Hacker News Reader

Comment by electromagnetic | Hacker News Reader

So to put it another way, these 'scientists' purposely made their data unverifiable and thus non-scientific. IMO any adjusted or modified data is unscientific without the original data set and how and why the data was modified the way it was.

If you adjust data to normalise it due to the differing global climatic effects of El Nino or La Nina then that's perfectly reasonable, if someone can corroborate what you did and if you did it right. However with no original data set, and apparently no mention of how or why the data was modified the way it was leaves it completely unverifiable and might as well be entirely fabricated.

View on HN

Not that I disagree, but there are conceivable cases were it seems natural to not keep the "base data" around. For example consider a classical thermometer: temperature data is collected by reading the height of quicksilver in a pipe and transforming it into a temperature according to a device specific scale. I don't think many people keep the actual height readings around, most would probably just keep the resulting temperature.

Not that I know that the same applies to the data in question here, just saying. I still wait for the full story.

there are conceivable cases were it seems natural to not keep the "base data" around.

Your example does not demonstrate this point. By taking the temperature readings in degrees C, you, in fact, are taking the "base data". Of course, you also should record the equipment that you are using to take that data. The height of mercury in your thermometer can be determined by the the brand of thermometer (including the Manufacturer and Model #), and the temperature reading given. Most scientific peer-reviewed research articles are very specific about the equipment being used.

"By taking the temperature readings in degrees C, you, in fact, are taking the "base data"."

I don't see how? It is a matter of how you define "the base of the data". My point is that there is a calculation on the measurement, and only the result of the calculation is recorded. Hence the base data is discarded.

We don't know what calculations were done on the climate date in question here. But it seems at least possible that the calculation is also trivial (for climate researchers anyway, could be some standard procedure), just as to us converting heights to degrees is trivial.

Recording the type of thermometer is another matter - likewise the climate researchers will probably record where their measurements were taken, which implies the equipment used.

Edit: of course if the calculations are reversible is another issue. I see now that is the point you made with the thermometer (calculate height from make and degrees). Well, it was just an example, and we don't even know yet if the calculations in question here are not reversible. I suppose if they calculated an average they are not. But I also think there are probably many cases where a measurement is just taking an average (probably even the height of quicksilver is an average in a way...).

we don't even know yet if the calculations in question here are not reversible.

??? If the calculations are reversible, there would be no argument. Everyone would know the base data.

I think you are kind of pushing it with your quicksilver example; I don't see how taking a single measurement is "averaging". If you mean to say that there is some built-in variance - well, that's true. But the fact is the variance itself can be established by other scientists if they know the model of thermometer that is being used. This is the essence of repeatability!

Now, imagine that a scientist had many temperature readings, and then they did some kind of complex calculation which involved regression analysis, statistical modeling, etc. These are the types of calculations that could easily have errors. Without the initial recordings, the results are unverifiable. That doesn't make them necessarily useless, but I wouldn't lean on those kinds of results.

No, no. I agree with you that we need to hold them over the fire on this. But "purposely" is going too far.

The best explanation, until proven otherwise, is that somebody goofed.

I tend to think good faith is a nice assumption to have, but it should be rebuttable. For example, if someone were to say "I'd rather destroy my data than let it fall to a Freedom of Infomation Act request", and then they were served with a Freedom of Information Act request, and then the data were to be suddenly missing...

Yeah, "goofed" by sending emails that talk about a plan to delete data rather than turn it over. ;)

Were there emails that actually talked about deleting data? I've seen the emails that talked about deleting emails, but not raw data.

1107454306.txt

Professor Jones: 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 [Patrick notes: he is referring to McIntyre and McKitrick] 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.

Hmm.

The rest of that email reads:

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.

Why did they not want to give away the data?

Well, if a group has your original source data, they can try to reproduce your results and/or challenge your process. I gather that the results are not likely to stand up to scrutiny.

That seems kind of weird - if they don't show the data, they might as well not bother with collecting data at all. They could just make it all up.

Why then, would they bother to mail it around, as they did in the quoted email?

I suspect there are some other reasons.

It would be harder for the scientists to justify making it up to themselves. I assume none of them set out to do bad science when they started investigating climate.

Sorry I don't think this makes sense. Personally I'll just wait to see how the story unfolds.

This makes me glad again that there is some kind of legal system in most civilized countries. So many people seem to be ready to form a lynch mob at short notice.

Judging from the sheer volume of replies you've made to every HN thread on the subject, one has to wonder if you have a dog in the fight.

Just a case of http://xkcd.com/386/ , Mr Holmes

I don't know any of the people involved, but I really despise lynch mobs. Still, I know I shouldn't bother with this.

I concur, the only reason to destroy the original source data is if you know your work won't stand up to scrutiny and will discredit your work. Irony here is that now it isn't a matter of if there work would or wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, now it's a matter of ethics and they're clearly discrediting themselves by their severe lack of ethical behaviour.

As I understand it their license to (some of) the data did not permit them to do so.

If that were the case, there would be no need to delete it; the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won.

Of course, if it turns out that it was illegal for them to accept the data under that license in the first place, then it might be more understandable.

What if they simply felt they didn't have the time to deal with "the MMs", who would most likely not care about the law (also being from a completely different country). Newspapers tend to simply publish stuff they acquire, no matter if they came by it by legal means or not.

Not wanting to deal with the MMs does not imply guilty, just as not wanting to discuss moot points with creationists does not imply evolution theory is wrong. At some point maybe you decide your energy is better spent elsewhere.

Just playing devils advocate... I still feel there is too much context missing.

If a creationist wants access to your data you give it to them; you don't have to debate them, but there is no reason not to keep this data on your ftp...

Of course there is a reason. You don't want to waste time having to explain your unpublished research.

> the lawyers could decide whether the FOI request or the license won.

...and if the FOI won you wouldn't be able to get data anymore.

I don't understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph.

...and if the FOI won you wouldn't be able to get data anymore.

Under that license, right.

I don't understand what you're getting at with your second paragraph.

What I mean is that if government documents are subject to FOI requests, then it seems possible that there's a law about accepting data under a license which would conflict with that. I don't know that there is, but it seems possible. That would be an understandable reason having no bearing on the climate debate to delete rather than provide the data.

That's what they say here: https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepage...

Normally, I'd agree with you. There seems to be more incompetence than malice, in general.

With technology as it is and science as it is and has been for hundreds of years, this seems like an extraordinary goof. I could see a goof being losing a block of data, but all of it? Why was destruction of this data even an option or consideration? How expensive and difficult is it to keep it? I suspect there are numerous other organizations that would store it if they were given copies of it.

"Purposely" might be a bit extreme but it was more than a simple goof.

The thought that someone couldn't walk down to the local store and buy an external hard drive(s) to store this data is unlikely. Heck, a general call out to the community to find storage would work (ask google, they would do it and index it).

No, I believe malice is really the only explanation. Raw data allows reproducibility and intelligent debate.

The data in question dates from the 1980s. You couldn't "walk down to the local store and buy an external hard drive", and if you could a gigabyte of storage would cost you tens of thousands of pounds. Google didn't exist.

The data dates from the 80's but it sounds like it was a recent decision to delete the data.

FTA: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s". What part of that makes it sound like this data was lost more recently than the 1980s?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com