"Jack of all Trades, Master of None."
One of my favorite statements, and one that people have applied to me. I studied meteorology (and will go back to grad school shortly to get an MS) as well as computer science. This allows for all sorts of applications in computer modeling, natural science (geology, chemistry), remote sensing, astronomy, and a ton of other fields. I've always had a ton of interests of varying levels since I was a kid. We need more parents to allow their children to try different things... let them learn computer programming, give them a camera to take pictures, and a violin to study music. We're pigeonholing kids to follow a specific track -- even if they are interested in it already -- without enticing them to look at problems in new ways or link different interests together.
A previous post mentioned being a "miracle worker" when in essence its just skill in multiple fields -- something past the "general level" courses that most colleges have you take. People still have this mindset that it's great to be specialized -- just because you want to be a "doctor" doesn't mean you shouldn't know how to do programming to, say, data mine disease information -- they never learn how to use technology to actually do problem-solving in that field or in life, they just learn how to paste clip-art in PowerPoint.
Let's see, we're supposed to spend literally trillions of dollars to fix global warming, yet we can't see the raw data the hysteria is based on?
This is a big problem, and in the science community in general (not just climate scientists!). The data is safeguarded for some length of time while the researcher(s) publish their findings, personal gain, or simply because the research itself was a very expensive process and the institution wants to "get its money's worth". I work at a climate research center and we've actually had to take hard copies of data and run them through an OCR program like ABBYY because the original scientist wouldn't send us digital versions of the data or even processed maps.
Along the same lines, when is the source code used for the climate models going to be published and thoroughly reviewed?
If AGW is in fact true, it can withstand the scrutiny.
and someone made a nice list of models used in the recent IPCC report and if source code is available here:
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen