We've talked about open source science here on Winds before. Now it's inserting itself into a major scientific controversy. As Slashdot notes:
"The ongoing debate over the 'hockey stick' climate graph has an interesting side note. McKitrick & McIntyre (M&M), the critics [of global warming projections], have published their complete source code and it's written using the well-known R statistics package (covered by the GPL ). Mann, Bradley & Hughes, the defenders [of rapid global warming], described their algorithm but have only released part of their source code, and refuse to divulge the rest, which really makes it look like they have some errors/omissions to hide (they did publish the data they used). There's an issue of open source vs closed source as well as how much publicly-funded researchers should be required to disclose - should they be allowed to generate 'closed-source' solutions at the taxpayers' expense?"
Good questions all. Not only does M&M 'get' the open source concept, they've started a blog at climateaudit.org. Including this post about the latest idiocy from the Canadian government.
Climate change is a real and serious issue. 'Hockey stick' advocates Mann, Bradley & Hughes also have a blog (Hat tip: reader SPQR, who notes a Talkleft-like habit of deleting critical comments from opponents). My post about useful rules for non-experts when evaluating expert debates may help here. Meanwhile, I firmly believe the combination of open-source science and 'open source journalism' (as Jeff Jarvis puts it) will produce both better science and better policy.
Mann et al have a website too, filled with an amusing amount of invective at those who dare to question their revealed wisdom.
Well, it's a scientific debate. I did a piece a while back with some useful rules for non-experts when evaluating expert debates, and it may help here.
I'd be interested in the URL of the Mann, Bradley & Hughes site - BUT if you leave it in a comment DO NOT BEGIN THE URL UNTIL YOU'RE AT LEAST 8 WORDS INTO THE COMMENT. Otherwise it will probably screw up our main page, due to a stupid MT glitch they recently introduced.
My error, Joe, I thought I'd added the URL to the comment above.
http://www.realclimate.org/
It should be noted that an early blog on the topic of climate change which included a lot of detailed criticism of MBH was that started by the late John Daly. http://www.john-daly.com/
John did yeoman work among climate change skeptics and he is very sorely missed.
There is a contribution from John A of ClimateAudit at dubunkers.org asserting that dissenting comments are being deleted from the realclimate.org site.
Debunkers.org also has an excellent thread on the Global Warming debate. It is very informative and well worth a read.
Debunkers.org is generally a good site - thanks for commenting, SPQR! Its withering takedown of a recent anti-evolution bill introduced by an Republican state lawmaker in Ohio is also spot-on.
Appreciate the comment, Joe.
Carl, we've had a lot of discussions on the topic over the years. Thanks for noticing.
SPQR, I didn't even make the connection between your name and the SPQR from the Debunkers Forum. I've actually been posting there for years as 'Gladimir', but I generally stick to political policy discussion as I am not a real science buff.
Just got the trackback to your link on the perfidy of RealClimate. Thanks for the comment.
Carl, feel confident that there isn't more than one of me wandering around.
Oh, Joe, I don't think I pointed out the posting on the blog portion of Debunkers about Real Climates alleged comment deletion. That posting came from John A, of Climate Audit, and was pointed out by Carl F. above.
SPQR, I actually added that specific Debunkers.org link to the blog post, above.
Assuming that the bit about comment deletion is true, it's very, very relevant to my (also included) useful rules for non-experts when evaluating expert debates.
climate change it is became world problem, we needs participaiton of all world to solve this problem.