Needed: An “Open Science” Movement
The recent exposure of emails, data and software from the pre-eminent global warming organization – the Climate Research Unit – shows not only that scientists are human and thus tribal, arrogant and sometimes deceitful, but also the modern process is inadequate and antiquated.
Skeptics have argued that critical data had been “cooked,” and scientists had been refusing requests for data. Now we know that not only was the data misused and that the scientists had been engaged in a coverup and suppression of dissent, but also that they are not even able to understand their own data. They have lost the meta-data – the equivalent of the library cards for their books of data.
Anyone familiar with big science knows it is a process fraught with potential for error, with petty disputes between various camps, and with a “peer review” process that has allowed those with the current “settled science” to keep out those who have valid questions.
In many areas of science, this is not a problem. In fact, the conservative nature of science – it’s normal refusal to jump on new fads – is positive. Over time, reality will triumph.
However, modern “big science” is often called upon in deciding major questions of the day – from health recommendations to dramatic restrictions of economic freedom in the name of “climate change.” The political pressures, and financial rewards of grant-based science distort and corrupt the normal scientific rigor and conservatism. Furthermore, many important areas of grant-based science still operate as if the world has not changed – as if data is being inscribed in bound lab books (even though the volume of data is way too high), as if all scientific communication can only happen via the slow peer reviewed journal process and annual conventions, and as if only a few specialists care about the results. The paleoclimatologists of CRU seem to have been operating in that world.
By contrast, the world of software engineering and computer science has moved into the modern age, leaving the paleoclimatologists in, well, the paleolithic age of science. The “open source” software movement has allowed collaborators from around the globe to band together and create new and wonderful tools for mankind. It has removed the barriers blocking innovation and hiding both the good and the bad, allowing rapid correction and adoption. Good work is accepted, regardless of the credentials of the contributor. This movement is a major factor in the rapid progress in computing and the internet.
If you use the web, the chances are that most sites you visit are powered by the Apache web server – an open source product. Your browser may be Firefox, and open source project. The software behind the web server almost certainly uses Java, now open source, PhP, Perl, Ruby and other open source programming languages. More importantly, the “data” (source code) underlying all of this is available to all – for inspection and improvement.
Now it is time for an Open Science movement.
It is time for scientists to put their data in publicly accessible archives. It is time for them to put the meta-data, which tells how to use the data, in those same archives. It is time for them to put their software, whether FORTRAN programs, MathCad spreadsheets, or whatever on those archives.It is time for them to adopt modern data coding standards (such as XML) to hold the data and the meta-data. It is time for them to embrace the input of outsiders.
In other words, it is time for scientists to become modern and efficient.
The benefits of open science are many:
- Credibility – skeptics have to back up their criticisms with science, because they can no longer claim “data hiding” or hidden algorithms
- Faster progress – with the data made available in useful forms, the collaborative effort of science will be more efficient, and progress will naturally be accelerated
- Data reliability – with data widely published, it will have to be properly defined and documented. This will force a discipline on scientists that many in the commercial world have always faced. Since the data will be freely available, its quality, and the quality of its documentation, will be available for review and comment by everyone.
- More innovation – while scientific progress is usually done by those who spend their lives learning and then researching in narrow specialties (such as the use of tree-ring proxies in temperature reconstruction), occasionally outsiders, with their different viewpoint, make breakthroughs. Even more often, as is seen in the climate controversy, they discover methodological errors in what otherwise is “accepted science”
Some scientists will object to this, and in some cases, they will be right. There are other processes in science (such as how individual merit is determined) that are in conflict.
But – we should demand that science used to influence important public policy be open source science, regardless of whether it causes problems for the career advancement of the scientists. We should demand that federal agencies which use science in their regulatory processes engage in open source science (the EPA is especially egregious in refusing to provide the science behind their “science based” findings). We should demand that granting authorities use their best efforts to encourage open source science.
You also might enjoy these posts (selected just for you by Conservative Elves):
- Hope and Change that Works
- Ground Zero Mosque: Democrats Acting Like Cowards – The Daily Beast
- To Upset Liberals, Love America…and Show It!
Comments
Interesting article. Science is becoming increasingly politicized, and this is especially dangerous in an era where “science” is used as a justification for public policy. This is even worse in the social sciences, as for example when the self esteem fad was turned into public policy in education, even though the data did not support the policy.
In many cases, there are articles published in various fields (usually in the social sciences) that have the trappings of science but are far from the real thing. Social sciences are vulnerable to this both because human beings are exhibit extremely complex phenomena, and because the findings of social science are almost always of interest outside the field.
Paleoclimatology is like archaeology, except massive economic interventions are now based on it. Climate forecasting is even worse, because it simply cannot be falsified, thereby leaving the area of Popperian science altogether.
Yes, I agree. The problem that I have with the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that it is all based upon extrapolating data into the future, which is speculation. It doesn’t take a scientist to speculate from data, and it seems that a real scientist would want to be careful about such projects, instead of maintaining that we now have a consensus on the speculations so the debate is over! The very term climate change should raise one’s suspicions: How could the climate not change? And then we get all of the hubris in the press about how mankind is going to prevent man made climate change. What foolishness!
Actually, part of it is now based on the assertion that the warming in the 80s and 90s validate the hypothesis without the modeling speculations. This is why there is so much fur flying over the paleoclimatic data – especially the “hockey stick” time series which purport to show dramatic warming in the last half of the 20th century, and NO little ice age and NO midieval or roman warmings. And guess what CRU (where the leaks came from) does for a living… maintain one of the two hockey-stick data sets!
Thanks for that clarification. As you can probably tell, this is not my area of expertise. I don’t see how they can assert that the little ice age didn’t happen.
I’m no expert in this either. I think they vanish the little ice age and the midieval warming period by claiming that they were local to Europe, not global. I find that very suspicious, especially because of the remarkable coincidence between the depth of the little ice age and the Maunder sun spot minimum, although nobody has proven a link between sunspots and global temps.
[...] G.M. Roper observes: The recent exposure of emails, data and software from the pre-eminent global warming organization — the Climate Research Unit — shows not only that scientists are human and thus tribal, arrogant and sometimes deceitful, but also the modern process is inadequate and antiquated. Skeptics have argued that critical data had been "cooked," and scientists had been refusing requests for data. Now we know that not only was the data misused and that the scientists had been engaged in a coverup and suppression of dissent, but also that they are not even able to understand their own data. . . . [...]
“Big Science”. That is hilarious.
Could you imagine anyone saying “Big Science”?
They talk about “Big Oil” and “Big Coal” yet nobody in the industry calls themselves that. I doubt anyone paid money to have themselves labled “Big Pharma” in the medical industry. The “Big” is always the negative. I would love to hear people that cover global warmists call them “Big Science”. I think that is hilarious. The press would never do it.
I wonder what the next evil “Big” will be. Global Warmists made the air I exhale a form of pollution. You can do anything if you want. It seems as if any idiot can write the rules, and if it gets repeated enough a lot of people will buy it.
John, I’ve been suspicious since the “climate models” have yet to predict any single year/decade accurately. If your current model can’t “predict” what has already happened, how on earth can it predict the future?
I’m only a psychotherapist, so will some dufus who is a “science type scientist” say I’m a denier or just a skeptic?
It’s all real simple and it doesn’t take a scientist to understand it at all. Simplification, just follow the money and folks you have you answers to the why of GW or Climate Change.
Anyone remember the Ice Age being upon us brought about by some of these same idiots back in the 70′s? What kept it from becoming the big science thing? MONEY. Some of the “cures” for the ice was coal ash, coal dust etc but then no one could figure out how to market the stuff so the end of the “new ice age” ended before it began. Government leadership for the most part didn’t fall for the BS and no money was thrown out in form of huge grants and the “ice agers” simple went back to the lab to see what new form of hysteria they could invent that would bring them MONEY.
Actually when you sit down and do a bit of reading and take a look at how all this advanced it is real simple to understand that it all has an simple answer if one only follows the MONEY trail.
[...] revelations about the bogus science of the climate-change fanatics inspired me Saturday to reflect on the Temple Cult of Scientism: The [...]
You may be interested to look into the Reproducible Research concept. It’s becoming a standard practice at Stanford University and elsewhere. Just google that name to learn more…it’s nothing new.
Computer folk will recognize the concept if I mention “make”, a standard utility used in open source software.
You may also enjoy exploring the ClimateAudit.org website. It’s one of the first experiments in multidisciplinary Open Science. Alarmists denigrate it as a “denier” site but in reality it’s all about good science. Discussions of politics, policy and religion are banned…and contributors range from extreme skeptic to strong “warmists.” The common thread: better science, better data, better analysis, more openness.