I agree that code should be made public, but I couldn't disagree more with the last paragraph. Even worse, I take offence to the sentiments expressed in it. It

I agree that code should be made public, but I couldn't disagree more with the last paragraph. Even worse, I take offence to the sentiments expressed in it. It's time to set ethical standards?! Really? Are they so unethical? I would claim that scientists have, by and large, very high ethical standards. Considering that they themselves are being pushed more and more to market their research to get funding, the highest standard for our work remains truth, and nothing but the truth. Elimination of scientists as activists is a non-statement. Assuming that scientists believe in their own work --a very common affliction-- what does it mean to be an activist? Just that they try to convince others of the validity of their work? Isn't it unethical _not_ to warn the world of the impeding doom your research has uncovered? And to be somewhat insistent if people do not want to hear it? Don't confuse politicians, crooks and businessmen in the climate change debate with the scientists. While all pretend to use scientific arguments, very few do. The political question should be: does the risk of climate change justify the costs that might prevent it.