[antonovka]

If I had a persistent gadfly like Stephen McIntyre who would use every opportunity to twist my data and words to his own political ends -- and the media accordingly -- I might also behave in such an untoward manner regarding the release of data and internal communications.

I find the theft of internal communications abhorrent, the politicalization of the issue uninteresting, and I seriously doubt there's any real science to be gleaned from this entire sophomoric debacle.

[nkurz]

Stephen McIntyre who would use every opportunity to twist my data and words to his own political ends

I read McIntyre's site regularly, and find very little evidence of this. His 'political ends'? By design, there's very little political discussion on his site. But one of few times this veil was dropped was after Obama's election, where he allowed it to be known that he was rooting for Obama: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4265

"I don't often talk about my political views - though I've sometimes taken pains to point out that I do not share the political views of many readers. In American terms, Canada would be a blue state along the lines of Massachusetts; Toronto would be a liberal city in a blue state; and I live downtown in one of the most liberal constituencies in the city. None of this is unrelated to my political views. I realize that many Climate Audit readers have opposite political views, but we try to get along."

"I think that Obama's election is also very healthy for the U.S. in world terms. The U.S. stands for both good and bad in world terms. While U.S. economic dominance has faded, it is still the leading world nation and leadership from the U.S. is important. Obama is in a position to provide such leadership in a way that would have been impossible for McCain."

You might argue successfully that his pedantic insistence on sources, data, and algorithms gets in the way of 'progress', but to say that this is because of his political views is a gross error. Like most of the 'skeptics' on his site, his goal is to insure that we are basing our decisions (whatever they may be) on sound science rather than on propaganda. Certainly he has some readers who do not share this goal, but I feel very certain that his personal goal is good science.

[antonovka]

I read McIntyre's site regularly, and find very little evidence of this. His 'political ends'?

McIntyre spent 30 years in the oil/gas exploration business ("mineral exploration"). You don't think there are some vested politics here?

You might argue successfully that his pedantic insistence on sources, data, and algorithms gets in the way of 'progress', but to say that this is because of his political views is a gross error.

There's plenty of room to distort the facts while reporting them. Fox News consistently claims to present "the facts" in a "fair and balanced" manner.

[nkurz]

You don't think there are some vested politics here?

I understand the sense that there could be, but as a regular reader of his site, with strong environmental leanings myself, I don't see any evidence of any such bias. He's a hard core statistician who happened to find his skills in demand by energy companies. I wouldn't presume a nuclear physicist is necessarily biased towards atomic war, and I wouldn't presume that Steve has any particular fondness for drilling in wildlife refuges.

There's plenty of room to distort the facts while reporting them. Fox News...

I agree with you that that Fox News is neither fair nor balanced. The snippets I've seen while sitting in airport terminals make me recoil in horror. It's very similar feeling to the feeling I get reading some of these leaked emails: a nausea induced by demagoguery and propaganda. I do not get this feeling when reading Steve's posts.

[jacoblyles]

How dare he ask for data series and attempt to reproduce analyses on his blog! How dare he uncover faults and discrepancies which are subsequently acknowledged in published research! If science and data are not interpreted by the right people, how can we be sure that the world is getting the right message?

I can't believe people would defend deleting data rather than responding to a FOI request. Well, actually, I can. You just did. Which is sad.

[antonovka]

He has a clear political agenda. He's not an independent scientist (he's not even a scientist).

What possible good can come of interacting with someone who -- in addition to being grossly underqualified -- has a consistent history of applying a political agenda without fail to their "science"?

This is the equivalent of Fox News factual reporting. Sometimes they get the facts right, but that doesn't mean they aren't twisting them.

[jacoblyles]

So who does have a right to look at the data, assuming we first disqualify anyone that antonovka thinks has the wrong political opinions? Isn't the scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses? These emails make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct" political agenda.

[antonovka]

If Stephen McIntyre is all about openness and taking advantage of the abhorrent disclosure of internal communications, why doesn't he follow suite by posting all of his personal e-mail correspondence, unedited for external review?

I'm sure there are more than a few gems.

Isn't the scientific ideal all about openness and reproducible analyses?

Yes, but when someone applies such a strong political ideology to twisting those analyses, how do you propose scientists respond?

Climate change has been so politicized by unqualified ideologues that I can hardly blame scientists for wishing to defend themselves from the worst of them.

If anything, these e-mails demonstrate that the data IS shared independently evaluated, but that the community has established political defenses to deal with political -- not scientific -- opponents.

To do otherwise would be naive. Complex topics fall easily to those who would politicize them.

These emails make it look like the new ideal is supporting the "correct" political agenda.

No, they demonstrate a clear interest in defending against the attacks of a very specific set of ideologues.

As someone who has had to defend engineering projects and people from angry corporate politics, I don't envy these climate change scientists in the least, and I certainly don't begrudge them their defensive positions.

[earl]

I can too. Once you have people acting in bad faith (see, climate change denial community), combined with the subtleties of statistics, I totally understand not wanting to release your data.

[camccann]

Okay, the whole "I'd rather delete data" thing sounds really sketchy, but...

If science and data are not interpreted by the right people, how can we be sure that the world is getting the right message?

You know, I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic here, but this is actually a valid point. Analyzing scientific data is not something that most people can do properly without a lot of training and education. When the "wrong people" interpret the data and publicize their "results" it absolutely can and will mislead people, which is kind of counterproductive to the whole purpose of this "science" thing.

To my mind, a responsible scientist has an obligation to promote understanding, not follow some notion of proper behavior. So, yeah, if someone with a fairly large audience, a lack of relevant expertise, and an apparent vested interest in interpreting results in a predetermined way asks for huge volumes of data the correct response is probably somewhere between ignoring them completely and telling them to fuck off.

It sounds like these people were dramatically overreacting (Deleting the data? Really, guys?), but after seeing how well it worked when the biologists tried to engage in a civilized scientific discussion about evolution, I can at least sympathize.

[ramanujan]

Biologists have NCBI, which is completely open. It would be a colossal fail to try to hide data, because even the most basic multiple sequence alignment shows that evolution is real.

[camccann]

And yet rejection of evolution remains widespread, around 30%-60% of the population in most first-world nations, and evidence that demonstrates evolution's reality is still twisted and misused by those with ideological objections to it.

Of course, the core of the climate change premise is also pretty well established (the extreme alarmism and many proposed solutions, not so much), and plenty of evidence is out there, but unfortunately HN continues to disappoint me whenever the subject comes up.

The political groupthink around here is pretty strong and it's starting to sour me on the whole site. I know complaining about HN turning into reddit is cliche but seriously, all the threads about this story (how many have there been by now?) have been worse than reddit.

[arvinjoar]

Well, what this showed us is that some respected climate researchers are just making shit up. So it's not science, no.

[antonovka]

Well, what this showed us is that some respected climate researchers are just making shit up.

What proof?

[mru]

That's the point. It's not science.

[skorgu]

It's not just science. There is science being done but the shouting^Wpolitics more than drowns it out.