4 ms·
No, you are wrong. Read thee whole quote here http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml* http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/
by 1gor 17y ago
No, you are wrong. Read thee whole quote here http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml* http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/ent... and observe that the programmer is convinced the whole database of reporting stations is bogus, and the model has been tweaked multiple times: "Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog."
also "One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!"
So much for 'scientific model supported by hard data'.
- gjm11 17y agoI read not only the whole quote but the whole (very long) file from which the quote was cherrypicked. Of course the model has been tweaked several times. What the hell else do you think scientists do when they have a simulation of a large complicated system and there's a constant influx of data for seeing how well it works? The fact that they have to work with messy data is hardly their fault.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoThe fact that a sum of squares yields negative numbers is their fault. The fact that they can't reproduce their own numbers is also their fault.