Apples and oranges. A model is not an experimental method. The model is the result. Examining its “fit” to the real world tells others something about our understanding (or lack thereof) of a science. Also helps identify a discipline’s gaps in the micro data.

I’m pretty sure this blog is not about replication of results. The model itself is what is important to the discipline and should be shared. There’s quite a few finacial firms wondering what happened to them even though they bet the farm on the results of proprietary econometric models.

I couldn’t find the grant yet, but it seems it would have been a response this request:

http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/fr98_15.html.

It’s closed at the DOE grants page, but the request does provide the requirements for responses to the grant request.

Kayle

Please see my comment at #85 and the comment at #66. They provide a link to all info on this grant including dollar amount, recipients, papers published, etc. #85 also goes into DOE/BER data sharing guidelines.

It looks like GF did with the URLs in this comment.

About 180k USD per year for 10 years.

Agree that research paid for with tax money should be available to the public absent national security concerns. But that is a side issue in the big public policy debate. The key issue is whether public policy should ever be based on research which cannot be audited or replicated. The answer should be a resounding no. Doesn’t matter who funded the research. If the public cannot scrutinize the research for problems, it isn’t fit to inform public decisions.

If scientist Smith wants to claim that he has discovered fact X but is unwilling to subject his work to scrutiny, fact X should never be accepted as true by governmment policy makers. Fact X remains a mere hypothesis, an untested theory, which has not been proven — regardless of who paid for scientist Smith’s work.

(d) (1) In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for research data relating to published research findings produced under an award that were used by the Federal Government in developing an agency action that has the force and effect of law,

If the EPA at all relies on Santer et al 2004, DOE Contract DE-FG02-98ER62601 in their CO2 Endangerment Finding and subsequent ruling, then that clause would come into force and the data be obtained via FOIA. Similarly if the Waxman and Markey H.R.2454 Cap and Trade (Tax) bill becomes law.

Searching EPA Under Climate Change for “Santer” brings up: [1] DRAFT 7/2/0704-17-2009, April 17, 2009 Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . . .

Wigley, T.M.L., V. Ramaswamy, J.R. Christy, J.R. Lanzante, C.A. Mears, B.D. Santer, C.K. Folland, 2006: Executive Summary in Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences. T. R. Karl, S. J. Hassol, C. D. Miller, and W. L. Murray, editors. A Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Washington, DC.
So any Santer data relied on, included, or cited in Wigley 2006 may be applicable.
——————————-
PS Re: Etienne (#83),
If you have the investment and keep the technology secret, then your method may be used. Otherwise, if the inventor “knows” that the invention will work, he may well file a provisional patent first, and then use that provisional patent to raise the commercial funds to build the prototype. See Patent It Yourself David Pressman etc. Detailed modeling can provide the confidence that it will work.