So the problem with my analysis of briffa_sep98d.pro is that there is another program that wasn’t referenced in the article? Or that one can re-write the leaked code to run it a different way?
Both valid, if not obvious points, but neither mentioned in the original article that calls 8 lines of code a “smoking gun”.
Which again is the point of the post.
People need to be careful quoting “evidence” that they don’t understand. To put it bluntly, it’s possible that the original author of this article intended it as a “plant” to be rather easily discredited. One, the article alters the code (he changed the line numbers and omitted the 1st 32 lines of the program; and failed to mention the “artificial correction” was never applied.
Yes, a similar correction was applied in a different program that is in a different subdirectory. But why not quote that program then?
ps. I’m not following your take on the code quote. I’m no IDL expert (most of my work was in C, and that was some time ago); but it looks like a Legend title block being sent to the printer to me, and it doesn’t include the “corrected” for decline version. Or am I missing something?
I think you are correct that people need to be careful. However the comments suggest that the code was, at some point, run. And my overall point is that none of the programs mean anything unless we know they were actually used to process data and that should be clear if people start testing them.
As for the comments, my point is that someone also changed the legend, which suggests that the adjusted version was run at some point. Since the timestamp is after the “e” version, it’s possible that someone decided to undo the adjustments. Which set of data they actually used, if any, the adjusted or unadjusted or maybe this was just experimental code, can’t be known without comparing what they released against the original data. That’s the hard work step to really prove whether they did or didn’t do something wrong here. I think it’s also possible that the author of the blog entry meant to code the “e” version and wound up linking to the “d” version, instead. Your point about care is a good one. My point is that the the commenting still doesn’t entirely let them off the hook.