This page is set aside to collect information on other science disciplines and how open they are to sharing large datasets and computer code with non-academics for non-science purposes — and directly for peer review, replication by other academics/researchers.
If you know of the process and culture in other science disciplines, including any documents and websites that discuss this, please provide links in the comments.
The Policy Lass 
Guidelines for Responsible Data Management in Scientific Research
Developed by: Clinical Tools Inc.
Funded by: Office of Research Integrity, US Department of Health and Human Services
Download PDF: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/products/clinicaltools/data.pdf
Go to page 17 for info on how long the USDHHS expects data to be kept for (3 years).
Your best bet on climate science is to read the mails themselves.
1. in 2002 Jones shared an early version of the data with Mcintyre and noted the existence
of confidentiality agreements that he disagreed with.
2. In 2005 he gave the files to rutherford. In the same mail he said that A) the data was
covered by confidentiality agreements and B) that if he was forced by law to give them
to others ( FOIA has such a provision) he would destroy the data.
3. In 2007 he gave a subset of the data to MCintyre.
4. He gave the files to Webster in 2008.
5. In 2009 he gave the data to MET
6. In 2009 he denied the files to Mcintyre and “cited” restriction clauses that “prohibited” release
to non academics.
7. He then denied the data to academics. One who was cited in AR4.
8. He then posted 4 agreements. None of these prohibited release to non academics. One
prohibited release to ANYONE. So, he violated this agreement when he released to Mcintyre in 2002, Rutherford in 2005, MET in 2008 and Webster.
In the end the FOIA appeal office would find that the release to academics was wrong and that the excuse given to Mcintyre was in error.
Then CRU went out to acquire the data again, some of it under confidentiality agreements.
They did this without determining ( as required by law) that this data was in fact necessary
to their mission.
But please continue the fight against open science.
“This page is set aside to collect information on other science disciplines and how open they are to sharing large datasets and computer code with non-academics for non-science purposes — and directly for peer review, replication by other academics/researchers.”
Ah, in order to figure out whether temperatures rise and to what degree per doubling of CO2, etc, etc, we should make that judgement on a cherry picked, redacted, decontextualised set of emails estimated at roughly 0.01% of a full set if not less.
Sea levels are accelerating upward, glaciers are retreating, global temperatures are rising, Arctic sea ice extent is shrinking as is Antarctic ice mass, solar activity has been minimal, methane is increasing, and on, and on…
Trying to discredit an entire field of science based on some emails is a fool’s errand at best, but don’t stop nature from doing what it does as if it’ll “all go away”. I’ll stick to the opinions of actual experts, thanks. Newton was a son of a bitch and I’m sure you’d be writing books about him back then, but he was right as right could be at the time.
By the way, did you ever get round to contacting the email authors to get their side of the story?
Yeah, Steve and I find by doing a simple google search that there are several papers by Rutherford which have Jones as a coauthor.
And you were saying?
Mosher (or is that Piltdown man?) opines,
“But please continue the fight against open science.”
You could not be more disingenuous if you tried. In fact, you are projecting– is it not your job to fight against open science? That and to distract people from the reality and from the real science, which reminds me, say hi to Charles whose job it seems is to push faux science and opinion, rather than facts.
Oh and Piltdown Man, exactly how does the CRU hack affect the radiative forcing of GHGs? It doesn’t.
Please be offended, but I’ll respect the findings of Sir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. If they rule that Jones behaved badly, then I for one will accept that, and will not make excuses for Jones. Will it suddenly move to continue with BAU? Sorry, no.
While we are waiting for that official ruling, could we please see your private emails and those of your masters McIntyre, Charles and Watts? See, I’m asking nicely and not hacking into computers/servers to get your information….
If you want me to believe you that AGW will be all roses and does not warrant taking action, then I want to be damn sure that you and your ilk are not on the take.
Maple,
Did you actually read my Piltdown Mann Post. I explicitly said that the two incidents while similiar in some regards were different in the key aspect. Mann did not commit fraud. The point of the post was to draw attention to how “bad science” and fraudulent science are perpetuated by the same mechanisms. For example, with Piltdown mann the bones were not allowed to be inspected.
As for real science. I do believe in AGW. I believe the certainty professed is over stated.
As for Charles. He does not push anything. he proof reads. period. You dont understand how content ( like walt meiers) gets published at WUWT. I do. It’s not what you think.
personal mails to Mcintyre: There are about 6, I’ve quoted from a couple at CA.
personal mails to Charles: we live together. we dont mail.
personal mails to Anthony: a couple, like “here is a post see what you think”
But sure, give me your full real name and I’ll forward what I have.
BTW, I’m on record in the book saying we should take action.
Information from my field
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/61/7/726/
The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis.
Wicherts, Jelte M.; Borsboom, Denny; Kats, Judith; Molenaar, Dylan
American Psychologist, Vol 61(7), Oct 2006, 726-728. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726
The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails–and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7% of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73% of the authors did not share their data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
stewart
I like rarbg proxy alternatives for the reason that it was good and convenient. And I can use these proxy sites and enjoy watching movies with my kids every time I want.