From The Beginning: The Real Problem Is The Code

[Annie]

Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software

No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software

Posted by Shannon Love on November 28th, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)

Recent revelations that the peer review system in climatology might have been compromised by the biases of corrupt reviewers miss a much bigger problem.

Most climatology papers submitted for peer review rely on large, complex and custom-written computer programs to produce their findings. The code for these programs is never provided to peer reviewers and even if it was, the peer climatologists doing the reviewing lack the time, resources and expertise to verify that the software works as its creators claim.

Even if the peer reviewers in climatology are as honest and objective as humanly possible, they cannot honestly say that they have actually preformed a peer review to the standards of other fields like chemistry or physics which use well-understood scientific hardware. (Other fields that rely on heavily on custom-written software have the same problem.)...

 

[Oddball]

This is where the news on the AGW hoax will come out in dribs and drabs.

While the e-mails are easy for anyone to read, FORTRAN code is only decipherable by propeller heads and will take some time to be translated into plain English....Which the warmerheads will no doubt declare to be "out of context".

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh the same programmers did US economic forecast and global warming forcast software?

 

[Oddball]

Who knows....They may be busy playing World of Warcraft right now, for all we know.

 

[uscitizen]

Who knows....They may be busy playing World of Warcraft right now, for all we know.

Is that popular in India?

 

[Bfgrn]

Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software

No One Peer-Reviews Scientific Software

Posted by Shannon Love on November 28th, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)

Recent revelations that the peer review system in climatology might have been compromised by the biases of corrupt reviewers miss a much bigger problem.

Most climatology papers submitted for peer review rely on large, complex and custom-written computer programs to produce their findings. The code for these programs is never provided to peer reviewers and even if it was, the peer climatologists doing the reviewing lack the time, resources and expertise to verify that the software works as its creators claim.

Even if the peer reviewers in climatology are as honest and objective as humanly possible, they cannot honestly say that they have actually preformed a peer review to the standards of other fields like chemistry or physics which use well-understood scientific hardware. (Other fields that rely on heavily on custom-written software have the same problem.)...

So isn't it the SAME for denier climatologists?

 

[Oddball]

What...No quote from Goldwater?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I knew there was no science behind AGW when they trumpeted the Scarfetta and West findings a few years ago. I actually read them and when they had to state how they determined mans' contribution to Global Warming was so much grater that the Big Yellow Thing in the Sky, they just punted; their computer model said so.

Oh, Ok.

 

[del]

What...No quote from Goldwater?

"you don't have to be straight to join the military, you just have to shoot straight."- barry goldwater