Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/05/2009 8:43:17 AM PST by ricks_place
As the row caused by the Climatic Research Unit's leaked e-mails continues, Newsnight has been told there are now serious concerns over the quality of the computer programming used to produce the global temperature records at the heart of the debate.
Newsnight's Science Editor Susan Watts looks at how the source code used in the CRU's computer files is way below expected standards for this type of commercial software, according to software engineer Dr John Graham-Cumming.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
We can’t let the MSM win this.
Best ClimateGate clips (show everybody you know):
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Extraordinary video. Wow!
I think outright derision and ridicule would be a more accurate characterization.
No one expects research code to look polished, though some of it is.
But everyone expects basic honesty, and this code and the fraudsters' representations about the original, underlying data appear rife with anything but honesty; instead, we see what appears to be cooking of the results. Even a hint of that is unacceptable, much less what we see here.
This is simply not science. These people have hidden their code and their original data, and now claim to have even lost the latter. Years of work are now dubious, and this is particularly sad for those people unfortunate and unwary enough to base their work on the fraudsters'.
The newsreader spends most of the report whining about how the evil deniers will use this unfairly.
Still, the truth comes out when the bias is filtered.
Does anyone have a link to the full code set?
We probably have a fair number of skilled programmers here who would like to have a look.
I’d thought so, too. I mean the code looks like stuff from back before structured programming languages were invented. And except for what ‘Harry’ went through to try to figure out and document, none of it has documention. Even if it’s in Fortran90, which isn’t structured, (and IDL doesn’t seem to be either) a disciplined programmer would have written better code than that. It’s hardly surprising poor Harry couldn’t reproduce what his own team had done.
Extraordinary video, agreed. Extraordinary source too, the IPCC friendly BBC!
Great, except it was not HACKERS, it was a WHISTLE-BLOWER who leaked the damning information. Calling them hackers only gives ammunition to the MSM to discredit the source and shift the focus away from the fraud.
No one has the code (they keep it proprietary, even though they get government money).
This guy who was able to analyze the code got what was was able to from attachments in the emails they were leaked, I think.
From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s -- see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century. All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn't just a smoking gun, it's a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.
As Ralphie would say... "Oh Fudge!"
Saudi Arabia today said that the row over the emails from the Climate Research Unit will flare up again at next week's climate change talks, predicting that they will have a huge impact on the Copenhagen conference. He told the BBC taht many developing countries share his views about Climategate . . . and that the climate scandal is sending a wake-up call to the international community. In an email to the BBC he seems to be stepping back to the days when Saudi Arabia denied manmade warming exists. "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." . . .
A review of the CRU analysis won't be done until next spring - not soon enough, perhaps, to stop the Saudis, and others, using the row as ammunition at Copenhagen.It's great to hear it pointed out that it's in the clear interests of the Saudis et al - and that would undoubtedly include the Indian and Chinese governments - to make the most of Climategate.So just because the socialists of America and Europe continue to double down in their efforts to promote this swindle is no sign that sanity cannot prevail at Copenhagen.
I would also note that although the commentators made the case that the particular programmer who wrote some of the analysis software knew he was in over his head, that does not prove that anyone else could do better. It sounds like he has been snowed by his boss, and he's trying to do the impossible in response.
Here is one directory I found. The "HARRY" subdirectory contains the various Harry Read Me files which are entertaining in their own way. Many of the articles about the code are referencing modules in the "osborn-tree6" subdirectory.
From: "Kevin Trenberth"
To: mann@xxxx
Subject: Re: FYI
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 08:24:12 -0600 (MDT)
Reply-to: trenbert@xxxx
Cc: "Phil Jones" , "Ben Santer"
Hi Phil
I am sure you know that this is not about the science. It is an attack to undermine the science in some way. In that regard I don't think you can ignore it all, as Mike suggests as one option, but the response should try to somehow label these guys and lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct such a database.
Applying fudge factors is hard work!
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$ 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!' ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Got any "peer-reviewed" explanation for this? Seriously. Find me a peer-reviewed paper that explains this.
The commentary under the code seems to be wrong. The code drops temperatures in the early 30’s when there was substantial North American warming (not sure if the hack is applied world-wide or not).
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.