so I read a political message in your opposition (and focus on climatology): Well, here's the very first sentence of the article he's commenting on: "Recent revelations that the peer review system in climatology might have been compromised by the biases of corrupt reviewers miss a much bigger problem."

If focusing on climatology is evidence of a "political message", then I think you've fingered the wrong suspect.

Again, the calls for open access come from scientific fields broadly (where it already isn't happening voluntarily). If you're going to refute that on HN, where the audience isn't pitchfork-wielding, science-averse troglodytes, then you're probably making a narrow argument targeting a specific opposition, i.e. political.

I don't understand. The person you replied to didn't object to open access. He objected to this particular article, which (as it happens) says other things besides "open access would be a good thing".

The article suggests that part of the peer review process should be an examination of the software used, which is about as practical as saying that an experimental paper's reviewers should visit the lab and examine all the apparatus. (Actually, considerably less practical, as anyone who's ever done any sort of review on any nontrivial piece of software knows.) This is not the same as saying that there should be "open access".

The article opens by citing an alleged integrity problem in climatology and saying that lack of access to the relevant software is an even bigger problem. This is not the same as saying that there should be "open access".

The article has a very clear political agenda, as you can note from its beginning (climate-specific stuff, which you yourself have suggested taking as diagnostic for political agenda) and its end (approving links to Eric "famous computer scientist" Raymond and TCS Daily). timr is (1) pointing out the political agenda, for which you accuse him of being political, and (2) describing some specific problems he has with the article, which you characterize as "refuting calls for open access" even though his complaints do not at all take that form.

(I think it would be wonderful if every scientific publication were accompanied by every byte of code and data used in the work it describes, or at least the nearest thing to that that's legally and commercially feasible. But it wouldn't cure the problems that the article professes to find in the peer review process, and the only difference it would make to arguments over climate science is that the no-anthropogenic-global-warming people would find something else to complain about.)