Posted on 11/22/2009 10:49:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this passage in an email:
From a yahoo.com news story:
In one leaked e-mail, the research centers director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to hide the decline in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline, according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
Dr. Jones responded.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. The word trick was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward, he said in a statement Saturday.
Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?
Theres a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
.
I forgot to add the cash falling down to algore!
[I forgot to add the cash falling down to algore!]
Lol, so many things to do and so little time! The cash may become more endangered to Gore now, but he already made a killing.
ping
.
I wonder how GOOGLE and Apple and some others tied to algore will think about this - General Electric is another one - their stupid mandated GREEN light bulbs are junk
I pray it doesn't just fade away into oblivion.
Thanks Ernest, for this one and many others. Of course, my response to this scandal is, every last one of these emailing thugs should hang by the neck ‘til they’re dead dead dead. But I’m funny that way.
Drudge headline;
Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on “Climategate”
I love this header on an article;
“The Day Global Warming Stood Still “
They are calling it CRU-Hack
Let's just call it ‘Crew-Neck’ so we'll know where to chop them off.........
BINGO. BUSTED.
(Yelling on purpose.)
And all the mad scientists stand around demanding, "Whatta ya gonna believe? My tricks or your lying eyes!"
I've not read a lot on this yet, have been busy, but I did read that they are all suspicious of each other now because they don't know who might be doing some leaking.
Hard thing when you can't trust your co-crooks!
In this context, what exactly does "proxy data" mean?
I means, something that isn’t temperature but has some form of transfer function between the proxy and real temperatures.
According to their research it worked prior to 1960 but afterwards the transfer function didn’t work anymore.
I would say, if it didn’t work after 1960, what make them think it worked in the year 1000 or 1900 for that matter.
You have to gauge the accuracy of your proxies against real temperature data. If they diverge, your proxy is invalid.
That means throw it away unless you can come up and explain the transfer function. They can’t, game over.
If I am not clear, ping me back, because this important to be clear what is going on. If we can’t explain it to each other clearly, we can’t educate the public.
Thanks.
OK, in this context, what is the "proxy" and how did they claim they were measuring it? I know you are trying to help, but I asked what the "proxy data" was and you answered using the term "proxy."
CRU proxy was tree rings
They measured the rings and then translated this proxy into temperatures.
They would pick out a tree, drill a plug out of the tree and then measure the rings. They looked at the two layers of each ring to measure precisely how think they were etc.. They also estimated the age of the tree if it was dead and petrified.
For some reason they think it worked from 1900 to 1960 but afterwards it didn’t.
I think it is more likely, since they lost their co-efficients they couldn’t reproduce old research. Or even better yet, it just plumb doesn’t work.
If you search the emails, there is a good explanation of this. Please note that trees only cover 10% of the earth so it never represented global temperatures in the first place even if it did work. Likely explains this was the most radical of the proxies.
They tried to counter this my mixing in other proxies with real temperature data.
Did your ma ever teach you what happens when you mix crap with anything, you just get a smelly mess.
Yet, this is what they were using.
Science, not. I think they were too proud to yank their tree ring data because of all the years spent gathering it.
If you through out the ring data, you get much more tame global warming predictions. But see, that is where uncertainty comes in.
If the increase isn’t severe enough, it isn’t outside the error bands and therefore you may have nothing at all.
FRAUD.
Probably the best change that we've gotten from Open Source are more programmers who write code that they expect other people to read. We're still a tiny minority, but every little bit helps.
I always try to put my own documentation into as colorful of terms as I can just as a reward to the reader. See my comments in src/emacs.c in the XEmacs sources which I've posted here before (labeled -slb).
As a bonus for straightening this out, XEmacs can now be run in place as a login shell. This never used to work.
See also the place in the same file where I pulled an Obama. Turn about is fair play. If all programmers treated code as it is meant to be - read by humans, the world would be a better place. Of course, I'm biased.
Thanks again.
OK, another question. Why do we have one set of temperature readings (not tree ring measurements) that say it’s getting warmer since 1998, and another that says it’s not getting warmer?
Is that a new word?
ROFL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.