Your science product must have a use: things that have uses typically have value assigned to them.ģ. In applied science youre solving a problem for someone who has powerĢ. Essentially what some STS people seem to think is something?”īad name for a all too familar situation in applied sciences.ġ. To some extent you want the old data around to check things, but you want to prevent people from building new science with it. Or you’ll see them still using that old Lamb diagram.
You’lll see skeptics still using GHVN v2! Is that people retain old stuff that nobody should use. One of the unintended consequences of demanding data refers to the process of taking a bunch of code and saying “dont use this stuff” But in science that is harder because stuff is always laying around. So you will see fights like “That doesnt use the best data” Now out of the public eye these kinds of dsicussions happen and everybody understands that it takes timeįor the science to be “rebuilt” and we never really rebuild it from scratch. and cowtan and Way have a new temperature series. Then ( as will soon happen ) Svalgaard publishes and entirely revamped TSI
I run my GCM based on this and I compare it to hadcrut4. On a TSI reconstruction, take Lean for example. In software suppose I built my code on top of some other code. I was comparing the process in software to the process in science. Judging by the blogosphere, it doesn’t seem difficult in the least.”
