Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun

Re:Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun by jordanb on Monday November 23, 2009 @01:03PM (#957784)

That excerpt reads to me as written by a frustrated programmer who was given a dataset that was poorly designed and lacks sufficient documentation.

I've been in that situation before, as has anyone who's had to work with real-world data.

This hack episode seems really scary to me. Getting angry at the computer, your suppliers, et cetra is all part of the development process --- as is writing angry comments and internal emails. It's a much less disruptive way to vent the frustration that comes with the job than punching your monitor.[1]

I've not seen anything anybody's posted that doesn't happen at every development organization in the world. I really feel for those guys and the firestorm they must be in now. And to be frank. I hope the criminals who broke into their computers are captured and prosecuted.

[1] The nicest thing about the old CRTs is that they could take a good smack or two.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun by bliving on Monday November 23, 2009 @03:10PM (#958040)

You're referring to the dataset that is the basis of enormous de-industrialization projects. Is it too much to ask to have it properly designed with sufficient documentation?

~A Jedi hand wave~

"These are not the smoking guns your are looking for."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun by abstractbill on Monday November 23, 2009 @03:29PM (#958063)

"enormous de-industrialization projects"

Honest question: What projects are you referring to?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Comments in ClimateGate source code: unambiguous smoking gun by bliving on Monday November 23, 2009 @09:12PM (#958568)

I apologize if I've distracted anyone with the "industrial" reference. I'm much more interested in the science behind the climate change [insert synonym for industry here]. I am very sorry that any industrial effects are more interesting the the quality-of-science issues. But here we are discussing industry...

It's my understanding ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) that the dataset in question is one of the core underpinnings of the findings of the UN's IPCC. And I'm not up-to-date on the policy implications in your country, unless you live in Canada. But in chilly Canada, I see our local carbon-tax lobby use the global warming meme in their effort to impose heavy taxes on our industrial base. Hence, the "de-industrialization" angle.

I'm concerned that this might involve more power-grabbing than scientific concern for our future. Hence the interest in properly designed and documented datasets.

[ Parent | on HN ]