tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3845350409476852112..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Nick Barnes has a sayEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71610660051410866952010-06-21T14:07:42.656-04:002010-06-21T14:07:42.656-04:00Not that I've been following closely, but I th...Not that I've been following closely, but I think there's a germ of an idea for public discussion that could be fruitful... Let me try to flesh it out in perhaps a bit different direction.<br /><br />I think it would be useful to have an open wiki-like forum to raise points from the general public that seem relevant. Then have that same public vote the most important/relevant/[some other criterion] of them that they want to see addressed by IPCC - something like what EPA did with all their comments, but with the public specifically encouraged to identify the best ones, so IPCC authors don't have to respond to every last little thing.<br /><br />Also, I think the forum should require positive identification (a real name and email address) from each commenter as well - for credit and to avoid some of the perniciousness of anonymity.<br /><br />One part of this could be in gathering a bibliography - these are the best articles we think should be addressed or discussed or included in the report somehow. But scientific questions people want answered in a clear fashion would also be helpful...<br /><br />Just a thought...Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25505703977312620762010-06-21T11:50:16.218-04:002010-06-21T11:50:16.218-04:00Ron, for a small amount of carrots you can have ac...Ron, for a small amount of carrots you can have access to the AGU archive. Costs less than a single subscription in many cases.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27569798156007985622010-06-21T09:20:40.056-04:002010-06-21T09:20:40.056-04:00Sign it now, here.Sign it now, <a href="http://clearclimatecode.org/opening-up-the-ipcc/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2630341594208753192010-06-21T05:15:49.953-04:002010-06-21T05:15:49.953-04:00It might be worth taking a look at Nature News'...It might be worth taking a look at Nature News' article on the IPCC inquiry, if only to make sure you're aware of its progress and get an idea of what's being discussed:<br /><br />http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html<br /><br />The usual denialist nonsense is being posted in the comments.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18467308450458595712010-06-21T05:15:00.756-04:002010-06-21T05:15:00.756-04:00Hi, Ron.
1) I really think that there exists a po...Hi, Ron.<br /><br />1) I really think that there exists a politically motivated position on this topic. You understand that I say that "the world is divided into contrarian bloggers and institutional scientists". I don't say that. I know for sure that the "most active" members of the contrarian movement have money to pay for the papers. I am not naive enough to think that all people interested in the issue live in black or white. But it is truly certain that black and white are colors that exist in a 0->1 palette of gray tones. And some of the most influential ones have money to pay for access to the original literature. And they, still, write what they write.<br /><br />2) I agree that openness in the papers would be great. My previous questions was: Who is going to pay the million US$ (or more) that it takes to make all of the papers cited in AR5 free for all the world? If the Society as a whole decides the papers must be open I think they must also know that it costs a prize.<br /><br />3) I (still) think that, even if the papers were 100% open and free, things would not change too much. I can't imagine right-wing TV faces such as ... (their names here) changing their minds because JGR papers tell ... (whatever). <br />Sorry, I don't believe it will happen. I'd better say that they start shouting that the money of the taxpayers is being wasted because it is being used to pay for the openness of scientific rubbish written by leftist academics.<br /><br />As I told before ... I might be wrong. Even more, I hope that I am wrong and openness in literature leads to an end of this absurd campaign, but I am afraid it will not happen.<br /><br />MickeyMinnieMouseJonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87480534014594906102010-06-20T20:48:50.360-04:002010-06-20T20:48:50.360-04:00People at the Hxxxx or Cxxxx Institutes or the SE_...<em>People at the Hxxxx or Cxxxx Institutes or the SE__ have money to pay subscription to JGR/GRL, the AMS journals and Climate Dynamics. They probably have subscriptions already. That is not the problem.</em><br /><br />MickeyMinnieMouseJon, there is an implication in your statement that the world is divided into contrarian bloggers and institutional scientists. I can assure that the set of interested parties is larger than that ... and as an unaffiliated interested party, I can afford the subscription to one mainstream journal, but not the full bevy. Lately I've been browsing Ruddiman 2003 and many of the responses. But not all of them, as several are unavailable to me. Having open access to the relevant papers would help me educate myself.Ron Broberghttp://rhinohide.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72014645795551045272010-06-20T10:20:16.719-04:002010-06-20T10:20:16.719-04:00Eli's take on this is that Nick is asking that...Eli's take on this is that Nick is asking that the list of references contain links to all references (and notations when such links do not exist). Even when the reference itself is behind a paywall, the abstract is available.<br /><br />Since the list of references are part of the text, the list should be controlled by the CLAs and LAs.<br /><br />Another important point that Nick has made is that the list of references be unified between chapters and working groups. This is equally important and in keeping with electronic publishing.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54293162743096395342010-06-20T09:03:02.677-04:002010-06-20T09:03:02.677-04:00Hi, Nick.
I see I misunderstood something from yo...Hi, Nick.<br /><br />I see I misunderstood something from your text. I thought that you meant "open" in the same sense as wikipedia (lots of editors adding references and quarrelling about the importance of Lindzen+Chou versus the world...). I see from your reply that is not your position. As I understand now, you refer to "making the bibliographic database available to the public". If you refer to the bibliographic list, it is currently open, as the whole AR4 report can be downloaded from a web server. If you mean that public in general should be able to freely download papers cited in the bibliography. I "ideally" agree, but ... somebody has to pay to AMS, AGU, Springer, Wiley-Interscience and so on. The amount of money will be very high. Who is going to pay? Last times I have had my papers accepted I have had the option to make them open, but the amount "per paper" is over 2000-3000 US$. I can not afford that. If the IPCC has to pay that amount for each paper they are citing... They go probably to one million of US$<br /><br />The funny thing is that taxpayers would have to pay that amount of money so that others can not say that taxpayers are being cheated by scientists ;-)<br /><br />Anyway ... I don't think it is the important point in this issue. There are thousands of journalists/bloggers/opinion drivers out there that do not know what is the adiabatic lapse rate, people that do not understand what is the difference between power and energy, or people that do not know how does Planck equation look like or what is the difference between latent heat flux and sensible heat flux. Still, they write nonsense "in the name of science" everyday. So ... I am afraid they will continue to do so, since their guts tell them that "somebody" (evil scientists) is cheating them. Even if papers where open, they are not able to understand them. I think that lots of the contrarian bloggers know for sure they are lying, but they continue to do so. Openness in bibliography is not the issue, I guess. There exists the politically motivated position, and open bibliography would not change that. People at the Hxxxx or Cxxxx Institutes or the SE__ have money to pay subscription to JGR/GRL, the AMS journals and Climate Dynamics. They probably have subscriptions already. That is not the problem.<br /><br />But I might be wrong.<br /><br />MickeyMinnieMouseJonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57662069360003531312010-06-20T08:12:03.158-04:002010-06-20T08:12:03.158-04:00Anonymous: having an open bibliography does not me...Anonymous: having an open bibliography does not mean having a bibliography into which Fred Bloggs can post links to Playboy. It simply means making the bibliographic database available to the public.<br /><br />In this comment, it's actually a lever: if the bibliography is open, and contains information about the open-ness of the referred papers, then scientists, journals, institutions, funding bodies, etc, will be encouraged to make their work more open.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25197864973847683442010-06-19T14:59:33.287-04:002010-06-19T14:59:33.287-04:00Bibliography....
I don't agree that bibliogra...Bibliography....<br /><br />I don't agree that bibliography should be open. In any scientific text, the bibliographic information is not a simple list of papers, it has a sense in the text. Every citation plays (or should play) a role in the paper. It must point the reader to the known facts, the known unknowns or the existence of previous controversy over some facts that make some parts of the textbook/paper interesting. If we want a lot of references (in fact, all the references that exist...) ... we already have www.scholar.google.com. Just search "water vapour feedback" and there will appear a lot of references. The bibliography in AR5 must be the result of the discussion and agreements/disagreements of the CLA, LA and so on, and it must play a role in the text, and the authors of the text must tell us why every single paper they quote is important. That's the way MickeyMinnieMouseJon sees it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-17740098086118055972010-06-19T10:02:10.701-04:002010-06-19T10:02:10.701-04:00Nick, your suggestion will clean some of the chaff...Nick, your suggestion will clean some of the chaff out, because the writers will realize that others can easily read the references. As long as the possibility of a DNS attack is eliminated your suggestion is excellent.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-61531024551633056312010-06-19T05:22:13.650-04:002010-06-19T05:22:13.650-04:00I guess the bibliography only needs to refer to it...I guess the bibliography only needs to refer to items cited in the text, which is all written by LAs and CLAs, so maybe they are the only people who need to be able to update it. But like any document or project, low-quality items will creep in (if you think there's no rubbish in the AR4 bibliography, look again). We have to take that on the chin.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25564142249145049592010-06-18T22:32:04.658-04:002010-06-18T22:32:04.658-04:00Sorry Nick, if you open the data base it will be s...Sorry Nick, if you open the data base it will be subject to a denial of sense attack, and will be quoted as in "in the IPCC bibliographic data base". The CLAs and LAs need to have a veto about what gets in.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51805744753487657432010-06-18T16:41:27.478-04:002010-06-18T16:41:27.478-04:00---- draft comment continues ----
In section 4.2,...---- draft comment continues ----<br /><br />In section 4.2, "Reports Accepted by Working Groups and Reports prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories", this paragraph should be added:<br /><br /><i>Reports accepted by Working Groups, or prepared by the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, shall be made publicly available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license CC-BY-SA.</i><br /><br />In section 4.4, "Reports Approved and/or Adopted by the Panel", this paragraph should be added:<br /><br /><i>The Synthesis Report shall be made publicly available under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license CC-BY-SA.</i><br /><br />Furthermore, the IPCC should make its existing reports publicly available under the same CC-BY-SA license.<br /><br />5. Conclusion<br /><br />The IPCC reports have been questioned and attacked on many fronts, and this has been a source of great difficulty in making national and international policy regarding climate change. A principal ground for complaint has been the transparency of the underlying science and of the IPCC process of review and synthesis. Progress can be enabled by addressing these complaints: by making the science and the process far more open.<br /><br />The IPCC doesn't have a direct influence on the working practices of the thousands of researchers who contribute work to its reports. However, it can shine a bright light on those practices by the simple and cheap step of requesting and recording certain information in its bibliography, and by making that bibliography readily available to the public.<br /><br />Finally, by making its own processes more open, and by making its own reports more freely available, the IPCC can both avoid any further criticism on these grounds and set a leading example for the research community from which it is drawn.<br />---- draft comment ends ----Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87604908482834102592010-06-18T16:40:19.645-04:002010-06-18T16:40:19.645-04:00---- draft comment continues ----
For this reason,...---- draft comment continues ----<br />For this reason, all contributors to AR5 should be encouraged to open their work as much as possible: to make their contributed papers available online, to publish their datasets and supporting materials such as computer source code, design documents, and additional text, images, and charts. This can be very simply done by the IPCC routinely gathering and publishing information about the transparency of each piece of underlying research. This information can easily be stored in the IPCC bibliographic database.<br /><br />As noted above, whenever possible a publication, and/or supporting material, should be copied to an IPCC repository, to protect against change or loss. As publications in climate science become more open, such reproduction should be increasingly possible.<br /><br /><br />3.3. The IPCC Process<br /><br />Much of the IPCC process itself is already open. Draft reports, review comments, and responses are all published. However, the IPCC reports themselves are not open. It is not possible to freely reproduce and disseminate them. The IPCC should immediately change this, and adopt an open licensing policy. All IPCC reports, past and future, should be freely available under a license which conforms to the <a href="http://www.opendefinition.org/" rel="nofollow">Open Knowledge Definition http://www.opendefinition.org/</a>, for example the <a href="http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-by-sa/" rel="nofollow">Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license CC-BY-SA http://www.opendefinition.org/licenses/cc-by-sa/</a>.<br /><br />The existing transparency should also be increased. There have been prominent recent calls for the review and synthesis process to take place in public, for instance by adopting a wiki-style drafting mechanism. Such a move would protect the IPCC against certain accusations of group-think (or even conspiracy). However, such a move is somewhat outside the scope of the detailed recommendations below.<br /><br /><br />4. Recommendations<br /><br />This is a series of concrete recommendations for amendments to the document <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf" rel="nofollow">"Principles Governing IPCC Work, Appendix A - Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC Reports"</a>, with the effect of implementing the solutions described above.<br /><br />In section 4.1, "Introduction to Review Process", this paragraph should be added:<br /><br /><i>The IPCC Secretariat should identify, implement, and provide a bibliographic system and repository for the use of Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Expert Reviewers and Review Editors. The content of this bibliographic system and repository shall be shared between all the Working Groups and the Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and shall be publicly available on or before completion of the Report for a period of at least five years.</i><br /><br />In section 4.2.3, "Preparation of Draft Report", this sentence should be added to the first paragraph:<br /><br /><br /><i>Contributions should include, wherever possible, access instructions for any original data, supplementary materials, computer source code used for analysis or processing, and an indication of the public availability and licensing of such materials.</i><br /><br />In Annex 1, under "Lead Authors", this paragraph should be added:<br /><br /><i>Lead Authors shall record all contributed material in the IPCC bibliographic system. Where any access to original data, supplementary materials, or computer source code is provided, Lead Authors shall record such access in the IPCC bibliographic system and, wherever possible, copy such material to the IPCC repository.</i><br />[continued]Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86436174685345141932010-06-18T16:36:26.029-04:002010-06-18T16:36:26.029-04:00---- draft comment continues ----
3. The Solution
...---- draft comment continues ----<br />3. The Solution<br /><br />A key part of any solution to these problems is to increase the transparency of the research underlying IPCC reports, and of the IPCC process itself. While the research and the process remain closed and opaque to commentators and to the public, doubts will flourish and will impede progress.<br /><br /><br />3.1. Bibliography<br /><br />The IPCC AR4 WG1 report included references to around 5000 items of peer-reviewed research. Thousands more were referred by the WG2 and WG3 reports. To assess or fully understand any part of an IPCC report, an interested reader will want to follow the bibliographic references and read the underlying research. For this reason the bibliographic function of an IPCC report is very important. However, the IPCC AR4 bibliography does not perform it well.<br /><br />Each chapter of each report of AR4 has its own separate bibliography. These bibliographies are not linked together, within a report or between reports. The formats of these bibliographies varies. There is no way to see whether any given paper is referred in more than one working-group report, in more than one chapter, or at all. In the online published text of each chapter of AR4 each citation does not link to the matching reference in that chapter's bibliography. In turn, in each chapter's bibliography, each reference does not link to any online materials relating to that piece of research.<br /><br />AR5 should have a single unified bibliography, containing all references in all working group reports. Each citation in the body of a report should link to the matching entry in the bibliography. If a reference is to material which is published online, the bibliography should link to that publication. The bibliography should also reproduce whatever part of the publication and supporting materials is available for reproduction (possibly just the abstract, but see below). To protect these references against future change or loss, wherever possible the IPCC should also archive copies of any online publication on its own server (for instance, at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre http://www.ipcc-data.org/).<br /><br />There are many free tools available for managing online bibliographic databases and repositories such as this. Such tools allow collaborative enterprises such as the IPCC to readily create, populate, update, search, and publish bibliographic data. The IPCC should adopt such a tool, and mandate its use by lead authors and contributing lead authors.<br /><br /><br />3.2. Underlying Research<br /><br />Each piece of research lies somewhere on a spectrum of transparency and open-ness. Some publications are open-access: freely available for anyone to read and assess. For instance, some are published in open-access journals. Many are not open-access, but describe results such as datasets which are publicly available. Still more may have some additional materials, such as computer source code used to produce or analyse the datssets, freely available for download. Finally, a great deal of research is entirely closed: only the abstract is available, and neither the scientific paper, nor the data described in the paper, nor the computer source code (or other processing details), is generally open.<br /><br />In recent years, and especially since AR4, it has become clear that public confidence in research is directly connected to this spectrum of transparency. The more open the research, the less vulnerable it is to criticism, and especially to the more serious accusations of fabrication and fraud. As argued above, this criticism seriously damages the reputation of the IPCC and impedes progress in the use of the IPCC reports.<br />[continued]Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81744927393874059072010-06-18T16:32:41.212-04:002010-06-18T16:32:41.212-04:00Here is my draft comment. I am soliciting suggest...Here is my draft comment. I am soliciting suggestions for improvement. If you have any such suggestions, please post them as comments on my blog, <a href="http://nickbarnes.livejournal.com/117353.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />On Monday 2010-06-21 I will revise this and post it in various places. I will then solicit signatures. I will submit it to the IAC review committee on Monday 2010-06-28.<br /><br />---- draft comment ----<br />1. Summary<br /><br />The IPCC procedures should be amended to increase the transparency of the science and of the IPCC process itself. The proposed amendments are small, but would have a large effect on confidence in IPCC reports.<br /><br />"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." - Louis D. Brandeis, 1913.<br /><br /><br />2. The Problem<br /><br />IPCC reports contribute to global public policy debates and processes, which may have major effects on the daily lives of every person in the world. Every government and large enterprise has already been affected. As the century continues, the effects of policies based on IPCC work will increase in their scope and impact: they will create whole new industrial sectors, thousands of businesses, and many ways of life.<br /><br />For this reason, the IPCC reports and the processes which create them have been under increasing scrutiny. Questions are asked and doubts are raised, both about the IPCC process and about the underlying scientific research. Both the research, and the processes of review and synthesis, have been criticised for opacity. Very serious accusations have been made: of a lack of rigor, of group-think, of conflicts of interest, of deception, and even of conspiracy and fraud.<br /><br />This has led to doubts about the validity of IPCC conclusions, and to serious difficulty in making national and international policy regarding climate change.<br /><br />All this is well-known and need not be rehearsed further here. Indeed, the recognition of these problems has led directly to the United Nations request for a review, and the establishment of this IAC review committee.<br />[continued]Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78646079885658435662010-06-18T16:20:10.242-04:002010-06-18T16:20:10.242-04:00Items such as G&T will certainly get into the ...Items such as G&T will certainly get into the bibliographic database. It will be up to the LAs and CLAs to give them appropriate space and consideration in the report.<br /><br />I can post the draft comment in here, if one of these comment boxes will hold it. But suggestions should be posted over at LiveJournal so I don't have to collect them from here, there, and everywhere.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45309230419901969262010-06-18T13:19:42.003-04:002010-06-18T13:19:42.003-04:00Sorry, the ads on live journal before letting you ...Sorry, the ads on live journal before letting you comment drove Eli away.<br /><br />A couple of suggestions:<br /><br />1. Even pay for play journals now let authors open their articles, at a cost, to the public. You need to capture this trend.<br /><br />2. If Expert Reviewers are the Richard Courtneys of the world, only CLA, LA and Review Editors should be allowed to add directly to the bibliographic data base, otherwise it will be filled with trash such as G&T and the NIPCC report.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13181371242194501442010-06-18T11:29:51.040-04:002010-06-18T11:29:51.040-04:00I've got a draft comment here. Please go ther...I've got a draft comment <a href="http://nickbarnes.livejournal.com/117353.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Please go there to suggest improvements. I will finalise the comment on Monday and then solicit signatures. I will submit the comment at the end of next week.<br /><br />@Roger: sorry if I was intemperate earlier.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90602744597067167002010-06-17T22:28:55.332-04:002010-06-17T22:28:55.332-04:00No G-Man,
it's the IPCC ranges of change summ...No G-Man,<br /><br />it's the IPCC ranges of change summarised into the Summary for Policymakers. The design of the experiments is another process and that is a managed process with lots of consultation (auspiced by the IPCC but managed by the science community.Roger Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13558413693023988451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73086807097398390942010-06-17T22:05:13.791-04:002010-06-17T22:05:13.791-04:00I think I understand - but the relevant body to is...I think I understand - but the relevant body to issues of this nature is the WGCM, not the IPCC. It's WGCM that decides which sorts of simulations ought to be run, what forcings to use (but not always), how the output will be accessed and by whom. The IPCC really doesn't participate in those discussions.G-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09620628665923475319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6314193460073409102010-06-17T22:00:06.053-04:002010-06-17T22:00:06.053-04:00G-man,
I mean exactly what I said. The individual...G-man,<br /><br />I mean exactly what I said. The individual model runs are available, but the ranges of change collated from that output are not at all translatable to other applications. One model projection is a sample. Ranges of potential change are information about a population (of projections) under a set of initial assumptions about forcing etc.<br /><br />The links between different layers of information, particularly when one is juggling uncertainty and confidence and wanting to communicate the results clearly, is critical. It needs to be traceable and reproducible, e.g. working group II needs to be able to access what working group I produces.<br /><br />When Australia did their new projections in 1997, it was compiled from the original climate model runs but could not be linked directly to the results in the WGI Summary for Policymakers, other than qualitatively. This is because WGI subjectively combined the outputs from two different sets of models to get their ranges.Roger Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13558413693023988451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3971219497296215132010-06-17T21:17:29.329-04:002010-06-17T21:17:29.329-04:00Personally, I still think sharing code is a mistak...Personally, I still think sharing code is a mistake. Independent validation means just that--independent. If a result is so kludgy that you have to run the exact same code to get it, then it isn't really a result. <br /><br />Sharing code is a recipe for sharing bugs and other systematic errors. I think there is some value in the efforts of Nick et al. if only to silence idiots such as Anthony "Micro" Watts. However, if code is to be shared, I think researchers should make it a point to avoid even looking at code from colleagues working on similar problems.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4620119047769002502010-06-17T20:46:13.575-04:002010-06-17T20:46:13.575-04:00Things are happening so fast that the IPCC procces...Things are happening so fast that the IPCC proccess has to be a continuous one. Preferably online, models updated as the new data comes in. Self updating timelines.<br /><br />Just say for example this year is a realy low record summer ice minimum, less next year and all gone the year after. Will this not affect the estimates for sea level rise this century. <br /><br />Much more needs to be done on adaptation. Even if we start mitigating now there are still consequences to be faced. Those consequences will lead to other consequences.<br /><br />We cannot wait years to incorporate new data.<br /><br />A very scared <br />Little MouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com