Print Story Treading on other peoples toes
Religion & Philosophy
By anonimouse (Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:10:54 AM EST) (all tags)
A anonimatic diary


Normally a favourite Breaker area, but are we, as stated by James Lovelock screwed, or not, as stated by David Bellamy?

However, it seems the great and the good can rely on Parliament to conduct a old-fashioned whitewash



It seems to be a good news day: SCO has been punted and Dizaei has been dismissedwell being a police officer is difficult when banged up.




< It's been a blah week. | A Day in the Life >
Treading on other peoples toes | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
The more *matic diaries by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:43:16 AM EST
The better!

A fine first effort, Sir!


Why do you call it a 'whitewash'? by gpig (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:11:20 AM EST
I suspect it's this bit:

"But it found no evidence Professor Phil Jones, whose e-mails were hacked and published online, had manipulated data."

Do you have any reason for calling this a whitewash, other than the fact that it got a result you disagree with?
---
(,   ,') -- eep

Professor Jones by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #3 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:56:12 AM EST
...was not interrogated closely, claiming ill health.

I'd say if Parliament interrogates, it should do so with the threat of thumbscrews at the ready if they don't get answers.

In addition, it appears the committee closed its eyes to some corroboration of evidence with regard to preventing opposing views being published.

UEA and Prof Jones also appear to have been in cahoots in preventing people getting their hands on source data. I can actually understand that original source data should be kept  restricted for a while prior to publication, but not after.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
Hmm by gpig (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:20:07 PM EST
Re ill health, committees don't have the power (as I understand it) to drag people in, but they should have tried to get him in on another day, since he was central to the issue being discussed.

In addition, it appears the committee closed its eyes to some corroboration of evidence with regard to preventing opposing views being published.

My understanding was that the central allegation was that they had tried to get a couple of papers excluded from the IPCC report. They went in anyway, but the IPCC chair responsible later admitted that they were not particularly good science and shouldn't have gone in. So the CRU claim that they were trying to get them excluded because they were crap (not because they disagreed with the conclusions) seems fair.

There may be other allegations there that I haven't heard about.

UEA and Prof Jones also appear to have been in cahoots in preventing people getting their hands on source data. I can actually understand that original source data should be kept  restricted for a while prior to publication, but not after.

From the article: "The Commons Science and Technology Committee criticised UEA authorities for failing to respond to requests for data from climate change sceptics."

So you and the committee agree on that point, as far as I can tell. So do I, though having seen it from the inside, I also think that openness requirements must come with extra funding for support staff. Generating a dataset and codebase for public consumption, rather than internal use, is a lot of work.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Expert, not public consumption. by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42:00 PM EST
I don't necessarily want the data available for "public consumption", I want it available to any expert who wants to try and corroborate/ repudiate the findings.



Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
[ Parent ]
You misunderstand me by gpig (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:26:25 PM EST
I was talking about the minimum effort necessary to make data and code available and usable to someone outside the team that produced it.

Simply throwing the information out there and expecting others to understand it isn't enough -- for it to be at all useful you have to include a lot of context and be prepared to answer questions. (Usually the availability of data and code is taken as an implicit promise to answer such questions).

I'm not saying that shouldn't be done, in fact, I think it should be a requirement for government funded research, but funding bodies have to accept that such a requirement has a cost.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

[ Parent ]
Oh we are screwed all right. by dmg (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:10:24 PM EST
But so-called anthropomorphic climate change is not the cause. The cause goes much deeper than that.


--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
Treading on other peoples toes | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback