Comment by miked | Hacker News Reader

Comment by miked | Hacker News Reader

His post is pure strawman: say the "enemy's" entire argument centers around one post, then downplay that, then announce that there's nothing to see here folks, move along, move along. It's far more devstating than that. Excerpt:

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs [ed- McIntyre and McKittrick, AGW skeptics] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...

Update: Here's a summary of many of the emails. This gives an even stronger sense of what a strawman argument Silver used. Interesting stuff: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cu...

From that link: Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI [Freedom of Information Act]. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

and this:

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code.

Does this somehow disprove the information that has been presented though? Just because the presentation has been manipulated to maximize the statement for his cause–and those scientists were at the very least prejudiced towards their opponents–doesn't change the impact of their data.

To me though, the argument against cap-and-trade and against heavy investment in alt-energy is entirely lost and asinine to continue to chase. These resources are finite and the atmosphere's tolerance is similarly and provably so. Now is as good a time to re-ignite our initiatives in sustainable energy as any, and there are significant benefits to the many post-industrial western economies that are glutted with well-educated but under-employed people. IT and IS can't be the only thing that we have over developing nations willing to exploit themselves to gain true 1st world status.

On first glance, it seems pretty bad, but on second thought I read more of a kind of paranoia in it. Almost every set of data can be interpreted in multiple ways, depending on the context in which the data is placed. People can twist and subvert data in ways that are very hard to contradict. It's often easier to sell lies than to sell truths and I sense an extreme fear that they have to spend all of their time defending complicated truths against simple falsehoods.

Edit: by which I do not mean they are right and the skeptics are the ones subverting the data and convincing others with simple falsehoods. You may fear your opponent doing that while doing it yourself. The above can be read with the sides interchanged. I'm merely pointing out that reality is underdetermined by data, that truths are sometimes hard to sell and that that leads all sides to fear the other side undermining them in ways they consider immoral.

Plain human psychology may be enough to explain this, without invoking all kinds of conspiracies. Conspiracies are extremely unlikely, because there will always be someone that blabs. A few people imploring others to do immoral things does not a conspiracy make.

You make a good point. But I wonder, why would the scientists be paranoid? Why aren't they releasing their data and analysis algorithms as part of the package?

I mean, shouldn't the process be something like this:

1. Gather data 2. Analyze it 3. Publish results. 4. Make data and analysis methods available for other to scrutinize. 5. Others review data and methods. 6. New insights from others are realized.

Carl Sagan, my hero, went on and on science's strength being being that although mistakes are made, they can be corrected through the scrutiny of others, and the picture of truth improves. That process hinges on data and methods being available for others to review.

Of course, data will fall into the hands of idiots who will misrepresent, lie, and deceive. Also, your data will fall into the hands of someone who will find an error, or legitimately refute your claims. And that's a good thing.

Some years ago, some astronomers who had previously published evidence supporting the existence of a new planet in another solar system, presented at a conference that further analysis of their own data led them to reverse their conclusion. Their presentation was about a minute long. They received a standing ovation. (I believe I saw this on an episode of Nova - I can't cite a source)

That's how it's supposed to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com