Naming and shaming doesn’t seem to phase these Australian Climate Astrologists and obstructionists, hopefully pressure on these ‘pesky people’ that the ‘Auditor’ at Climate Audit requests omitted data from, will force them to comply, or suffer the naming and shaming. What do they have to hide? Cherry-picking tree rings again?
Myles Allen, a declared supporter of open data archives, has, in blog comments here, proposed “name and shame” as a first tactic against data obstructionists (as opposed to FOI).
Journal editors can and should enforce a simple “disclose or retract” policy if a result is challenged, and almost all of them do: if any don’t, then the solution is to name and shame them, not set up a parallel enforcement system.
I partly agree with this; I’ve used FOI primarily as a last resort. And in the case of climate scientists and journals that withhold data unashamedly, I believe that it remains a valuable tool of last resort. Obviously I’ve not been shy about naming data obstructionists at Climate Audit, though this longstanding effort has typically encountered resentment rather than encouragement from the community. Perhaps Allen will add his voice in more direct communications with editors rather than just at blog comments. Regardless, it’s nice to get even some moral support, since, for the most part, the community has united in solidarity behind data obstructionists.
By coincidence, Myles’ comments come in the midst of another data non-archiving incident that I haven’t reported on. Read More »
This call from Professor Myles Allen follows another post on ‘tricks’ and ‘declines’ that have come under scrutiny from the Auditor at Climate Audit…
Myles Allen has written here blaming Bishop Hill for “keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies” like the Hockey Stick:
My fear is that by keeping the public focussed on irrelevancies, you are excluding them from the discussion of what we should do about climate change
But it’s not Bishop Hill that Myles Allen should be criticizing; it’s John Houghton who more or less made the Hockey Stick the logo of the IPCC. Mann was told that IPCC higher-ups wanted a visual that didn’t “dilute the message” and they got one: they deleted the last part of the Briffa reconstruction – Hide the Decline. If, as Allen now says, it’s an “irrelevancy”, then Houghton and IPCC should not have used it so prominently. And they should not have encouraged or condoned sharp practice like Hide the Decline….keep reading