With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear.
Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking.
With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do.
And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything.
Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want.
You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/
garyrob|1 year ago
With regard to the first thing you quoted, I was pointing out that you believe that scientists who are on an extreme of disagreeing with what you want to hear should make a statement saying they are wrong, but you don't seem to feel that way about people who are on the extreme of agreeing with what you want to hear.
Picking an extreme example that seems to support what you want to believe, or a belief you want to convey, without doing the same thing on the other side, is cherrypicking.
With regard to the second quote, by opening their work I meant going to the trouble of putting their code on github, etc., and putting all their data in some public repository. That just isn't usually done by researchers, and I don't see any reason climate researchers should have different standards applied to them than other researchers do. But sure, if you or someone wants to pay them for their time in making there data more available than is normally the case, go right ahead! I certainly have no objection to their sharing. It's only a matter of the fact that researchers don't normally bother to go to that trouble. They have other things to do.
And I don't think it will serve any purpose, since those who are convinced by cherrypicking, which proves absolutely nothing, will continue to be convinced by cherrypicking. Errors will definitely be found if all the data and code are made publicly available given the fact that there are thousands of studies. They won't prove anything because in the majority of cases, the research will be sound, as it usually is. Again, all it will mean is: "I knew errors would be found, and by golly, they were!" But people who you apparently listen to will pretend it proves something else. That's fine. They already con you with cherrypicking; they would continue to, and that's all. It makes no difference either way. So I'm not against the data and code being put in some open place; I just don't see any reason to bother. It won't change anything.
Apparently you disagree; I very much doubt you would feel the same if the positions of the majority of scientists were reversed. But whatever. You are obviously free to believe what you want.
You can even insist that those scientists who say the Moon isn't made of green cheese put all their data in some public repository and their code on Github. These guys might back you: https://www.facebook.com/greencheesesociety/
I'm done here.
garyrob|1 year ago