CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code ...... tells the real story

Watts Up With That? ^ | Nov 22 , 2009 | Anthony Watts Editor:

[devolve]

.

I forgot to add the cash falling down to algore!

[potlatch]

[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.

[RikaStrom]

ping

[devolve]

.

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

[potlatch]

It's going to take forever for it to leak out of the media to the point where the people understand what's happening. I see the dumb-bells commenting in my newspaper about ‘saving the earth’......

I pray it doesn't just fade away into oblivion.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

[PhilDragoo]

I'm making a ton of money on this fake crisis--are we on the air?

[potlatch]

Lol, has anyone heard from Gore today? DOOMED to ridicule.

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.........

[Marine_Uncle]

"To hide the decline in temperature!"
Meanwhile the earth cools slowly, perhaps for the next decade, perhaps longer.
The key as I have mentioned a few times is we must get sufficient numbers of US Senators to back completely off the Cap and Trade bills. They must be educated. Those that are in on making bucks and under control of masters that push for one world government, must be forced out of office. Those that have simply felt the IPCC and other organizations have been providing honest verifiable science must be shown what a total scam it all has really been. Similar actions must be taken on the other side of the hill.
If this can be accomplished then perhaps we actually have borrowed some time in order to oust all the bad so called scientist and their masters on this issue.
Of course as the globe continues to cool down and we witness harsher winters little summer (growing periods), etc., it will help enhance this goal.

[savedbygrace]

BINGO. BUSTED.

(Yelling on purpose.)

[PhilDragoo]

Global warming turned out to be not so hot an idea after all?

And all the mad scientists stand around demanding, "Whatta ya gonna believe? My tricks or your lying eyes!"

[potlatch]

Lol, lots of cute quips and puns about this.

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!

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

You mean they were hiding the lack of warming in the proxy data which means their models are crap.

In this context, what exactly does "proxy data" mean?

[dila813]

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.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Have you ever seen how wikipedia.org quashes every change that does not adhere to the Church of Global Warming dogma? Surprisingly, there is a new article named "Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident." It's kind of entertaining to see what mental gymnastics the "orthodox" posters go through. Or maybe this guy is being sarcastic?

Scientists hiding data? Bah, that's like the ridiculous canard that journals were pressured not to publish critical articles. I can't think where people get these goofy ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 18:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Tom: How about from the emails themselves(presuming they are legit, and this isn't the only one in the archive that discusses hiding or ignoring FOI requests. Bellis (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, there is that, but it doesn't count because it's stolen, and copyrighted, and taken out of context, and probably made up by global warming deniers conspiring with Big Oil to make the scientists look bad. Plus, it's forbidden to link or quote that on Wikipedia, so it doesn't really exist anyway. So there. Tom Harrison Talk 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It means, something that isn’t temperature but has some form of transfer function between the proxy and real temperatures.

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."

[dila813]

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.

[altair]

Comments often do not get changed when the code they are documenting changes. Sadly, that's just the state of the art.

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.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

co-crooks!

Is that a new word?

ROFL!