Truth
March 4th, 2010esr speaks it:
All data, including primary un-”corrected” datasets, must be available for auditing by third parties. All modeling code must be published. The assumptions made in data reduction and smoothing must be an explicitly documented part of the work product.
These requirements would kill off AGW alarmism as surely as a bullet through the head.
Transparency would kill off AGW denialism, too.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:14 am
There would still be the politics of who gets government funding, so I think both alarmism and denialism would survive, though diminished.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I wonder what macro would be like if you guys were held to the same standards. I think we should disregard any suggestions from economists until your “models” can consistently predict last week’s Dow Jones.
Anyway – more transparency wouldn’t change anything. Biology research seems transparent enough – they’ve even demonstrated evolution in controlled lab settings (repeatable too!), but evolution denialism is still going strong.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:29 am
The same standards as what? I don’t anywhere reference the ability to predict.