A Victory for the Good Guys
The global warming crowd just lost another battle. The University of East Anglia (EA, where Climategate began) has been attempting to keep its climate database (paid for by UK and US taxpayers) private which is against every tenant of science.
After numerous UK Freedom of Information Act requests for this data, and EA's refusals, higher authority has spoken. As Steve McIntyre comments on the ruling:
Some of the University’s arguments purporting to uphold their supposed “intellectual property rights” should ring as particularly contemptible to most members of the public. If climate scientists exhort the public to make personal sacrifices, it seems hypocritical that they should claim that their “intellectual property rights” prevent examination of data being used to underpin those requests to make sacrifices.
As we have learned from Al Gore, sacrifices are for the little people.
AE has been given 35 days to produce the documents. I do not expect a "smoking gun" (but, who knows, given how hard AE has fought to prevent disclosure). I look at this as a victory for both science, where results are supposed to be "repeatable", and for the taxpayers who pay for all this.
I would hope global warming proponents cheer the ruling, also. It is clearly the right result to anyone who cares about science and the scientific method.
After numerous UK Freedom of Information Act requests for this data, and EA's refusals, higher authority has spoken. As Steve McIntyre comments on the ruling:
Some of the University’s arguments purporting to uphold their supposed “intellectual property rights” should ring as particularly contemptible to most members of the public. If climate scientists exhort the public to make personal sacrifices, it seems hypocritical that they should claim that their “intellectual property rights” prevent examination of data being used to underpin those requests to make sacrifices.
As we have learned from Al Gore, sacrifices are for the little people.
AE has been given 35 days to produce the documents. I do not expect a "smoking gun" (but, who knows, given how hard AE has fought to prevent disclosure). I look at this as a victory for both science, where results are supposed to be "repeatable", and for the taxpayers who pay for all this.
I would hope global warming proponents cheer the ruling, also. It is clearly the right result to anyone who cares about science and the scientific method.
Do you mean to say that saying something totally irrational, with no basis of facts, over and over and over again, doesn't make it true?
ReplyDelete