Once again, the people who are getting incensed that “the integrity of the scientific method is compromised” are exactly those who want to use this meme as a political weapon. To everyone else this is a storm in a teacup.

Why is it that auditors of science should not be (certainly the current self-proclaimed auditors are not) fully versed in the science they claim to be auditing?

As to climate science, it is the people doing the science who are being attacked. The theory and method, are only collateral. People, of course, are easier targets. And, as it is an attack on people, there is nothing that the people themselves can do to affect the attack. Glen Beck, c.f., will be calling for the death of all climate scientists regardless of any ‘audit’ process or anything else you name.

IMHO, Josh’s suggestion is just to keep a sharp distinction between scientific theory and the scientific method. We agree that climate science has been attacked for political reasons. But it is climate science theory that is being attacked. For the scientific method, “attacking” theory is an ordinary, ho-hum event.

But worrisome is when the integrity of the scientific method is compromised for “the larger goal of true public understanding of science.” There is no public understanding of any scientific theory that is worth endangering the confidence the public has in the scientific method.

But IMHO, for AGW science, it is too late to avoid that. Public confidence in AGW method has already been eroded. The questions now are how to get confidence in the method back (theory will take care of itself) and how to keep confidence in the rest of science.

One thing for sure, an appeal to the authority of AGW experts will not do the job. (Rely on a logical fallacy?) Instead, we need a very public re-emphasis on the scientific method (including extensive auditing, whether we like the auditors or not).

I know it’s easy for me to say this. My life’s work has not been personally attacked. And many experts feel the stakes are higher than I realize. I sympathize.

I still see nothing but political opportunism in the links you provide – scientists will always work to protect the integrity of the scientific process by working to keep crap out of the journals. I know many many people who think they have been wronged because journals turned down their papers; in every case they deserved it, and most cases they are too incompetent to understand what’s wrong with their attempts to do research.

The political point-scoring aims to distort the way the peer-review process works, and present an artificial equality between world class scientists doing honest work and a bunch of political hacks who don’t understand the scientific process, and then cry fowl when the scientists treat their efforts with contempt. But if you don’t have the tools to sort out who are the experts here, then the complaints of attempts to distort the peer-review process might sound genuine. Which shows that this line of political attack works – even smart people are taken in by it.

22. The concerted efforts by a group of eminent climate scientists to prevent the publication of the Keenan paper had been unsuccessful. However, this was mainly due to the fact that I was prepared to resist peer pressure and to be open-minded regarding Keenan’s evidence and argumentation. I doubt that mainstream science editors would have dared to reject the opposition by leading climate scientists who had targeted an amateur researcher. As Phil Jones fittingly put it to me in an e-mail: ‘How would any journal ever contemplate publishing such a paper?’
EE Editor Submission to UK Parliament

The proper response is: Thank the interested amateur for spotting the error, correct it (generally it’s a minor correction that changes very little), and move on with the work. Appealing to another’s bad behavior to excuse one’s own is unseemly. Is it hard to do when you think the other guy is a jerk and a scoundrel? Sure, but right action isn’t determined by difficulty. Even if the particular paper mentioned above turns out to be complete rubbish:

As for thinking that it is “Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us” …..as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not….
– Raymond S. Bradley, 0924532891.txt

If all you are saying is that the CRU email thing has very little impact on our understanding of the world, then I think most folks would agree (there might even be some folks in climate science who would argue paleo itself is rather unimportant). If you are saying the affair is unimportant in regards to upholding norms of scientific integrity, then I think plenty of people would (rightly) disagree, and whether any malfeasance has actually occurred is still up for determination.

(Sorry, this comment turned out a little longer than I intended, but the scientific integrity thing is something I feel pretty strongly about, so in the spirit of open notebooks, I posted. We should take serious things seriously, possibly Dr Jones and the others involved will be exonerated, but we shouldn’t flinch from looking because we dislike the source of correction.)

Last, open source software, a lot of extra eyes, training, quality tools can’t help where arrogance is involved. Folks have a right to be angry when confronted with the arrogance exhibited by these guys. It just plays into the hands of all the luddites wanting to ignore obvious climate problems. It won’t make ordinary folk who are afraid of science and scientists feel any better either.

Indeed, the Free Software movement does not attempt to make claims about Free Software being “better” according to one’s choice of quality metric, but it does have something to say about giving everyone connected with a piece of software the opportunity to study, improve and pass that software on. The transparency promoted by such a philosophy – based on ethical rather than technical arguments – should also assuage criticism from those who claim to be motivated to review and study such tools and techniques but who also claim to be excluded from doing so, potentially on a political basis or through some form of discrimination.

With an emphasis on Free Software values, although technical hurdles may remain, the political and social obstacles can be effectively removed. And since these obstacles are the ones which cause most ill-feeling and injustice, feed notions of secrecy and conspiracy, and yet do not contribute to the technical excellence of a piece of work, there is clearly much to be said for their removal, all without seeking some kind of technical justification for doing so at all.

[I agree there are many potential benefits of open source; I was just restricting myself to the argument that it improves quality. However, I disagree completely that the "political and social obstacles can be effectively removed". No open source community is completely free of politicking and social misbehaviour. In the charged political atmosphere around climate software, I don't see how a truly open source community could possibly work; there's no mutual respect on which to build. - Steve]

To theorize the uniform ineffectiveness of open sourcing climate science data/software based on an empirical power law seems dismissive.

The value of “open source” software is not entirely captured by the software development meme: “Many eyeballs make all bugs shallow” (MEMABS).

But to address MEMABS. You give a Wikipedia reference to the more formal definition of MEMABS: “Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone.”

Some people are hoping that: “Given a large enough “alarmist”, skeptical, and “denier” base looking at the climate input/software/output, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone.”

To label such people’s hopes “credulous,” their thinking “magical” or their argument “specious” (which has the connotation of “deceptive”) seems to me harsh.

Should the Steve McIntyre’s out there need to be given a chance? Correct me if I am wrong. Has he found “bugs”? Yes. Is this a positive outcome for climate science? Yes.

Will such type of efforts help resolve the issues revealed in the CRU emails? Open source philosophy predicts — yes.

That his efforts so far may not have been “worthwhile” is a value judgment. Values and science are very important — but different. It is futile to argue one using the other.

George

[McIntyre is what an open source team would characterize as a persistent clueless newbie. He'd get frozen out of any open source community with the kinds of nonsense he peddles. It's just a pity that people who want to call themselves "skeptics" don't show a bit more skepticism towards McIntyre's antics. Now that's really enough about him - it's not really relevant to the thread. - Steve]