An excerpt from Steve’s post at Climate Audit
Schneider replied that he had been editor of Climatic Change for 28 years and, during that time, nobody had ever requested supporting data, let alone source code, and he therefore required a policy from his editorial board approving his requesting such information from an author. He observed that he would not be able to get reviewers if they were required to examine supporting data and source code. I replied that I was not suggesting that he make that a condition of all reviews, but that I wished to examine such supporting information as part of my review, was willing to do so in my specific case (and wanted to do so under the circumstances) and asked him to seek approval from his editorial board if that was required.
This episode became an important component of Climategate emails in the first half of 2004. As it turned out (though it was not a point that I thought about at the time), both Phil Jones and Ben Santer were on the editorial board of Climatic Change. Some members of the editorial board (e.g. Pfister) thought that it would be a good idea to require Mann to provide supporting code as well as data. But both Jones and Santer lobbied hard and prevailed on code, but not data. They defeated any requirement that Mann supply source code, but Schneider did adopt a policy requiring authors to supply supporting data.
I therefore re-iterated my request as a reviewer for supporting data – including the residuals that Climategate letters show that Mann had supplied to CRU (described as his “dirty laundry”). The requested supporting data was not supplied by Mann and his coauthors and I accordingly submitted a review to Climatic Change, observing that Mann et al had flouted the new policy on providing supporting data. The submission was not published. I observed on another occasion that Jones and Mann (2004) contained a statement slagging us, based on a check-kiting citation to this rejected article.
During this exchange, I attempted to write thoughtfully to Schneider about processes of due diligence, drawing on my own experience and on Ross’ experience in econometrics. The correspondence was fairly lengthy; Schneider’s responses were chatty and cordial and he seemed fairly engaged, though the Climategate emails of the period perhaps cast a slightly different light on events.
Following the establishment of a data policy at Climatic Change, I requested data from Gordon Jacoby – which led to the “few good men” explanation of non-archiving (see CA in early 2005) and from Lonnie Thompson (leading to the first archiving of any information from Dunde, Guliya and Dasuopu, if only summary 10-year data inconsistent with other versions.) Here Schneider accomplished something that almost no one else has been able to do – get data from Lonnie Thompson, something that, in itself, shows Schneider’s stature in the field.
It was very disappointing to read Schneider’s description of these fairly genial exchanges in his book last year. Schneider stated:
The National Science Foundation has asserted that scientists are not required to present their personal computer codes to peer reviewers and critics, recognizing how much that would inhibit scientific practice.
A serial abuser of legalistic attacks was Stephen McIntyre a statistician who had worked in Canada for a mining company. I had had a similar experience with McIntyre when he demanded that Michael Mann and colleagues publish all their computer codes for peer-reviewed papers previously published in Climatic Change. The journal’s editorial board supported the view that the replication efforts do not extend to personal computer codes with all their undocumented subroutines. It’s an intellectual property issue as well as a major drain on scientists’ productivity, an opinion with which the National Science Foundation concurred, as mentioned.
This was untrue in important particulars and a very unfair account of our 2004 exchange. At the time, Schneider did not express any hint that the exchange was unreasonable. Indeed, the exchange had the positive outcome of Climatic Change adopting data archiving policies for the first time.
…
As I noted above, at his best, Schneider was engaging and cheerful – qualities that I prefer to remember him by. I was unaware of his personal battles or that he ironically described himself as “The Patient from Hell” – a title that seems an honorable one.
Read more at Climate Audit
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science, and knowing something of the way institutional insiders cover each other’s backs against outside auditors, I think Steve McKintyre’s untiring efforts to force openness and the provision of the data and code required for replication represent a turning point in the pursuit of science. The computer age has changed the game, and the old boy network which has been running science has not kept up with the times. They have been running scared of being exposed to critical outside reviewers.
May Schneider rest in peace, let’s bury the defunct peer review system with him.
Time to drag the institutions of science into the modern world.
..a little soon?
For all the criticism of Global temperature reconstructions, no one has created a current Global reconstruction showing the current temperature rise to be within ‘normal’ parameters over the last 1000 years, all Global reconstructions, including even Loehles show current Global temps being the highest for over a thousand years.
As a working scientist, with a modest record of publications, I completely support Dr Schneider’s perspective on release of code. What is in question is replication, and a critic should be able to write his or her own code in order to test results with the same data.
The code you write yourself when doing a paper is not for commercial use and not user-friendly. It is usually idiosyncratic and uncommented (or at least poorly commented). Giving it to somebody implies spending valuable time explaining all the wrinkles as well – a waste of time with someone who should be able to do the job themselves.
That being said, I did release Matlab code to a requestor, but only with great trepidation and unease. Luckily, he never came back with questions. Release of code should be a personal choice of the author.
I also believe that the peer review process (for all its faults) is an invaluable bulwark between science and non-science. While I have been singed badly by the process (Ouch!), I also found it improved greatly the papers I and my colleagues did get published.
As a current reader of “Science as a Contact Sport”, I greatly regret the passing of a great scientist and a great man in Stephen Schneider.
Not evil, Just wrong.
When I created the petition on the CRU, I (mistakenly) called it the Climate Research Unit, because it never occurred to me that anyone would could it anything else.
I notice that Mr Sneider journal was called “climatic change”.
Has anyone else noticed how anything simple in global warming immediately gets a much longer more complicated name? Manmade-warming = Anthropogenic Global Warming? To me this is always an attempt to make something appear more complicated than it really is. Anthropogenic Global Warming sounds scientific, sounds as if it is important. Manmade warming sounds simple is easy to understand and encourages everyone to have their input — and immediately makes it obvious that the people being “got at” are not some nebulous “others” but ordinary people like you and me.
As for “climatic”: “climate change” is: a change in the climate. However “clamatic change” is a change of a climatic nature. The difference is subtle, but when the simpler more straightforward version is perfectly adequate, the use of “climatic” rather than “climate” implies that they are trying to say something so different that it warrants the use of ridiculous language to highlight the importance of using climatic.
personally, it sounds to me like pretentious claptrap intending to try to make a third rate subject sound as if it had some scientific credibility.
No-one likes to speak ill of the dead. But I think this piece from Steve and the following great piece from Phelim McAleer are entirely appropriate.
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/blog/general/464-stephen-schneiderdeath-of-an-unrepentant-hypocrite
If Schneider was a protagonist in some obscure academic spat about String Theory then I would certainly take the view “if you can’t think of anything nice to say then keep your mouth shut.”
But this was a scientist who happily promoted more than one shroud waving ‘scenario’ – absolutely careless of the enormous consequences of his advocacy. There are real people who have suffered and who suffer now because of the malicious and incompetent dogma Schneider promoted.
Opening line, ‘excerpt’ rather than ‘except’.
toby says:
July 21, 2010 at 12:25 am (Edit)
As a working scientist, with a modest record of publications, I completely support Dr Schneider’s perspective on release of code. What is in question is replication, and a critic should be able to write his or her own code in order to test results with the same data.
If you take a look at Steve McKintyre’s site climateaudit.org you’ll see he has done that many many times. The point is, he didn’t get the same results, and the description of the methodology given in the papers was inadequate for replication purposes. So he then had to try to work out what the paper wasn’t saying. A time consuming reverse engineering job.
If climate ‘scientists’ such as Mann, Briffa, Santer and Jones want to keep the IP of their code, then they must be clear with the description of methodology in the papers.
The reasons they haven’t been is obvious now, thanks to Steve’s work in uncovering the shoddy statistical malfeasance these goons are guilty of.
I cannot imagine a scientist not expecting to have his work examined, This bit about being “idiosyncratic and uncommented” is hogwash. and don’t get me started on “valuable time”. If you make a claim, you should be able to validate that claim in public, with somebody else doing the driving otherwise it is meaningless and not true science.
[snip]
Schneider: “We need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
“…This episode became an important component of Climategate emails in the first half of 2004. As it turned out (though it was not a point that I thought about at the time), both Phil Jones and Ben Santer were on the editorial board of Climatic Change…”
This is how the supposed ‘consensus’ of cargo cult climate science was maintained. I suspect that similar arrangements are to be found in other scientific disciplines. Otherwise the various bits of ‘pixie dust’ – dark matter, the graviton, CO2 e.t.c. – needed to maintain the mainstream group-think would be laughed out of court.
Real science is about finding truth; without openness, honesty and trust is just becomes another political football.
toby says: July 21, 2010 at 12:25 am
“Giving it to somebody implies spending valuable time explaining all the wrinkles as well – a waste of time with someone who should be able to do the job themselves.”
Computer code is a complete and unanimous description of a function. If you can read the language you can easily understand the function. It is no different from a complex formula in physics or a molecular description in chemistry, if you understand the language you can understand the description.
The idea that computer source code is somehow different from any other shorthand used to describe a complex system is a complete fallacy.
The idea that I could publish a paper in physics and not include the formulas, but instead tell the reader to go write their own formulas is an indefensible position.
The people asking for the code can read the code just as easily as a physicist can read a formula.
There is no excuse.
Many years ago, I’ve been doing some statistical database programming, and I know well how “wrinkles” in the code can produce desirable results.
The whole process of computer modeling is always suspect. Starting with the quality of the data entered into the model (who and how measured the data, who and how sorted it out, who and how decided, which data to use, etc.), and ending with the more than likely possibility of conscious and/or unconscious desire to arrive at the predetermined result.
A good scientist must be very careful with this whole process, commenting and explaining every step on the way, and — if he is doing a publicly funded research — be ready to provide his code to any requesting party.
Now, when trillions of dollars and millions of livelihoods depend on walking the AGW party line, complete transparency and honesty in science is indispensable, and any attempt to hide information or to silence opponents is a condemning evidence of a wrongdoing.
jcrabb says:
July 21, 2010 at 12:22 am (Edit)
all Global reconstructions, including even Loehles show current Global temps being the highest for over a thousand years.
They show solar activity being at an 8000 year high too.
But to address your point more directly, given the archeological finds on ice covered mountain passes in the european Alps, it seems it was even warmer in the Roman period. And even warmer than that in the high bronze age.
Temperature goes up, temperature goes down. Get used to it. Especially the going down bit.
tallbloke says: July 21, 2010 at 12:48 am
“The reasons they haven’t been is obvious now, ”
You only have to look at some code.
[bridge too far. Sorry about that Stan. ~ ctm]
“the various bits of ‘pixie dust’ – dark matter, the graviton, CO2 e.t.c. – needed to maintain the mainstream group-think would be laughed out of court.”
If all those great minds had been employed looking for what the people need rather than pixie dust perhaps the world would be a better place? Imagine if Stephen Hawking’s mind had been employed looking for a cure for AIDs rather than black holes. Socialist science is all about forcing taxpayers to pay for the search for pixie dust, when great needs lie elsewhere.
toby says:
July 21, 2010 at 12:25 am
“As a working scientist, with a modest record of publications, I completely support Dr Schneider’s perspective on release of code. What is in question is replication, and a critic should be able to write his or her own code in order to test results with the same data.”
As tallbloke has already pointed out, complete replication/verification of the work is necessary and if it is computer based then that means the exact method and algorithms must be released.
I’ve worked in both science(climate modelling) and industry(IT) and one thing I can clearly see is that research institutions are way behind in IT skills. You’re trying to advocate each researcher manually working away, duplicating others work to get the specific results for themselves. For things like Temperature reconstructions and GCM’s what is needed is a configuration/build tool setup to bring in all the data/algorithms and then allowing replication/adjustments at the press of a button.
The Climategate code release showed the code to be pretty much the same thing I worked on nearly 20 years ago, the IT industry has moved on massively since then. Surely anything publically funded should be open source anyway and if your research is commercially viable perhaps it should be done by industry, in which case you can do what you want, but not releasing the code would make replication very difficult.
I almost dread to say it but what a lot of research institutions need is some decent project management to enable better efficiency. I know this goes against the grain from what a traditional Phd/PostDoc is (working individually) working together would allow much better work to be done and would also be more rewarding.
jcrabb: July 21, 2010 at 12:22 am
For all the criticism of Global temperature reconstructions, no one has created a current Global reconstruction showing the current temperature rise to be within ‘normal’ parameters over the last 1000 years, all Global reconstructions, including even Loehles show current Global temps being the highest for over a thousand years.
Archaeological findings and written records confirm the temperature was warmer.
Mike, The historical dimension of the termanology is more interesting than you might suspect. It went from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change,’ but before AGW there was ‘climatic change.’ (For a taste see the 22 essays compiled in ‘Climatic Change’, Shapley ed. 1953). And hence the name of the journal edited by Schneider – the name has remained the same but the subject has changed. At that time it was mostly about geological scale change – ice ages.
Likewise the Climatic Research Unit was established to allow the Met Office’s H H Lamb to continue his work uninterupted on Climatic change in historical time (that is, not geological time). After Brooks, Lamb was the leader in this field. His graph (view it here) was the source for that sketch you always see from the IPCC 1st assessment showing the medieval ‘climate optimum’ (another change there!). The founder of the ‘Climatic’ Research Unit remained a sceptic of AGW until he died in the late 1990s, but you wont find that in Trevor Davies bio, nor in wikipedia. So I wonder if we would be better not to snub climatic but to reclaim it!
A scientist would newer say the following statement:
we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have
Stephen Schneider will be remembered for things like this.
Despite being in portuguese, please check out the three videos at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2009/10/ecologistas-troca-tintas.html. They will give an extra idea of Schneider.
Ecotretas
toby says:
July 21, 2010 at 12:25 am
Whole heartedly agree.
Real Climate’s eulogy on Schneider is an absolute classic of exaggeration and distortion – for that reason alone, it is worth a read.
For example: ‘We honor Steve by raising our voices, and by speaking out when powerful “forces of unreason” seek to misrepresent our science’.