re: #586 Unakite

Walter,

I know you did a little analysis of the CRU code a while ago. Here is a memorandum from the UK Parliament investigation dealing with the code. I don’t know if you have seen this yet, but would be interested in your comments.

Memorandum submitted by John Graham-Cumming (CRU 55)

Interesting:

1. Although the code I criticized on Newsnight was not the CRUTEM3 code the fact that the other code written at CRU was of low standard is relevant. My point on Newsnight was that it appeared that the organization writing the code did not adhere to standards one might find in professional software engineering. The code had easily identified bugs, no visible test mechanism, was not apparently under version control and was poorly documented. It would not be surprising to find that other code written at the same organization was of similar quality. And given that I subsequently found a bug in the actual CRUTEM3 code only reinforces my opinion.