Truth

esr 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.

3 Responses to “Truth”

  • Kevin Dick says:

    There would still be the politics of who gets government funding, so I think both alarmism and denialism would survive, though diminished.

  • swong says:

    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.

  • pushmedia1 says:

    The same standards as what? I don’t anywhere reference the ability to predict.