"Junk DNA" is an uncannily-good comparison with commented-out code. Not only does it record "evolutionary dead ends", I leave in code that's commented-out rather than deleting it entirely just in case it'll prove useful in the future, when circumstances change. And it's theorized that real junk DNA loiters, in part, for similar "reasons", as a library of useful "subroutines".
The tone of my post was reflexively confrontational, I think, and that wasn't really my intention. I haven't commented on this tempest yet, so my post was a little out-of-context. To try to sum it up briefly, the whole thing seems a little too pat, too convenient; and it's a huge red flag that the "chain of custody" of these emails, and now code, is so vague and blurry. For all that the news reports talk vaguely about them being "obtained" by a "hacker" or maybe a "whistleblower", they may as well have been the fruit of a virgin birth. A rather well-timed drop of manna from heaven for the anti-AGW-mitigation interests.
You might not want to go too far out on a limb celebrating just yet. I'd especially advise waiting until the provenance of the material is established beyond a shadow etc.
Current Events » in reply to Climate code
"Junk DNA"
The whole thread (27 posts)
- Climate code