"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH in forum [Ticker]

TickerForum ^ | Nov. 21, 2009 | (various)

[grey_whiskers]

Ok.... Who is Tim Mitchell? Did he die or something? There's a very disturbing "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file in documents that APPEARS to be somebody trying to fit existing results to data and much of it is about the code that's here. I think there's something very very wrong here...

This file is 15,000 lines of comments, much of it copy/pastes of code or output by somebody (who's harry?) trying to make sense of it all....

Here's two particularly interesting bits, one from early in the file and one from way down:

Quote:

7. Removed 4-line header from a couple of .glo files and loaded them into
Matlab. Reshaped to 360r x 720c and plotted; looks OK for global temp
(anomalies) data. Deduce that .glo files, after the header, contain data
taken row-by-row starting with the Northernmost, and presented as '8E12.4'.
The grid is from -180 to +180 rather than 0 to 360.
This should allow us to deduce the meaning of the co-ordinate pairs used to
describe each cell in a .grim file (we know the first number is the lon or
column, the second the lat or row - but which way up are the latitudes? And
where do the longitudes break?
There is another problem: the values are anomalies, wheras the 'public'
.grim files are actual values. So Tim's explanations (in _READ_ME.txt) are
incorrect..

8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which
did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming
two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location
to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

Uhm... So they don't even KNOW WHAT THE ****ING DATA MEANS?!?!?!?!

What dumbass names **** that way?!

Talk about cluster****. This whole file is a HUGE ASS example of it. If they deal with data this way, there's no ****ing wonder they've lost **** along they way. This is just unbelievable.

And it's not just one instance of not knowing what the hell is going on either:

Quote:

The deduction so far is that the DTR-derived CLD is waaay off. The DTR looks OK, well
OK in the sense that it doesn;t have prominent bands! So it's either the factors and
offsets from the regression, or the way they've been applied in dtr2cld.

Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I
immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!! I can only assume that I was being interrupted continually when
I was writing this thing. Running with those bits fixed improved matters somewhat,
though now there's a problem in that one 5-degree band (10S to 5S) has no stations! This
will be due to low station counts in that region, plus removal of duplicate values.

I've only actually read about 1000 lines of this, but started skipping through it to see if it was all like that when I found that second quote above somewhere way down in the file....

CLUSTER.... ****. This isn't science, it's gradeschool for people with big data sets.

----------

It's justifiably immoral to try to deal in a moral fashion with an immoral entity.

If you trade based on what other people say, you will lose money. Especially what I say. I won't be held responsible. Festina lente.

Last modified: 2009-11-21 01:43:45 by asimov

2009-11-21 01:42:56

[Landru]

Thanks again, will-do.

After TG'g, just working my way through a days pings. LOL
One of which I believe is the thread you've directed me to. ;^)

[FBD]

yup! -very interesting indeed!
-ever go to the Anthony Watts site: watts up with that.com?

read THIS:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#comment-236724

[FBD]

who is Tim, I wonder...

---

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

---

“...So, to me this identifies it as the program we cannot use any more because the coefficients were lost. As it says in the gridding read_me:

“Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it.
This hasn't mattered too much, because the synthetic cloud grids had not been discarded for 1901-95, and after 1995 sunshine data is used instead of cloud data anyway.”

---

———”So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED.

“Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not.
And the only difference is that one directory is apparently ‘monthly’ and the other ‘annual’ - yet both contain monthly files.”

“So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!!”

---

---

Yeah...just how “off-beam” are their data sets???

[Just mythoughts]

catching up ... bttt

[Landru]

"yup! -very interesting indeed!"

"-ever go to the Anthony Watts site: watts up with that.com? read THIS:"

Seems there's talk. LOL

"Yeah...just how “off-beam” are their data sets???"

Ahhhhh, enough to render/award it all "Gibberish" status? LOL ;^)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good luck,...there are ton’s of threads...

[FBD]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#comment-236724

anaon (15:46:02) 11/25/09:

“What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results. If he can’t it simply means the CRU’s results cannot be reproduced even by themselves and so there is no point anyone else even trying — CRU themselves have proven it’s a waste of time and so they themselves have proven their own results are plain rubbish. That means any “peer reviewed” document CRU produced along with any other papers that cited the CRU papers are based on data the CRU themselves can’t verify.

Besides, the absolutly sorry state of affairs in the data handling and software managment the HARRY_READ_ME.txt reveals, the utter and total mess of CRU data and software this document reveals is WHY CRU has not released its data and model software.

Given the CRU is one of the most, if not the most cited sources of climate data — upon which trillions of dollars of economic policy is being set, the importance of what the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file reveals becomes scary.”

A very nice layman’s summary of some of the issues in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt can be found here

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDevilsKitchen+%28The+Devil%27s+Kitchen

[FBD]

Haahahahaa! This is a very well done Climate gate parody:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded