the glacial ice core sample that was contaminated? Or the raw data series that shows a divergence but it's the only data series showing divergence when compared to dozens of others? The raw data with the bad satellite pass showing a 1000ft increase in vertical height of the Greenland Ice Shelf?

And what would you portend to due with the raw data? Cherry pick only the things you want instead of using the entire suite of corrected data sets?

Mann released that information ages ago. It's not that hard to find. Really it isn't. There are also other research papers based on his work that refine it.

It's also impossible to tell what the email deletions were in regards to, or whether or not it was a running joke. Or even what the emails contained. They don't appear in the hacked files.

And you have absolutely no idea what a huge PITA an FOI can be for a government agency. It is not a simple process, and it is not a short process, especially when there are pre-existing contractual obligations on that data. If you are a government agency contracting with a commercial entity, you cannot simply "turn over the data". It doesn't work that way.

They want to avoid FOI requests because:

1. It's a huge pain in the ass at the best of times. You have to track down the right people, get a bunch of approvals, verification that the data is not a going to be a danger if released to the open. Checking against contractual issues. Checking against licensing issues. Checking against IP issues. Running it through legal. Etc. etc. etc. . This takes a lot of time and resources, and I really don't blame them for not wanting to deal with the hassel.

2. The data being requested may or may not be suitable for use. Much like software, the datasets are being updated regularly. In some of the emails, this is plainly clear (some scientists bitch about inconsistencies in the datasets and such). Errors found. Errors are corrected. Requesting unfinished data is like requesting to use software that hasn't been tested.

3. The people requesting the data are hostile, and the scientist know the data will be misappropriated. Hence why they prefer only releasing the final products since at that point the science has be done and PEER REVIEWED. It's very difficult to do research when you have twenty hostile individuals interfering by making specious claims and generally pointless noise.

An EXAMPLE of GOOD SCIENCE is to let the science be done, THEN CRITICIZE IT. So far, no one has built a falsifiable case that disproves climate change nor refutes that anthropogenic causes are a contributing factor. No one has developed a model that shows the current warming trend is the result of natural variation. No one has been able to refute the science. Finding minor errors does not refute climate change.

Bad science is pointing at places where research might not have been done yet and screaming "SEE! IT"S ALL A HOAX!!" Bad science is finding minor errors and screaming "IT"S A CONSPIRACY!!!"

Bad science is encouraging the masses to disregard science and follow their intuition instead.

The emails largely show that scientists are just as human as anyone else. They get pissed off. They get frustrated. They get tired of refuting the same tired old crap everyday. They get fed up with people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle telling them that they don't know how to do their job.

Or perhaps you'd hold up better under such pressure. But I doubt it. I'm sure if someone were to publish a random selection of your work or private emails that you wouldn't come off so saint-like either.

The main point being is that someone grabbed a bunch files and "randomly" selected what to show the world. How can anyone draw any real conclusions based on that? How about we see ALL the emails so we know the context before jumping to conclusions? I've read through a chunk of them, and there are only a couple that need clarification.

Think of it as someone writes an email with a title "Sex?" and contains "Man I'd like to fuck a sheep!". Now if someone where to release that email, what kind of conclusions would you draw? Probably not a good one. But if you saw the whole email chain about "Revenge of The Nerds", then the email becomes something much less disturbing.

Without the additional contexts to these emails, the only thing you can do is jump to conclusions.


Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.