Why do Alarmist scientists refuse to share their data?

Question

Specifically, Phil Jones and James Hansen

Here is a quote from Jones:

"We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider."

Answer 1

"Why do Alarmist scientists refuse to share their data?"

Lol, pretty ironic, considering you refuse to share YOUR data (source?).

Answer 2

Here is a quote from Albert Einstein:

"wormwar1 is quoting out of context"

Without a source and the full text, neither the quote alleged to come from Jones nor the quote that certainly did not come from Einstein have any value.  

Here is the publication record for Phil Jones:

Jones, P.W., Worley, P.H., Yoshida, Y., White, J.B. III, Levesque, J., 2003: Practical Performance Portability in the Parallel Ocean Program (POP), Concurrency Comput. Prac. Exper., in press.

Randall, D.A., Ringler, T.D., Heikes, R.P., Jones, P. and Baumgardner, J., 2002: Climate Modeling with Spherical Geodesic Grids, Computing in Science Eng., 4, 32-41.

Baker, R.D., Schubert, G. and Jones, P.W., 2000: Convectively Generated Internal Gravity Waves in the Lower Atmosphere of Venus. Part II: Mean Wind Shear and Wave-Mean Flow Interaction, J. Atm. Sci., 57, 200-215.

Baker, R.D., Schubert, G. and Jones, P.W., 2000: Convectively Generated Internal Gravity Waves in the Lower Atmosphere of Venus. Part I: No Wind Shear, J. Atm. Sci., 57, 184-199.

Jones, P.W., 1999: First- and Second-order Conservative Remapping Schemes for Grids in Spherical Coordinates, Mon. Weath. Rev., 127, 2204-2210.

Baker, R.D., Schubert, G. and Jones, P.W., 1999: High Rayleigh Number Compressible Convection in Venus' Atmosphere: Penetration, Entrainment, and Turbulence, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3815-3832.

Jones, P.W., Malone, R.C. and Lai, C.A., 1998: The Los Alamos Coupled Model, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Software Engineering and Code Design in Parallel Meteorological and Oceanographic Applications, ed. M. O'Keefe and C. Kerr, NASA Publication GSFC/CP-1998-206860.

Jones, P.W., 1998: The Los Alamos Parallel Ocean Program (POP) and Coupled Model on MPP and Clustered SMP Computers, Making its Mark: Proceedings of the 7th ECMWF Workshop on the Use of Parallel Processors in Meteorology, ed. G. R. Hoffmann and N. Kreitz (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing).

Baker, R.D., Schubert, G. and Jones, P.W., 1998: Cloud-level Penetrative Compressible Convection in Venus' Atmosphere, J. Atm. Sci., 55, 3-18.

Hayashi, Y., Golder, D.G. and Jones, P.W., 1997: Tropical Gravity Waves Simulated by High-Resolution SKYHI General Circulation Models, J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 75, 1125-1139.

Jones, P.W., Hamilton, K.P. and Wilson, R.J., 1996: A Very High-Resolution General Circulation Model Simulation of the Global Circulation in Austral Winter, J. Atm. Sci., 54, 1107-1116.

Jones, P.W., Kerr, C.L. and Hemler, R.S., 1995: Practical Considerations in Development of a Parallel SKYHI General Circulation Model, Parallel Computing, 21, 1677-1694.

Sun, Z.-P., Turco, R.P., Walterscheid, R.L., Venkateswaran, S.V., and Jones, P.W., 1995: Thermospheric Response to Morningside Diffuse Aurora: High-resolution Three-dimensional Simulations, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 23,779-23,793.

Jones, P.W., Merryfield, W., and Toomre, J., 1992: Interaction of Externally-Driven Acoustic Waves with Compressible Convection, In GONG '92: Seismic Investigations of the Sun and Stars, ed. T. Brown (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific).

Jones, P.W., Merryfield, W., and Toomre, J., 1991: Interaction of Acoustic Oscillations with Time-dependent Compressible Convection, In Challenges to Theories of the Structure of Moderate Mass Stars, ed. D.Gough and J.Toomre (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) p. 213.

Jones, P.W., Pesnell, W.D., Hansen, C.J., 1991: A Catalog of Line Profile Variations due to Nonradial Pulsations, Astrophys. J. Supp., in press.

Jones, P.W., Pesnell, W.D., Hansen, C.J. and Kawaler, S.D., 1989: On the Possibility of Detecting Weak Magnetic Fields in Variable White Dwarfs, Astrophys. J., 336, 403-408.

Here is the publication record of James Hansen

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhanse...

After you have read through the publications, get back to me about the parts that you still think were left out.  I would be happy to personally write to either scientist to request that specific information be put on the record.

Answer 3

You've taken a quote out of context.  Always, always provide a link or source.

You ever seen David Lettermans' 'Moments in Presidential Speeches' sketch?  Bush always comes off looking like a buffoon, because they pick his worst moments, and the best of past presidents, for added contrast.  Is that necessarily representative of the man?  Some would say so, but no, not really.  The man can articulate a sentence or two now and then.  So, it's the context.  In the context of Dave's show, we know this is just a silly sketch and we look forward to it and laugh.

Scientists that support global warming have offered up gobs of data.  I've been reading abstracts and analyzing graphs and charts for months now, so I know personally that it's there.  What Hansen is referring to, I don't know, because you didn't offer a source.  It may well have been a rhetorical comment, for all I know.

Answer 4

The answer is really simple, they are not true Scientists. A true Scientist continually asks questions about what they are working on and allow others to contribute either through dialog or complementary expraments or through proof that their idea/diamond in the rough has flaws and these flaws can either be validated or explained either through logic or calculation or theroy.

NO NO NO these are falsely labled owners of an idea they consider their own, NOT true scientists.

These idea owners dont reconise science is continually teaching not only teach how to answer questions scientiffically but that the scientist is  always learning too. Even if a layperson has an insight they did not think of that pokes holes in their idea they have the option  of looking at the idea differently and boil and distill the idea refining it to be able to explain to a layperson in lay terms. This makes the idea better.

However, in their defence, the internet and the speed at which ideas are exchanged and more questions are asked requires us to examine this closer. It is true that people can ask questions that are lame and elementary. These questions can offend the "scientist". ANd because of the speed at which the question can be asked and the answer require actual thinking and decission making and then bring the questioner to speed with the "scientist" from a human stand point more damage to the (perhaps truly good intention) idea or main persuit of the "scientist" origonal goal has been defeated and without good cause. The actual responce from a true questioner requires enough thought about "how best explain"  and to crenditualize the comment about whats wrong with the idea. In other words a true Scientists may not feel he/she has the time to go into detail or listen or allow a question about data that has been painstakingly gathered over 25 years unless the question or observer has all the "enviromental facts of the idea". (Here im not talking about the enviroment of the phsycal surroundings but the nature of the data and its relationship to the goal). Heres 1 way to see their point. Say I know I can make an internal combustion engine without a spark plug if I just answer a few more questions. I share the idea and data with a person that knowes about internal combustion engines and he/she looks at my data Ive been compiling (and maybe not up to the standards of my peers). Here are the 2 possible outcomes: 1The questioner explains his credentals and his area of expertise and the true nature of a question he has legitimized. 2The questioner just blerts out the question that lay people hear (really a way to shout it out on the web) and other skeptics or scientists hear the question. Now the possible ouscome is multiplied by the information just shard (via the internet) and no information has been put forth.  The possible out comes are : 1 Peers and laypeople either dismiss my whole idea or 2decide its a valid question and the answer should be forth comming or 3decide my data must be flawed its is impossible to make an internal combustion engine without a sparkplug, and this question backs up the truth as I see it. And so maybe you can see from this lame example of mine how we might not have known about the fellow with the last name Diesel.

If your request of sharing data came from the caring about truth end and you have shown the scientist you have nothing to offer but comments directly to him he really has a duty to science and mankind to help you and a way to fortify his findings. Thus the persuit of truth wins.

If your requesting the information to pick it apart from a laypersons perspective and will ask questions in public forum it might hinder true science by stiffeling the truth.

This is my gripe with enviromentalists and "scientist"  that clame man is respondsible for global warming. The models used are not available and the groundwork laied for people like me  and I cant question their findings because I'm putting out CO2 when I breath, work, help others, provide services, and do social gatherings and entertainment. Im suppose to believe what I'm told because its taken a generation to gather and decipher this "supposed true" information and the models have not been proven? ANd Im suppose to make the enviroment better by not providing services with what I have? In short Im suppose to give up normal life wreck my ecconomy and stiffel my children and grandchildren's future over possible flawed models?

Seems we have a lot to learn. Both about questions and the nature of questions, and the people we depend on to tell us the truth or just share a possible truth. Wouldn't you agree?

Answer 5

Science is all about transparency and accountability: having an experimental method so flawless that your conclusions can't be disproved.

Saying 'Ive proved this, but I won't tell you how' means that you're not a scientist essentially.

Answer 6

Do you have a link to that quote? I only ask since the AGW believers will call you out on the carpet for no documentation to back up this quote.

To me that's very eye opening. What is Phil Jones afraid of?

I see you included James Hansen in this question too, so what's your evidence that he won't share his data? Back up is crucial or you are liable for slander.

Answer 7

Where exactly do you get that kind of slanderous junk?

Hansen shared his data, and someone found a minor error in U.S. temperatures that he corrected.  It had no bearing on the results at all, but it wasted a lot of his time producing the data, explaining it, defending it, and explaining to the media alter how inconsquentil the "discovery" was.

Apparently the paid propagandist industry considers it productive to harrass scientists and to slow down their research, especially when people will propagate such unsupported claims on the Internet.

Resist the paid propagandists... Boycott ExxonMobil!

Answer 8

I will share my data. Global warming means there is a source of heat made by man, can YOU see it? I can and have.

Go to the following link and see what temperature looks like.

Why can't we expose your skin to sunlight for long periods of time? UV burns you, go an see what it is doing to buildings that simply couldn't be seen. http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-h...