Talk:Scientific data withholding

Thanks for posting your work here, Ron. I bet we'll get a lot of other Wikipedians who are tired of censorship coming over here. --Ed Poor 20:08, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed, you are welcome. I'm hoping to find other smart people who can make this first draft better. I am going to drop in some comments about the controversy here so interested people can do a little reading, if they would like, before editing the article.

More on Data Withholding in Climate Science

In an effort to explain some of the issues involved in this controversy, I have written an article Scientific data archiving which provides the policies of NSF, science journals and some of the issues around data archiving and replication. I have tried to make the article of general interest by not limiting the discussion strictly to climate science.

On the issue of climate research affecting public policy and therefore demanding greater scrutiny, JohnA has written: ‘’But the costs resulting from mistakes in climate studies, could measured in billions of dollars. Isn’t it time that climate scientists started demanding from their peers that all data sources, source codes, notes and methodologies be archived for open review prior to publication? It’s no longer a $5 mistake when climate reconstructions go wrong…’’

In a post above, William had suggested that more sources were required before the controversy regarding data archiving and sharing should be mentioned in this article. Of course, many other sources are available and some are listed below. However, it should be expected that Steve McIntyre would dominate this list. The website he runs is called “ClimateAudit” for a reason. Audits are not possible without data archiving and sharing.

Others who have entered the fray include:

• Roger Pielke, Jr. [1]
• Ron Errico – wrote “On the Lack of Accountability in Meteorological Research”

The group below all signed a letter to Science Magazine on the issue:

• Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
• Sir Colin Berry, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
• Freeman Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA
• Chris de Freitas, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
• Mick Fuller, University of Plymouth, UK
• Lord Taverne, House of Lords, UK [2]

Also above, Brian wondered about the status on the Jones request. At least two scientists have requested information, Steve McIntyre and Willis Eschenbach. They are requesting the data and methods used in compiling the temperature record kept at CRU and for his 1990 study on UHI. (Jones claims the data from Russian weather stations is homogeneous and most scientists have a difficult time believing that). When Warwick Hughes first requested the temperature data, Jones replied : ‘’Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. 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.’’ [3] Several scientists are arguing for a lawsuit against Jones and CRU under the FOI Act to force Jones to provide his data and methods. Pat Frank of Stanford is arguing that McIntyre and others should reconstruct the global temperature record from available data in an open and auditable way. Frank believes the differences between the McIntyre series and the Jones series will shame Jones into releasing his data and methods. [4] [5]

Brian also expressed his opinion that the controversy was mainly about Mann and Jones. This is far from accurate. The links provided above discuss requests for information on Osborn and Briffa 2006, Esper et al [2002] and Thompson et al 1989 (Dunde); 1997 (Guliya). [6] None of these requests were satisfactorily met. Here are some additional links:

• Esper [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

• Osborn and Briffa [12] [13] [14][15] [16] [17]

• Moberg [18] [19] [20] [21]RonCram 20:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)