News:

We can't help you...in fact, we're part of the problem.

Main Menu

Hacker Gets the Goods on Global Warming... or something

Started by Bebek Sincap Ratatosk, November 20, 2009, 09:47:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rococo Modem Basilisk

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:31:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:16:38 PM
Rat, while I admire your idealism, just look at what the wingnuts did with the emails: took one sentence out of context, and used it as "solid evidence" that ALL scientists are lying about climate change.


You give a campaign manager a bunch of conflicting data and an agenda, and they'll have a dozen attack ads on the TV by Tuesday.

Ok... but thats kinda the same thing the Scientologists say "Well, they take Xenu out of context..."

Is this science in pursuit of truth or science in pursuit of convincing everyone else that they're right?

For fucks sake, since people started using science to better understand the world, good scientists have buggered up data and come to wrong conclusions... its through open peer review that buggered up data can be fixed. If there isn't open peer review and if the people that disagree are blackballed... that doesn't sound like science to me...

And its not just this... how much other scientific work is being done today and locked behind contracts and Intellectual Property? Why the hell should we 'trust' any of it to be any more reliable than "Bob's Guide to the Afterlife" (He has video of ghosts and absolute evidence of Gozer returning soon. That's all Intellectual Property though and you aren't allowed to see it.)

If thats how 'science' is gonna be done, fine... but in that case, we just need to label it as another belief system, where the lay people believe the clergy... cause only the clergy can read the language...

I agree with both your points here. The raw data should be available. The thing is, people who don't understand it and have an agenda will misuse it, take it out of context, etc. Global warming is no longer just a part of science: it's mostly become politics, and not releasing things that will be easy for your opponents to use against you (regardless of context) is simply realpolitik. It may be completely legitimate to say something, but still be off message -- and it's a good idea not to say things that are off message because the laypeople will take it out of context (like what happened with the creationists and the term "theory").


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

Rococo Modem Basilisk

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:45:10 PM
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?

I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.

But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."

If one of the main values of science is "anyone can repeat the experiment" so that we can rule out confirmation bias or error... what does science become if that's no longer true? How does this not turn science into a belief system?

"You're not capable of understanding this data on your own, I'll interpret it for you and tell you what it means..."

Maybe the interpretation is true... but for most people it would still be belief... accepting what someone else tells you with no way to check for yourself.

(Again, not being a AGW denier... trying to focus on the larger question here)

It may be a good idea to let the raw data out, do the real interpretations for particular audiences (wikipedia and peer-reviewed science journals), and put the dumbed-down on-message ones into mass-dissemination general-audience media. Only people who are trained can probably make heads or tails of the data anyway.


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

So when the message and realpolitik becomes more important than the data and the method... what value can we place on the claim?

Most of us know about confirmation bias, most of us seem to agree that beliefs can modify perceptions... and yet, we're saying that the Scientists here are so concerned that the MESSAGE may be manipulated they're not willing to share the data. That means they must BELIEVE the message. If they BELIEVE the message, how can we trust their perception without open access for others to repeat their experiments? If the BELIEVE the message, why should I trust their motivations for blackballing scientists that disagreed?

If they BELIEVE their message, should I simply the people that say "I'd rather destroy the data than hand it over"?

The whole purpose of the scientific method is to extract belief and bias... the only reason that science can provide us with better models than religion is because the models don't have a amorphous blob that says "GOD DID IT". Simply changing the name of the blob to "You Can't Grok This" is not any better, is it?
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."

True.  And now that the bible is available in dozens of translations, plus in the original coptic, aramaic, and hebrew, plus the gnostic gospels...






...the majority of Christians still believe it says whatever the Church tells them it says.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:09:09 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 04:54:33 PM
But thats exactly what the Church said about the hoi polloi reading the bible. "They're not able to understand on their own, they'll have to trust us."

True.  And now that the bible is available in dozens of translations, plus in the original coptic, aramaic, and hebrew, plus the gnostic gospels...






...the majority of Christians still believe it says whatever the Church tells them it says.


And the same is true of science, I mean most of us don't go out and perform experiments to test the validity of claims... BUT WE COULD.

Even though most people don't read the Bible and examine it honestly... its there if people want to. It was there when I did my research and got out of the crazy bullshit belief system I had. Its what my Dad has been using which has led him to recently decide "hey, I don't think all of this is supposed to be literal... maybe this belief system is incorrect." (That was an awesome conversation!)

It's only BECAUSE the data is available that we were able to compare and contrast the Official Word and the actual book.

If controlling the message is more important than open, repeatable experiments, fine... but that doesn't sound like something I would put much trust in.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

LMNO

Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.

But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."

Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?

I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it.  Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?




*or something similar.

AFK

Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 04:45:10 PM
I hate to get elitist here, but if people don't understand what the data says, what's the point in showing them?

I am all for transparancy and freedom of information, but if all we're going to get from it is political "he said, she said" grandstanding, I think that detracts from science in the long run.

I have to agree with this.  Data is a double-edged sword, especially when you have lots of data on any particular subject area.  I think it's important for actual scientists and researchers to have access to all available data, because they know what to do with the data.  They know how to put data together.  They understand how one data set relates to another data set.  Joe Schmoe sitting on his couch watching American Idol simply does not have the mental faculties to process that data and gleem a proper meaning from it.

I'd say about 70% of my job involves data.  I have to constantly assess what data I'm going to share in any particular situation based upon the audience.  While I want to educate parents on the dangers of substance abuse, throwing a glut of data from SAMHSA does me no good.  It is too much for them.  It is my job, as the professional social scientist, to package the data in a way that is digestible by the general public.  And the data around substance abuse is by miles, easier to comprehend than global warming data.  Fuck, when I see that stuff I start scratching my head.  And I fancy myself a pretty intelligent guy (not to get too DK on everybody). 

And LMNO's right.  When the public gets their mitts on this stuff, politics gets involved, and when (more) politics gets involved in scientific research, the process becomes tainted. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.

But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."

Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?

I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it.  Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?




*or something similar.

If that were the case, I wouldn't be talking about it ;-)

"We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." - CRU
Of course, this is interesting because they have also stated that they have the data... in one emaail Mr. Jones said "I would rather destroy the Raw Data than let them have it" (discussing FOIA).

The "Harry Read Me" file, however shows the poor developer trying desperately to use 'raw data' to rerun the models... but he can't for multiple reasons... including the models giving him different answers that the published ones. Is this fraud? is it bad code? Is it bad input data? Who the hell knows?

It's just crazy... not the AGW claim*... just er 'science' with obfuscated data and scientists that would rather destroy data than share it... it seems absurd to me.


* As stated before, a close friend of mine spent the past 6 years doing a science geek Tour of Duty in Antarctica: http://penguincentral.com/


His direct observations seem to support the idea that things are warming up. I find that helps me push climate change well into the "likely" position... but that doesn't excuse bad science, or secret science or whatever this is.


RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"

- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

AFK

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"

What is the MPP? 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

LMNO


Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"

What is the MPP? 

Sorry, Marijuana Policy Project.
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson

Rococo Modem Basilisk

Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on December 18, 2009, 05:48:23 PM
Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 05:22:38 PM
Sure, if it was a one-company cabal.

But if the evidence is being examined globally, and independently, and similar conclusions are being met, then that affects my sliding scale towards "true."

Plus, I may be missing something here, but is the data really being held secret, or are the emails simply arguing about how to intepret the data?

I mean, I'm pretty sure that if I wanted the raw data I could get it.  Not for free, probably, but a FOIA* request should do the trick, right?




*or something similar.

If that were the case, I wouldn't be talking about it ;-)

"We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." - CRU
Of course, this is interesting because they have also stated that they have the data... in one emaail Mr. Jones said "I would rather destroy the Raw Data than let them have it" (discussing FOIA).

The "Harry Read Me" file, however shows the poor developer trying desperately to use 'raw data' to rerun the models... but he can't for multiple reasons... including the models giving him different answers that the published ones. Is this fraud? is it bad code? Is it bad input data? Who the hell knows?

It's just crazy... not the AGW claim*... just er 'science' with obfuscated data and scientists that would rather destroy data than share it... it seems absurd to me.


* As stated before, a close friend of mine spent the past 6 years doing a science geek Tour of Duty in Antarctica: http://penguincentral.com/


His direct observations seem to support the idea that things are warming up. I find that helps me push climate change well into the "likely" position... but that doesn't excuse bad science, or secret science or whatever this is.


RWHN, so in your work, if you collected a bunch of raw data for a report on pot and the MPP asked to review it, would you give it to them? Or would you say, "Oh No, you disagree with my position so go suck eggs?"



I have no idea why they would be afraid to release the raw data, unless they think that other scientists will think they are manipulating it out of proportion. The raw data won't make much sense except to those trained to interpret it. I was suggesting it was a bad idea (politically speaking) to send out the interpretation in technical terms to a general audience.


I am not "full of hate" as if I were some passive container. I am a generator of hate, and my rage is a renewable resource, like sunshine.

AFK

Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited.  Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process.  IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs.  If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP.  And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to.  But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes.  I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data.  If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

LMNO

Actually, this raises a good point.

Rat, are you saying that the reports from these scientists aren't citing their sources?

Bebek Sincap Ratatosk

Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 18, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Well, my research protocol would be laid out and my sources would be cited.  Everything that is necessary to pass the IRB process.  IMO, if that's not good enough for the MPP, then yes, I would tell them, politely, to go suck eggs.  If a research design can pass muster with IRB, I'm not sure why it is necessary, or useful, to share raw data with an entity like the MPP.  And the MPP of course would be welcome to check with my sources if they really wanted to.  But I was commenting more on the general public, and I don't see how it makes any sense to give raw data to untrained eyes.  I am the professional, it is my job to process and present the data.  If they don't trust me, they need to take it up with the IRB that approved my research.  

Hrmmm, but without raw data, how can someone duplicate your results? How can someone verify your interpretation... how can someone see if perhaps you made a mistake in your math or your data manipulation?

This seems especially important with Climate data, as its now clear that only some data was used (the homogenized data) lots of data was tossed and the computer programs that manipulated the data appear to produce results now that don't match.

So the CRU data is based on a subset of measurements that were then run through a computer model (which can't now be replicated at least not according to the developer in the Harry Read Me file).

So even if your research protocols are good and your data collection is sound... the code used to manipulate the data might be buggy... if so, how is anyone going to discover the error, if they simply accept your report because the IRB said you were cool?

It seems absurd to me that we're even having this discussion... how does refusing access to raw data get us closer to knowledge?


Quote from: LMNO on December 18, 2009, 06:24:44 PM
Actually, this raises a good point.

Rat, are you saying that the reports from these scientists aren't citing their sources?

I am saying that they are basing their argument on interpreted data, based on source data which is apparently secret and not publicly available (even though its been requested through FOIA). The CRU claims that it DESTROYED the source data and ONLY has their 'quality controlled and homogenized' data.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

However, they have also made other comments about the 'raw data' which seems at odds with this.

I am not claiming that anyone is intentionally fudging data... I am simply stunned that honest scientists would not keep the raw data, not share the raw data, even with other scientists (forgetting about releasing it to the plebs... but not releasing it to the professor of environmental studies at Colorado University?).

It seems like the CRU (and any other science based on this sort of methodology) are saying, in effect "Have faith in us and our methodology".
- I don't see race. I just see cars going around in a circle.

"Back in my day, crazy meant something. Now everyone is crazy" - Charlie Manson