skypunter said:
No one is attempting to levy taxes based upon theories related to aerodynamics, gravity or the big bang.
Folks can chose whether they trust aerodynamics enough to get on an aeroplane.
That is why this particular branch of science is being held to a higher standard of accountability than others might be.
... and, I suggest, this is precisely why so much of the demand for accountability turns out to be frivolous and politically motivated. People feel really really strongly about anything in the way of a tax, or with additional costs, or with significant budget line items for the government. This itself is not surprising or improper.
What has happened, however, is that the opposition to the policies is so strong and so deep seated that the search for any excuse to dismiss the science has lead many folks into a distinctly unscientific course.
It's not just that people would like to throw CRU to the dogs. They want to undermine all the other scientists working on this as well. It's claimed that all the IPCC, all the climate science, everything is discredited by this. That is not a demand for accountability -- that is far out paranoid conspiracy theory!
Accountability is good, and it
is of particular importance here. I do not confuse the legitimate calls for accountability with the extreme conspiracy theories.
But accountability is also being misrepresented. Some people confuse that with the idea that the CRU should immediately hand over all their raw data, right now. No matter how often it is explained that this is simply not legally possible, the calls go on. No matter that the vast majority of data IS available, and would be more than enough to pick up any fraud, the calls go on. No matter that there is a total lack of any evidence of anything improper about the data, the calls go on.
And most revealing of all...
... there's no interest being expressed by anyone in seizing upon the cases where you DO have all the data, and checking that.
One of the leading climate science groups is with the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences at NASA. This group also has a global temperature product. They have some of the most widely used climate models in the world. All the data is freely available. All the code is open source. All the results replicate and confirm -- in the normal scientific sense of the word -- the results from the CRU.
There's isn't any smell of any scientific distortion from the CRU emails. The claims for this are based on people reading private emails between working scientists and not understanding it but assuming the worst. "Hide the decline" (now available on t-shirts) is the battle cry of those on a witch hunt who don't pause to actually figure out what is being discussed.
The more freely available data can be, the better. Even though the scientists are entirely correct that some people simply pick through the results with gross incompetence and sow confusion with fallacious claims of fundamental flaws, it doesn't matter; it is still much better to let the data be freely available.
There's more: the upcoming inquiry should not be limited to the scientists who had their personal conversations and files stolen. It should also consider the theft itself, and even more importantly at the underlying disruptions to the work of scientists and the hate mail and incompetent baiting that is behind all the anger and frustration you can see these scientists expressing. That too, is a cause for concern, for all of us who want to keep science quality and standards high. Look to the hackers, and their allies, as well as to the scientists.
Cheers -- sylas
