CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

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

[avacado]

I happened to watch CBS Evening News last night and Katie Couric didn’t mention a thing about this climate scam. MSM trying to bury it hard and deep.

[Unrepentant VN Vet]

FORTRAN. hey man grandpa used that way back before pythagoras. Hey man, that is a horrible language no one would still use that!!!

Okay, which incarnation of FORTRAN are you kids talking about?

Did some grad school work back in the early 70's using FORTRAN 4 or thereabouts, so think I'll download some of this CRU stuff and thrash around a bit.

I'd ordinarily give 'em the benefit of the doubt, but after reading through some of their more crass political/tactical memos, I really can't decide if we should re-designate CRU as Crooks or CHARLEY FOXTROTs-R-Us.

Anybody with a technical or scientific background should be so PO'd by this, they'd be about to go postal on 'em.

Don't even ask what I'm thinking about......

[kempo]

The reason CBS, ABC, NBC are losing viewers by the day is because they do not report the news. They use to get away with it until the Internet came along.

[USNBandit]

I don't know if forecasting and recording past weather are really the same thing.

Here is a better question to ask. If you turned in your high school chemistry lab results which you "smoothed" with a correction factor, what kind of grade would you get?

"Blutarski, zero point zero." zero

[mmichaels1970]

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

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

Yikes. Don't need to know FORTRAN to understand that.

Reminds me of computer games I used to write when I was a kid. I'd randomize dice rolls, but skew the roll based on who was playing. I was more likely to get a 6 while my sister took her chances.

Oldest programming trick in the book.

[Stegall Tx]

I doubt if this will have any affect on the GW thing at all. I mean, facts have been on our side of the debate throughout this entire argument, but they (the GW believers) have never allowed facts to get in the way of their presentation. And they (the GW believers) have been very effective in getting others on board in spite of the lack of factual data.

I just don’t see how this admission that the few “facts” they presented were just created out of thin air will sway anyone.

[Think free or die]

These ethical breaches sicken me.

For quite a few years before the derivatives mess imploded, I was uncomfortable with the sheer complexity of hyper-finance. It seemed that things had reached a point at which most investors couldn't critically evaluate what was going on. We have since seen how trust was abused, and how the skills and technological tools available on Wall Street were too often used to fleece investors rather than to enhance productivity of capital.

Now in the realm of climate science, we again see complex modeling using data which are relatively inaccessible to citizens. The data were held confidential or altogether obscure. Computer models were either hidden or difficult to comprehend. Many people put their trust in experts wielding technology. Again, their trust was abused and their pockets picked.

Dishonesty is nothing new. Unfortunately, with the addition of technology and globalization, fraud and abuse of intellectual power can have a huge impact. With the amplifying effect of technology and global reach, the need for ethics and transparency is perhaps greater than ever. I'm grateful we have so many keyboard experts willing to dig into these specialized subjects. Sunshine is good.

[sergeantdave]

“Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life — all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports.”

I’m confused. Simple question: Can we lawfully hang these bastards? And I include Waxman, Markey, certain members of the supreme court and the traitor kerry and his drunk wife Tereezaa.

I really want to see the crypto-Nazi Tides Foundation nailed, which is funded by the ketchup heiress tereeeza. Tides leads back to the Nazi kappo Soros and his crimes of murdering Jewish citizens for 30 pieces of silver in Hitler’s Germany.

We need an American-style Nuremburg trial to sort out those who need to be hanged and those who we ship one-way to North Korea.

BTW, you people who understand this GW farce are doing a great job exposing it. Mucho thanks.

[rawhide]

Whew! Do you have a simple man’s Reader’s Digest version of your post?

[sergeantdave]

Well, I’ve never seen or heard of you before. It’s good to see you old FReeper guys stepping into the spotlight.

Welcome to FR!

:-)

(Just having fun with you...)

[VOA]

“Anybody with a technical or scientific background should be so
PO’d by this, they’d be about to go postal on ‘em.”

Amen. If you don’t hear more noise, most of the honest, toiling academic
scientists are generally a quiet lot (you’ve never seen anyone do
a victory dance, spray themselves with champagne, or do a rebel yell
when they get a Nobel Prize in the sciences).

The real tragedy in my view (and that of my brother who earned his
grad. degree in plant biology at U. Minnesota) is that these
“climatologists” have POISONED THE WELL.
Now even the Average Joe/Josephine will wonder if their hard-earned
tax dollars are being p-ssed away by a lot of self-serving jerks
that write their conclusions before they construct the rest of their publications.

And who won’t have a cynical arching of the eyebrows when they
hear some scientist (however honest and sincere) sing the praises
of “peer review”?

The best way to restore integrity to the scientific enterprise is
to let Senator Inhofe issue plenty of subpoenas and get as many of
“The Unindicted Co-Conspirators” on the record (under penalty of perjury).

Maybe then academic science in the USA (and maybe even elsewhere)
might regain the respect of the citizens that pony up so many tax
dollars for what should be AT THE LEAST a fairly decent human enterprise.
(No rational person ever considered it the work of a bunch of saintly monks.)

Just my $0.02 of thought and venting...

[sergeantdave]

“There NEVER WAS 2,500 Climate Scientists...”

Two were phrenologists and one sacrificed virgins to volcanoes in a previous life. Sorry, no pictures.

[danielmryan]

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.

Bingo! Other than that vector, the fudge factors were introduced to cover up the fact that the tree-ring method did not give accurate replications of real temperatures.

I know that this point seems less damning than political corruption, but that's only because it's more subtle.

To get what I'm driving at, imagine a gold-mining geologist who comes up with a new assay technique, which he says will do wonders. When he tests it on a known core sample, he finds out that it underestimates the amount of gold in some of the core. So, he resorts to the "gold-ring trick" to make his assay square with the already-derived results.

It may seem harmless, because it just squares the results off with standard technique, but the guy's committed a fraud. He didn't falsely inflate the gold in the core, but he did falsely inflate the reliability of his spanking-new assay technique. If this hypothetical geologist should get away with it, exploration companies (and their investors) would be bilked into thinking that valuable properties are valueless.

This hypothetical geologist with a snake-oil assay technique is the best analogy I can think of to get the point across. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[hyperconservative]

Very funny.
Thanks for sharing it.

[Marty62]

Hummm this is interesting since I remember being innundated with talk of GLOBAL COOLING during the 60’s and 70’s.
I would like to know WHO decided to start the GLOBAL WARMING BS.

[Marty62]

Check this out very readable.

http://www.climatecooling.org/Current-USA-Climate-Change-Review.html

[Melchior]

Years ago I took a graduate course in climatology from a Penn State professor. It was the most challenging, the most difficult course, I ever had in my academic career. What I took from it (aside from the fact that I needed an extensive grounding in physics that I did not have) was that climate was dependent upon solar activity, which in turn had its effect on sea currents, which in turn had its effect on the so-called intertropical convergence zone. I can recall discussion of the Nino effect in Peru based on nineteenth century observations. Years later I would argue with the U. of Arizona types — the tree ring circus — that their analyses were what they wanted to see, not that which was quatifiable. Anyway, I feel that the Penn State prof, now deceased, must be flipping in his grave to see what has happened to the science he loved.

[Melchior]

Regarding the mortgage meltdown, when the mortgages were bundled the sale of the bundle itself to banks and institutions were backed by an evaluation of risk whose mathematical equation (which could not be understood by even the best of mathematicians) was found to be pure bunk. When it comes to modern scientists, caveat emptor.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

This whole “Michael Mann” thing is cracking me up because my 17 year old son’s name is Michael Mann. Today Rush yelled, “Michael Mann is a fraud!” and I’m trying to find it on today’s mp3 file so that I can play it for my son, lol. It’s so strange to hear Rush say my son’s name over and over on the air.

[Gondring]

“All models are wrong; some models are useful.”