4 ms·
I'll add another argument for not releasing scientific code, specially of a matter so polarizing as climate change: programmers aren't scientists. We aren't fam
by lolcraft 17y ago
I'll add another argument for not releasing scientific code, specially of a matter so polarizing as climate change: programmers aren't scientists. We aren't familiar with neither the field's literature nor the science being used. For example, the famous comment from the CRU code said:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Do you expect the average programmer to take a 2 year course in climate science to truly understand what MXD means instead of instantly running around screaming "wolf!"? If you did so, be disappointed (a careful reading of Google results for "CRU code" might be enlightening).
- jgrahamc 17y agoThat seems like a bogus reason. Some people who had already decided that climate change was fraud decided to read comments in the code and interpret them to fit their worldview. Other people read the CRU code and made intelligent comments about the code.
- matthewmarkus 17y agoHear, hear! I did a whole series of posts analyzing a skeptic's claims: http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/raw-darwin-airport-temperature-data-with-r http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/raw-darwin-airport-temper... http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/darwin-airport-temperature-data-revisited http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/darwin-airport-temperatur... http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/darwin-airport-temperature-data-in-context http://matthewmarkus.posterous.com/darwin-airport-temperatur... I found at least one error/discrepancy in each side's output. Of course, neither side released any code. The disclosure of methods is a prerequisite for repeatable experiments, the cornerstone of science.