[CWuestefeld]

And given the recent breaches of trust amongst the climatologists, this is exactly what is appropriate.

Building up open and transparent datasets and models that anyone can work with (or lacking the domain expertise and technical skill, at least be comfortable that somebody can watch over the scientists' shoulders) is exactly what's needed.

Another article that trumpets talking points without mentioning all of the caveats is NOT needed. And the fact that it yet again implies a need for action, while entirely ignoring any assessment the costs of those effects, together with a weighing against the costs of remediation, puts the Reuters article squarely into the fearmongering side of the equation, 180 degrees off of rational debate.

[tensor]

You imply that by being a scientist, you are untrustworthy, and that being a layperson without expertise makes you trustworthy. This idea seems quite backwards. A lay person can make any sort of corrupt claim without any repercussions. Meanwhile, if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost.

Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain. By going into the sciences, instead of industry, you are willingly taking a massive loss in pay. To claim that these people are corrupt is both an insult and naive. Like any area, there will be a few bad apples.

[CWuestefeld]

You imply that by being a scientist, you are untrustworthy, and that being a layperson without expertise makes you trustworthy.

Not at all. Being open with your data and methods make you (more) trustworthy. Stonewalling and avoiding disclosure makes you untrustworthy. It has nothing to do with your role, but with how you play it.

if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost.

Which of the East Anglia scientists lost their careers, or even their job? (I understand that there's no real evidence that they falsified data, just some implication. But they were badly unethical.)

Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain.

The continuation of their research is personal gain. A conclusion of "nothing interesting going on here" means they've got to find a new area of research, find new grant sources, etc. If they happen to find evidence of something scary, that gives them job security. I have no proof that they followed this line of thought, but it is definitely a conflict of interest.

That said, virtually anyone involved in the field is there because they've got some passion for it, so probably everyone has some degree of conflict.

The fact that someone made a choice that leads to a lower pay scale does not make them above corruption. You may as well ask me to believe that the NEA's sole concern is teaching kids, rather than preserving their members' benefits.

[Tichy]

"And given the recent breaches of trust amongst the climatologists"

Or maybe you have fallen for the propaganda of the denialists? Anyway, I think usually the actual scientific papers come with data references (otherwise they are indeed useless), but there is also a place for articles that normal people can understand. Not everybody wants or can code up their own verification program for every scientific article they come across.

[vixen99]

Denialist? You sound like a member of the Spanish Inquisition. Are we talking science (where constant questioning is [or is that just silly me?] was always supposed to be intrinsic to the investigative process) or religion? The latter, it seems, as far as you're concerned.

Has it dawned on you that use of the word is a kind of own goal? "Hey folks, we believe in the true religion and must rout those non-believers!"

[Tichy]

Well I was responding to "breaches of trust", which seems like propaganda given that all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking. I don't think calling those "breaches of trust" is very scientific. Maybe the one about the Himalya glaciers could be called like that, but I don't think it was the actual scientists being sloppy in that case.

I was only using the word "denialist" to shorten the sentence - what would have been an appropriate word, then?

[CWuestefeld]

all that can be pointed to is some minor errors that are bound to happen in a large scale undertaking

Ahem. Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws is something that is bound to happen in large scale undertakings? Either you're propagandizing yourself, or you're someone that I really don't want working for my company.

The glacier thing was characterized as a "typographical error", which itself is clearly intended to minimize the ethical breach. A "typographical error" is one related to the typography -- maybe transposing digits, or accidently chopping off the bottom of a page or something. It clearly does not apply to errors of judgment, including non-reviewed sources as if they're factual.

None of this refutes AGW, which is actually my point. It makes us all wary. And the cure for that is openness and transparency. A battle of ad hominem attacks doesn't do anything for either side of the debate. But in the long run, building a case that we can all trust because we watched it being erected is to the benefit of all -- tree huggers and denialists alike.

[Tichy]

"Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws"

When did that happen? If you are referring to the leaked emails, I don't think the case is so clear. Unless you want to believe it to be so.

The glaciers: don't remember the exact details, but wasn't it some relatively informal publication where the boss of the organization slipped something in without verifying with his scientists? Sounds more like sloppiness - although they should have uncovered the error sooner. But who knows, they might have had other things on their mind. I don't know how many scientists actually think about Himalayan glaciers on a daily basis (do you?). Except for the ones living in the Himalayan, one of was asked over the phone and apparently misinterpreted.

In any case, I don't think that error was made in an actual scientific paper, it was more part of general propaganda and politics. Not that I like it at all, but I don't see how it discredits the science as a whole.

In fact, I personally think dwelling on minor details and trying to blow them up to be elephants is a major indicator of revisionism.

[jbooth]

I linked this downthread, you should give it a look : http://www.xkcd.com/675/