Nature has an article up about wonky computer code, with particular reference made to the Harry Readme file and Nick Barnes' efforts to get climatologists to do better on the coding front.
This struck me as interesting:
When hackers leaked thousands of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, last year, global-warming sceptics pored over the documents for signs that researchers had manipulated data. No such evidence emerged...
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the inquiries actually looked at the computer code, apart from there being a brief word from Tim Osborn in evidence to Muir Russell, denying that the bodges he'd mentioned affected published results. I'm pretty sure the Harry Readme was not looked at by any of the inquiries.
There is an accompanying comment piece by Nick Barnes here.
I have had a couple of people (quite justifiably) criticise me for not putting them in my blogroll. In essence I've never had a proper blogroll, the relevant section of the site having half a dozen sites that represented a half-hearted attempt to rectify this, plus a few where I'd come across new sites.
Back when I had a hundred readers a day nobody gave a damn whether I linked to them or not, but nowadays these things matter and so I consider myself suitably reprimanded.
I've added the main climate blogs I follow (in no particular order) and will add the political ones over the rest of the day. I've also set up a public Netvibes page (see navigation section) where you can see these sites as feeds.
If I've missed anyone out, do drop me a line.
New editorial guidelines have been issued by the BBC and the Telegraph is reporting that these are likely to force the corporation to take a more balanced approach to scientific issues, presumably including global warming climate change disruption.
But the BBC’s new editorial guidelines, published yesterday after an extensive consultation that considered over 1,600 submissions by members of the public, say expressly for the first time that scientific issues fall within the corporation’s obligation to be impartial.
“The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective, and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected,” said BBC trustee Alison Hastings.
I feel certain that the head of factual programming will be telephoning to commission a miniseries based on The Hockey Stick Illusion, so I'll wait by the phone today...
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a panic's in thy breastie.
Big, bad Pielke Jnr is in town next month and has invited the Grantham Institute to debate some current global warming issues with him.
For the full ten days of Roger's visit.
You have to laugh...
The Hockey Stick Illusion seems to have hit the (comparatively) big time, spending most of yesterday between around the 5-600 mark on the Amazon chart in the USA. The root cause seems to have been Hal Lewis's resignation letter which was picked up by Instapundit, among others.
It's currently at number 532.
Now at 407!!
Number 14 in books "Movers and Shakers".
John Graham-Cumming, familiar to readers here as an occasional auditor of the Met Office's computer code, has a new project afoot - he wants to recreate Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine:
It's time to build the Analytical Engine
I hope to finish Babbage's dream and build an Analytical Engine for public display. I've launched a project called Plan 28 to raise the money and bring together people to work on the Engine. Babbage left behind extensive documentation of the Analytical Engine, the most complete of which can be seen in his Plan 28 (and 28a), which are preserved in a mahogany case that Babbage had constructed especially for the purpose.
And lastly, and also from JG-C, there's this interesting snippet:
So, who's the father of dendroclimatology? Charles Babbage has a strong claim.
I bet you didn't know that. Details here.
On the Wegman report
On the Wegman plagiarism allegations
Has it struck anyone else as amusing that Nature is straight into the groove of reporting the Copygate story (as I'm told we must call the allegations against Wegman)? I mean, they didn't think the original Wegman report was worth mentioning.
I haven't had time to read John Mashey's report, but from what I can gather about today's excitements over the GMU investigation of Edward Wegman, there are two possibilities in play:
- Wegman et al are guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise
- Wegman et al are not guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise.
Is this right? Nobody is suggesting that the principal findings of the Wegman report - on the incorrect centring used by Mann - are incorrect, are they? They were, after all confirmed by the NAS panel and apparently also by David Hand during the Oxburgh panel's (brief) deliberations.
So I guess we are looking at quite an interesting investigation about how the norms of academic citation apply in expert reports (no doubt Donna LaF will be checking the IPCC reports over very thoroughly in coming days), but not much else.