WSJ summary of climate research center data breach
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
That's all the more reason for all reputable journals to be united in requiring that authors publishing in their journal be required to make their data sets available to independent researchers, so only disreputable journals publish articles by authors who engage in such research-slowing tactics.
I wouldn't mind if it had anything to do with actual science, but this is just political fluff to make people feel good about their preconceived notions. HN's front page got spammed with it because it appeals to the political groupthink here, and the scientifically-illiterate mainstream media talking it up is only going to create more drama and less insight.
But I guess being more interested in science than ideology puts me in the minority around here, so whatever. Time to collect more downvotes, I suppose.
The men and women that post and comment here are, in my opinion, among the best and the brightest. To dismiss the opinions of some significant proportion of them as "political groupthink" seems strange. Anyway, email me if you wish, so as not to pollute your 97 day experience with HN by continuing this subject here.
Your condescension is duly noted. Regretfully, I think I must decline your offer of a "discussion".
When engaged and offered to take the conversation offline, replied with: ...Your condescension is duly noted...
The best way to try to cover up your tracks when you're doing X? Point it out in other people. That always works!
If you're going to make generalizations about the entire board, people are kinda stuck having to downmod you because it's obvious you've already made your mind up and don't have a lot to offer to the conversation. It's an ad hominem on anybody who might want to talk to you.
Not such a good move.
No matter how annoyed I am with the discussion the least I can do is not make things worse. My apologies.
Lobbyist already working on it, as I see.
I find it remarkable that there are so many people here who would argue against accountability - especially when public funding and the public interest is involved (per your previous comment, accountability and transparency isn't just for banks). If these emails turn out to be true, if anything this shows that these scientists are not disinterested empiricists but have activist agendas. But this also doesn't mean that they aren't right. The issue could be solved by publishing their data sets and code for their models for public scrutiny and yet they do not - despite being largely publicly funded. Do you not see a problem with this?