Closed doors? No way! I said I understand their concern that many well funded groups would certainly spread even more disinformation if they had a dataset to base it on.
In the current state of affairs, you can bet many people will publish wrong results for money, fame or any combination of both. It's not about you arriving at a correct answer, but if someone can be trusted to do real analysis on the data and not spin it in ways that suit their purpose.
Not all news outlets have a strong peer-review process for publishing news. Not all research organizations do real research.
If some of the scientists that have access to this dataset are right, the delay in addressing climate change caused by such confusion could mean our extinction.
I would not even suggest this as a correct course of action if there weren't so many different economic interests at play. Lots of people stand to lose a staggering amount of money and they won't place truth above their yearly bonuses, with little concern if a billion or so people die of thirst in the next 100 years.
"Closed doors? No way! I said I understand their concern that many well funded groups would certainly spread even more disinformation if they had a dataset to base it on."
If the standard for claims is such that code and data must be publicly available, claims made without such backing would be more easily dismissed.
As it is right now, the CRU is behaving exactly as I would expect a manipulative liar to act, and the justification seems to be that it's done to control prevent manipulative lying.
It's not a compelling argument, because it doesn't, really, and since no one is showing up with runnable code and complete data, all sorts of claims appear to have equal footing.
"Lots of people stand to lose a staggering amount of money and they won't place truth above their yearly bonuses, with little concern if a billion or so people die of thirst in the next 100 years."
Are there no millions to be made or lost for some of those arguing that climate change is man-made? Please; scumbags will play any side for a dollar.
"If the standard for claims is such that code and data must be publicly available, claims made without such backing would be more easily dismissed."
I am not sure Joe Sixpack can be convinced the claims have little merit if they have flashy graphics.
As for the CRU... Well... This is not a shining example of scientific conduct, but, as I said before, I am not too eager to blame them. Right now, they are in the middle of a very dangerous game.
And yes. Scumbags will play both sides. It's just that the "global warming doesn't exist" side has more money right now, so, most scumbags seem to line up on that side.
"I am not sure Joe Sixpack can be convinced the claims have little merit if they have flashy graphics."
So, better to assume the audience is too stupid or ignorant to think for themselves, and restrict open discussion and examination of the data and process?
In the current state of affairs, you can bet many people will publish wrong results for money, fame or any combination of both. It's not about you arriving at a correct answer, but if someone can be trusted to do real analysis on the data and not spin it in ways that suit their purpose.
Not all news outlets have a strong peer-review process for publishing news. Not all research organizations do real research.
If some of the scientists that have access to this dataset are right, the delay in addressing climate change caused by such confusion could mean our extinction.
I would not even suggest this as a correct course of action if there weren't so many different economic interests at play. Lots of people stand to lose a staggering amount of money and they won't place truth above their yearly bonuses, with little concern if a billion or so people die of thirst in the next 100 years.