fyi
if (SupportsTheory(datapoint)) {AddToDataSet(datapoint)} else {};
The “sly-entists” at CRU found that proxy temperatures took a downward trend after 1960. Other data was grafted onto the proxy data that gave the hockey-stick (trend upward) shape. This was deliberate and quite unethical. This article describes remarks within the computer code that indicate that this is indeed what was done:
= = =
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
In SOAP-D15-intro-gkss.doc, it states:
“Osborn and Briffa, together with other co-authors (Rutherford et al., 2005), examined the sensitivity of temperature reconstructions to the use of different target variable (annual or seasonal temperature), target domain (hemispheric or extratropical) and reconstruction method. They found that when the differences in target variable and domain are accounted for, the differences in several reconstructions are small and that all reconstructions robustly indicate anomalous warm conditions in the 20th century, with respect to the past millennium.”
Since they are subbing real temp data after 1960, isn’t this fraud?
I mean, I think this is a pretty bald face lie to me.
Post hoc ergo propter post ergo propter post...
there aren’t any credible data that can be shared and then “improved” by “feedback”. Just look at the harry_readme.txt file – it chronicles some poor guy’s attempts to do just that – “improve” the data, flying by the seats of his pants. At some point, he declares it impossible:
“You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).
…
So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – … In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em…"
—
This is malfeasance of epic proportions. Phil Jones knows it – his specific input into this work is mentioned in several places – and tries to hide it. Only choice if he wants to keep his job.Now he may experience some “unprecedented warming in both hemispheres” (© commenter Phil on Bishop Hill’s blog).
When the hack was announced and it was said that the dump included thousands of emails, I was pretty sure that it was genuine because ponying up that volume of stuff to have any level of internal consistency and yet be believable would have been essentially impossible.But to suppose that someone could also pony up working code that would reproduce previously published data without looking like it was designed merely for that purpose truly beggars imagination. So we know that the dump is, at least predominantly, real info. One does have to admit the possibility of some strategic additions. But still . . .
Things like the comment in the code which this article quotes, being in the calling routine and the called subroutine, and being a just-slightly-different version of a quote in a damaging email, are gonna be really hard to explain away. IMHO.
YouTube: Climate Change Bombshell: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
I thought it would take longer to uncover.
Anthony Watts - “I’ll give Dr. Jones and CRU the benefit of the doubt, maybe these are not “untowards” issues, but these things scream for rational explanations.”
Is he backing off a bit realizing what fools skeptics will look like if there is nothing to this climategate stuff?
"Global Warming" SCAM - Hack/Leak FLASH in forum [Ticker]
******************************EXCERPT*************************************
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....
********************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************
Posted on Mon 05 Oct 2009 02:59:23 AM PST by Scanian
For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large. But in the past week or so, it’s become more apparent than ever that those who’ve accused the international organization of politicizing science and manipulating data have been right all along.
This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph.” The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium’s global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).
Lying for big grants. Lying for the big bucks and destroying the credibility scientists have built up over the years... shameful.
ping
BINGO. BUSTED.
(Yelling on purpose.)
Great post. Bump to the top.