Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually Max, you can be informed, unfortunately you aren't. Most federally funded research projects are in the public domain after publication, and publications and professional societies often have rules enforcing their own unfettered access agreements. Period.
I thought giving you the opportunity to check out a few links might temper your sweeping statements, but as you insist on backing into a swamp...
First, whatever the supposed ideals and standards of publications and professional societies in climate science, they often do not follow them faithfully - and when they do, such standards do not provide for full disclosure.
Paleo climate reconstructionists, a sibling of the GEW climate forecasters, have recently been under fire for the IPCC mis-marketing of Mann's "the hockey stick" as definative to policy makers. The debate, recently reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, has raised serious questions of methodology, data, statistical robustness, and most importantly, scientific integrity.
McIntyre, the skeptic who first exposed the flaws of Mann's hockey stick published an article that I linked to previously. A few excerpts of interest are:
" I have spent much of the past 2 years analyzing and re-constructing some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate change. It started as a hobby and it evolved into a full time avocation, resulting to date in 3 peer-reviewed publications, which Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, the National Post and the Wall Street Journal have recently reported on." Previously, I spent about 35 years in the mining and mineral exploration business, concepts like audit trails, due diligence and full, true and plain disclosure become second nature when you work in such an environment. "
"None of the major multiproxy studies have anything remotely like a complete due diligence packages and most have none at all. The author of one of the most quoted studies [Crowley and Lowery, 2000] told me that he has mis-placed his data."
" Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was l located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The National Post has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded.
"...authors typically refuse to make their source code and data available for verification, even with a specific request. Even after inaccuracies in a major study had been proven, when we sought source code, the original journal (Nature) and the original funding agency (the U.S. National Science Foundation) refused to intervene. ...In the opinion of the latter, the code is Manns personal commercial property. Mann recently told the Wall Street Journal that Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people employ. My first request for source code was a very simple request and could in now way be construed as intimidation."
"It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations. In 2004, I was asked by a journal (Climatic Change) to peer review an article. I asked to see the source code and supporting calculations. The editor said that no one had ever asked for such things in 28 years of his editing the journal. He refused to ask for source code; the author refused to provide supporting calculations."
This is not just the experience of McIntyre. Hans von Storch, a well-respected climate researcher who resigned as the senior editor of Climate Review over the publication of a global warming skeptics paper that lacked effective peer review (Soon, et. al.) has expressed his own dismay at the politicization of climate science. While a supporter of global warming models, von Storch has carried on a crusade to open up the science to full disclosure standards. One slide of his powerpoint presentation to the NAS summerizes:Major conclusions (from the Mann controversy) should be:
1. Peer review process: no
reproducible description of
2. IPCC and related
doing the review; not the
key authors in the field.
3. Data access: Relevant data
and details of algorithms
need to be made public
even to adversaries.
"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." (Jones'
reply to Warwick
Hughes, 21. Februar
2005; confirmed by P.
Roger Pielke (Climatologist), of the University of Colorado at Boulder echos McIntyre's and von Storch's concern at his blog AND quotes another climate researcher, Ron Errico:
"This observation has also been made in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in a 2000 commentary by Ron Errico, who writes,
'Too frequently, published papers contain fundamental errors How can a piece of work be adequately evaluated or duplicated if what was really done or meant is not adequately stated?... My paramount recommendation is that our community acknowledges that a major problem in fact exists and requires ardent attention. Unless this is acknowledged, the community will likely not even consider significant changes. I suspect that too many scientists, especially those with the authority to demand changes, will prefer the status quo.'
Erricos paper, titled 'On the Lack of Accountability in Meteorological Research,' is well worth reading in full. He makes several recommendations that are completely consistent with McIntyres recommendations. "
How bad is it? McIntyre and McKittrich gave a status report to the NAS panel on their attempts to replicate the other "supporting" studies of Mann here are summaries of some of them:
Jones et al 1998 - Facsimile data obtained from other sources and, in two cases, from Jones. Source code and data used not archived, authors refuse to provide. Cannot resolve reason for lack of exact replication of his results.
Crowley and Lowery 2000 - Original data has been lost by Dr. Crowley. Digital citations do not match paper citations - only a smoothed and transformed version of data has been found by Crowley - not satisfactory for replication.
Briffa -2000 - 4 of 7 measurement data series not archieved for access.
Briffa 2001 - Identity of 387 data sites not provided. Same problem in other papers by Briffa .
Esper 2002 - Site chronologies became available only in Feb. 2006 after Nature intervened. Site chronologies do not match archived measurement data. Some data not archieved. Unintelligable methodology as no definitions of linear/nonlinear types provided.
Moberg et al  - No source code provided and methodology is not standard. Materials complaint to Nature produced two series that had been withheld (Fed 2006). Not exact replication without missing series.
Osborn and Briffa  No original data. Only smoothed versions of sites provided.
Obviously, most of the researchers refuse to provide full disclosure (except von Storch), and most actively obstruct it (or lose their data). The impediments to a simple replication and testing of a historic climate model is substantial, and until that is done these 'supporting' studies mean little to real science. Missing data, incomplete or incomphrensible methodology, refusal to provide source codes, etc. bespeak of a science without the scientific method...
But their are other challenges to their integrity, in Part II.....
Average Joe can push for the data/models that have been published, and he will get the information if he pushes hard enough.
Well, you are more than the average Joe (as is M&M). Here's an offer: contact McIntyre and ask him which two studies are the most important to his replication research. If you can obtain full data, definitions, methods, and source code discloure from the authors I will pay you $1000.00. I'll even stick in in a trust account for release upon delivery. It won't happen.
Researchers who hide their data/models lose the ability to convince other scientists that their work is valid, which results in low impact publications, which results in lower funding for grants. You cannot hide your data forever and continue to be a scientist.
"Not forever" is a long time. One reason being is that paleo climate science is a small, rather incestious, group - most of them come from two schools. Most of them co-author with one-another, and independence is very limited. When reconstruction science is limited to a dozen individuals in a few schools, you are not going to get those standards enforced - not when they all co-author and/or are mentors/students/associates.
That is how science works, Max. I am sorry if you were led to believe something else by your sources... [/B]
That is not how paleoclimate reconstruction science works, HardeeHar. I am sorry that you presume that all science lives up to your standards.
BTW it might help if you would clarify what kind of scienctist you are and what you do...in the interests of Full Disclosure.