The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny

A college did not comply with FOIA request, therefore HIGCC is fake.

A college did not comply with FOIA request, therefore HIGCC is fake.

Hackers broke the law when they exposed emails from these folks, therefore the information contained in the emails should be discounted.

However, refusing to make your data available to someone who might prove you wrong on the grounds that they might prove you wrong is the very definition of bad science. This means that HIGCC has the dubious honor of joining Heliocentrism and Intelligent Design.

To say that HIGCC is conclusively false because the colleges did not comply with FOIA requests would be bad science.

However, refusing to make your data available to someone who might prove you wrong on the grounds that they might prove you wrong is the very definition of bad science. This means that HIGCC has the dubious honor of joining Heliocentrism and Intelligent Design.

Generally, however, people withhold data out of fear of negative consequences. It's very rare that anyone withholds data that is expected to produce a positive outcome.

That's true, but we don't want to go down the road of "but Comrade, if you are not guilty, why are you on trial?"

That's true, but we don't want to go down the road of "but Comrade, if you are not guilty, why are you on trial?"

We're not going down that road. We are going down the road of "In keeping with every established tenet of science, where is your data?"

The book I'm reading (between schoolwork) indicates that, at the federal law level, we're already there.

Diamondeye:

I would suggest our President has made comments indicating such thought before, particularly with regards to certain high-profile criminals.

Science education has become muddied in recent decades. Rather than data being something to be held up to close scrutiny, it is presented as something to be fudged so that you arrive at the proper known values.

You have to look into what those consequences might be. There is a presumption that the data was bad, that it was ginned up, or that the data was somehow indicative of a conclusion that would bring down the supposed conspiracy of HIGCC. None of this is true.

So when they withold something from people hell bent on making them look bad, regardless of the factual nature of their accusations, it's an act of self defense that is not necessarily born of some nefarious intent.

Do you honestly believe that scientists should be withholding their data to protect themselves from scrutiny? Where's the accountability for bad claims? If their data was correct, wouldn't it help their case and get more people on board? What if their data is wrong? People that will make false claims will do so anyway, don't you think? Why give them ammunition by hiding your work?

Why should I take anyone's word for it? Show me. Why is that wrong?

You have to look into what those consequences might be. There is a presumption that the data was bad, that it was ginned up, or that the data was somehow indicative of a conclusion that would bring down the supposed conspiracy of HIGCC. None of this is true.

Then they're barking up the wrong tree. To the degree that such a principle exists in this country, domestic violence law and domestic law in general has the market cornered.