[Vision2020] Realclimate.org: Data Links, Source Page, etc., "Dissent:" "Where's the Data?"

[Ted Moffett]

Despite the claims by some, Realclimate.org scientists do not suppress
"dissenting" scientific views on that discussion and information website,
nor even less than scientific "dissenting" opinion coming from the public,
though they do moderate the discussions, as they must to maintain
an orderly list without ugly personalized or political attacks, redundancy,
or other nonsense and noise that would degrade the discussions and hinder
readership.

I have repeatedly read commentary by "skeptics" (I think this word to
describe those who raise serious doubts about the science behind the claim
that humans are altering climate is unfortunate, because all scientists are
skeptics by training, or should be), both by PhDs and those of more modest
education, who have posted directly to this list.  Often Realclimate.org
scientists will comment on, quote and offer references to notable
"dissenting" content appearing on other websites, in the world of science
publishing, or in the media or books.  If fact, Realclimate.org is a
valuable resource to research the most compelling "dissenting" views on
climate change.

The discussion below, "Where's the Data?" expresses "dissent" in numerous
posted comments, along with offering access to "data links to sources of
temperature and other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs,
model codes, reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in
reconstructions etc."

I will paste in only the beginning commentary and one response in this
thread, number 32, that amazed because it reads surprisingly as if it might
have been written by a certain Vision2020 participant that appears to have a
passionate yet "skeptical" interest in important issues regarding climate
change:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/
 Where’s the data?
Filed under:

   - Climate Science<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/>
   - Instrumental
Record<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/instrumental-record/>

— group @ 27 November 2009

Much of the discussion in recent days has been motivated by the idea that
climate science is somehow unfairly restricting access to raw data upon
which scientific conclusions are based. This is a powerful meme and one that
has clear resonance far beyond the people who are actually interested in
analysing data themselves. However, many of the people raising this issue
are not aware of what and how much data is actually available.

Therefore, we have set up a page of data links to sources of temperature and
other climate data, codes to process it, model outputs, model codes,
reconstructions, paleo-records, the codes involved in reconstructions etc.
We have made a start on this on a new Data
Sources<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/>page, but
if anyone has other links that we’ve missed, note them in the
comments and we’ll update accordingly.

The climate science community fully understands how important it is that
data sources are made as open and transparent as possible, for research
purposes as well as for other interested parties, and is actively working to
increase accessibility and usability of the data. We encourage people to
investigate the various graphical portals to get a feel for the data and
what can be done with it. The providers of these online resources are very
interested in getting feedback on any of these sites and so don’t hesitate
to contact them if you want to see improvements.

*Update:* Big thank you to all for all the additional links given below.
Keep them coming!

Comments (pop-up) (205) <http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=1994>

-------------------------------------
 32
 John O'Connor says:
28 November 2009 at 3:55
AM<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/comment-page-1/#comment-145212>

Gavin,

Calling it a powerful meme still sounds like you are in the denial stages.

It may be that the e-mails have been hacked “illegally” as you put it – much
in the same way that the UK Parliamentary expenses were “stolen and leaked”.
The reaction there was that Michael Martin instituted a police enquiry and
eventually he became the first Speaker of the House to be forced out of
office for 300 years.

The e-mail chain reveals a disturbing pattern of obfuscation etc. etc.
instead of opennesss. Coupled with patters in a major media organisation
here that seems to want to push only one argument and stream.

Personally I have a background in engineering with two Masters behind me –
one involving computer simulation of a very simple eletrical system. I have
25+ years systems and software engineering experience, and enough wit to
know how difficult it is to model any sort of physical system.

The science of modelling is a really complex field that I don’t have the
bandwidth to fully understand (day job and family commitments too), but I do
have an interest in it, and a very natural suspicion when I am told to
simply trust models etc. etc. A very useful suspicion that has served me
well professionally in the software industry in assisting to build and work
on various parts of system reliability etc.

There has been far too much “the science is settled – trust us – we are the
ones to trust”. In fact – it sounds rather like another religious
institution in Ireland that has just got a well deserved pasting for what
was actually very serious criminal activity. I’m not putting you guys in the
same category as the irish bishops – but just to say, the manner of your
communication has very similar patterns to their way of handling a serious
issue.

Sorry if this has rambled over a number of different thoughts.

It is a very important topic, and you need to do justice to legitimate
concerns from various fields that might not all be attached to or paid for
by big oil !!!!!
---------------------------------
Vision2020 Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091129/c47ad472/attachment.html