If it is not Open Science, it is not Science at All!
On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don’t think the University of East Anglia really knows what’s involved. _Phil Jones email
Some scientists are reluctant to share "their" data, even if it was generated with public money. In some cases this has led to Freedom of Information requests, which many see as intrusive.
...If you care about the place of science in society or are worried about the quality of information on the web, then openness offers massive potential to engage people more deeply, educate them about how science works and increase the store of quality information on the web.
If you care about evidence-based policy then making that evidence available for criticism and investigation by any interested party, including those you disagree with, can only be a good thing.
Above all, you should care because science thrives on new ideas and critical analysis, wherever they come from. Open science is better science. There will be growing pains as we figure out how best to enable that. But if we believe that science enriches society then we must accept that society can, and perhaps should, enrich our research. And that can only happen if it is open. _Cameron Neylon_NewScientist
An inquisitional atmosphere pervades the entire field of climate science practise, publishing, public relations, and politics. Within an inquisitional atmosphere, true science is impossible. And yet, that is what is happening. Here is a recent example:
Editor of science magazine forced to resign over "heretical" paper he allowed to be published
...this was highly unusual, to have an editor-in-chief resign over a paper that was not retracted.This is a dominant pattern within the orthodoxy of climate science: maintain control of what is published via a tight circle of prominent peer reviewers, then attack anyone connected with any papers which manage to slip through the encirclement. This is not the first editor to be forced to recant and fall upon his sword for the climate orthodoxy, and it will not likely be the last.
Apparently, peer review is now carried out by reporters calling scientists on the phone and asking their opinion on something most of them do not even do research on. A sad day for science. _WUWT
Phil Jones is an interesting example of a climate inquisitor and cabalist. Professor of climate at the Climate Research Unit of UEA, he has never been particularly open with his data, nor has he been honest. Jones has been pampered by UK government investigators looking into his scientific misconduct. The UK media has circled the wagons around Phil Jones, trying to make him seem a victim and a rightful object of public sympathy.
Climate Science is the rotten apple of science, which needs to be thrown out to prevent the same type of quasi-religious corruption from contaminating the rest of science. Climate science is an inter-disciplinary field, made up of scientists trained in physics, meteorology, atmospheric sciences, oceanography, geology, computer science, and more. It would be best to allow further research into climate to take place under the auspices of parent disciplines, where the integrity of data and the scientific method are more likely to be honoured.
Inter-disciplinary research could still be carried out, with all of the data and codes available to everyone for examination and critique. But the integrity and reputation of long-established disciplines of science would have to stand behind the research and methods. "Climate science" is a one-trick pony that was not ready for prime time -- and cut too many corners and broke too many rules to be allowed to continue pretending to be a science.
If it is not open science, it is not science at all.
Labels: Climate Grifters