To: "Peter H. Gleick" <email@example.com>, Mearns Linda O <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: MBH Submission (fwd)
Date: Fri Feb 6 10:58:17 2004
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <email@example.com>, N.W.Arnell@soton.ac.uk, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, F.I.Woodward@sheffield.ac.uk, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
So now it seems that we're separating 'providing the code' from 'running the code'. I
see the purpose of one without the other. Even if Mike complies I suspect there will need
to be several sessions of interaction, which neither side will be very keen on. As I said
I know the code will involve lots of combinations (for different periods with different
Also I would expect, knowing the nature of the PC-type regression approach, that there
be library routines. If the code is sent, there needs to be conditions. We don't want
(MM) to come out and say he can't get it to work after a few days.
So, it is far some simple. I'm still against the code being given out. Mike has made
data available. That is all they should need. The method is detailed in the original
in the online (methods) and also in several other papers Mike has written.
As an aside, Mike is now using a different method from MBH98. Also, as an aside,
whilst we've been deliberating, MM have submitted another comment on MBH98 to another
journal. In this they say they have a program that replicates MBH98 (although it isn't
very convincing that they have it exactly right, as they never show a like for like
comparison) , but
most of the comment goes on about the results being different due to different
proxies. The latter isn't surprising.
It might appear they want the code to check whether their version works properly. If
is the case, then there are issues of IPR. So, if they get the code, how do we stop them
using it for anything other than this review.
At 11:40 04/02/2004 -0800, Peter H. Gleick wrote:
Yes, excellent point. This should be what we do. Further, we can point out that we've
bent over backward here and provided more than typically necessary in order to satisfy
persistent but inappropriate demands.
At 08:46 PM 2/4/04 +0100, Mearns Linda O wrote:
Peter et al.,
Thanks for reminding me about the new email list.
My point about the code is still that 'providing the code' can be
interpreted alot of ways. I have thought about this, and imagined if in
one of my larger and more complex projects, I was asked to provide all
code. I could do that just by sending the pieces with a summary file
explaining what each piece was used for. It still theoretically allows
someone to see how coding was done. And I do think that is a far sight
easier than providing stuff that can be run, etc. I am suggesting that
one could do the minimum. Then the point is, one isn't faced with garish
headlines about 'refusal to provide code'. I think it is harder to come
up with a garish headline about 'refusal to provide completely documented
code with appropriate readme files and handholding for running it'.
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
Director, 2003 MacArthur Fellow
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
654 13th Street
Oakland, California 94612
510 251-1600 phone
510 251-2203 fax
www.worldwater.org (World Water site)
www.pacinst.org (Pacific Institute site)
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email email@example.com