New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph

The whole area of Scientific Publishing is in need of a major shift by disrupting current practices - and I am hoping when it does is a YC start-up.<p>While studying for my PhD, a pattern arose - any papers written before 1975 provided adequate details to reproduce results down to code or references to Technical Reports that provided this information.<p>What I would like to see.<p>(01) Any research that is publicly funded to make all publications, data and code freely available. (Not behind paywalls)<p>(02) All papers to have more than one version, version 2 being a good explanation of what the research is all about, results etc - without the jargon, in order for readers to better understand the subject and delve further into it, should they wish.<p>(03) A comments section<p>It is as if suddenly Scientists are afraid of standing up and support their theses. A more open policy on publishing - in detail - on the web can help them do so, they can crowd-source opinions and suggestions - really I don't see a downside to this.<p>Out of curiosity I spent over a week to find out the roots of experiments that determine the effect of CO2 on temperature, if the models took account of diffusion, which layer of the atmosphere is affected the greatest etc... So far I have not been very successful.

It is curious that for a community which theoretically worships peer review that increased scrutiny into their methods starts to come up with all sorts of low-hanging fruit like this.<p>I kind of feel sorry for them: humans make mistakes, and retrospective digging into any human endeavor is going to uncover them. That wouldn't be a problem if their marketing hadn't been "This is the infallible Voice of Science: the only people capable of understanding it all have already signed off on it. Implement our recommendations or be cast into a fiery pit." Mr. Wizard always looks less impressive from behind the curtain.<p>I have half a mind to take a week or two this summer, grab one of the old papers in the field and the associated data sets, and just try to reproduce the math. The reason I have only half a mind is that I know I'm likely to discover that the process is not covered in sufficient detail publicly to reproduce it.

The minute I saw people calling those who dispute the accuracy of findings, "Climate Change Deniers" I realised that this was less about science and more about politics.<p>The science should stand up on it's own two feet, it shouldn't need 'consensus' from closed groups. Release the data and the methods and we'll find out what's really happening by putting the hypothesis under scrutiny.