Rstuart;
Reading between the lines they may well be looking at the
right version as the program names were mentioned in the emails and
even if they were not rigorous on version tracking they should be able
work back from email dates, run it and see what comes out.
In any case I think somewhere along the line the right data and
program will be found. Actually both should be in the hands of IPCC.
Surely they would not go so far out on a limb without it, would they ?
The Uni should be able to demand the right version.
Alternatively the police might use a search warrent.
Seems outlandish, but there is $trillions hanging on this.

They appeared to have employed programmers at UEA CRU.

Richie 10, no it came back server not found.

rstuart,

I am a scientist who more and more regularly writes (perl) programs and agree that scientists can write some really ratty code. The worst tend to be those that still have a uni student programming mentality.

However, from what I've seen of many of my colleagues, being true scientists and having a degree of personal pride, they nevertheless tend to get their programs to work, however ratty they may look.

Personally, I've found that the "elegance" of my programs improves as I mull over them and research and find more apt techniques. Using a modern programming language like perl can help considerably too especially with the ability to Google just about anything related to the language.

There's always potential for problems when lots of program versions are being churned out. However, as many scientist programmers tend to work solo (and not part of an R&D team as such) they effectively keep tabs on what versions they've run. (NB: the lack of people looking at one's code explains why it can be so ratty.)

I imagine some of the climate change programmers would be very professional, but I'm not an insider and could be wrong.

Banjo,
Not so! 5 years in the business, some are taken usually tax bills etc the rest are at the mercy of the govt. There are a number of passed legislation that has been withdrawn/ or allowed to lapse before assent. You need more research.
Likewise the legislation was not due to start untill 2011. Plenty of time to repeal it, pass amendments.

Richie 10,
You really never let the fact get in the way of a rant do you.
Take 10 minutes out and read this site, listen to the 2.5 minute discussion and think about it all of what is said has and is provable
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8396035.stm BTW this is the 7th different and credible source I have posted on this silly topic.

Examinator, I have no problem with you "fiddling whilst Rome burns", but for goodness sake, change the godforsaken tune! You are quoting ancient links to a demolished past like the past two weeks has never hapenned. You are sounding more and more like Kerry O'Brien.

Foxy, you seem to be so nice it can't be true. Is it?

Spindoc,

Which links? I don't understand what you are referring too.All the sites I've referred to this week are dated this week.
'fiddle while Rome burns' has me flummoxed I have no idea what you are referring too.
Would you be so kind at to explain?

Examinator,
It was you who made the claim that the ETS Bill, even if passed last Wednesday, could not be given assent until after Copenhagen. That is blatantly incorrect. There was plenty of time for assent if the government desired.

You have been caught out lieing and, as you now claim 5 years experience, the lie has to be deliberate. Was your argument disparaging Abbott so weak that you have to resort to lies to bolster your contentions.

The only reason the Government wanted the Bill passed last week is so the PM could brag about it at Copenhagen. Not a good reason to pass legislation.

I am no fan of Abbotts, but I think he read the issue of the ETS correctly. My dislike for Abbott also has to do with integruity, but I doubt you would unserstand that.

From here on in, anything you say will be treated as sus. Incredible that you start a thread about integruity.