CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

American Thinker ^ | 11/25/2009 | Marc Sheppard

[UCANSEE2]

So if I can't give you New York Times stock prices for a week, I can't predict a general decline?

You can predict a decline, but if the actual stock prices keep rising, you can't claim your prediction is the truth, and the reality of the stock market is false ( or fudge the trading).

[UCANSEE2]

how about some of you pocket protector....taped together glasses types convert it to plain American.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[HKMk23]

What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientistsliars? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientistsliars. I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree [that there are sociopolitical and fiscal benefits to propping up the lie] that the problem is real.

[azkathy]

That is the best comment so far on this GloBULL Circus.

[Gondring]

Fuctuations and periods of short-term fluctuation do not invalidate the long-term results of the model. They have always made it quite clear that there will be periods during which the natural fluctuation will not follow the model.

It doesn’t mean the model is right, but it also doesn’t mean the model is invalid for its purpose.

[UCANSEE2]

Fuctuations and periods of short-term fluctuation do not invalidate the long-term results of the model. They have always made it quite clear that there will be periods during which the natural fluctuation will not follow the model.

(assuming we are talking about the GW alarmists as 'they')

Since what you say is logical, then one must question why 'they' think that a short-tem fluctuation proves that the curve will only go 'up'?

(P.S. Fuctuations. hee...hee...)

[UCANSEE2]

It doesn’t mean the model is right, but it also doesn’t mean the model is invalid for its purpose.

The model could be right, and could be perfectly valid for it's purpose.

However, if used wrong, aaa.... what do you get?

[UCANSEE2]

CARBON-CON

[aruanan]

I always understood that the models have been problematic from the start. If you ran the models forward from the early twentieth century, you didn’t get current empirical results. And if you ran it backwards, you didn’t line up with actual temperatures from a century ago. So the models are faulty and their observations have been fudged. Settled science?

Here's a good summary of what's been going on and then called "settled science" from someone commenting on the Harry Read Me file:

If you get rid of the political and social impact of AGW and just look at the problem they have as demonstrated by HARRY_READ_ME it becomes pretty clear. They have data from land stations that move over time, stations that don't report consistently, C02 data, data from tree rings in the last 20 years that breaks down, cloud and precipitation data that doesn't match the land station data values or locations, a cooling trend recently and a warm period 500 years ago all from different people at different times in different formats with probably different goals and different agendas. And they suspect that the earth is warming and want to perform a robust analysis of CO2 versus temperature across the surface of the earth. Compound it all with forcing effects of volcanism and latitude. They need better algorithms and programmers to have any real trust in the output they are getting yet they press on and just force the data to reveal their "truth". AGW in this context is not a cohesive theory supported by all the evidence. That's bad mojo if you need the next GW grant to eat. Their solution? Fraud. The data is insufficient or contradictory and it should be dropped, but instead they use synthetic data when "necessary".

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) sums this whole deal up.

(Okay, fraud on a truly grand scale should be included, but it screws up the acronym.)