Start formal group to peer review climate code?
crux_: One thing I don't get is how people always seem to follow the pattern "I'm unbiased. #{strong_opinion_here}."Unbiased... really, hop?For the record: I think that open source + code cleanup + code review is a great idea, and not just for climate science. But it's important to keep in mind that ugly code isn't the same thing as wrong code, and that mistakes in the code aren't automatically become mistakes in the science.(For example, a poorly written data parser with lots of bugs will not affect the science one bit, if none of the data triggers those bugs.)So what's your purpose here:- To contribute to a community, finding and fixing bugs, making things more readable and robust, etc?- To do a little audit to "prove" what you already believe? (I suspect a hint of witch-hunt in the air...)Edit to fix formatting and add a side comment: This "climatologists may be incentivised to spread FUD b/c it brings fame and more grant money" bit doesn't pass the smell test for me. If this is the true motivation of climatologists, then why aren't more of them going for the fame and think-tank money available to them by expressing dissent? I can't believe that all these scientists are dishonest and greedy enough to lie about the science, but not suitably dishonest/greedy to sell out their peers.