Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/25/2009 11:34:48 AM PST by Starman417
I'm not surprised that the MSM is no where to be found on ClimateGate, but where are the scientists? Their journals and magazines? Why are they silent especially after this latest bombshell of a discovery:
One can only imagine the angst suffered daily by the co-conspirators, who knew full well that the “Documents” sub-folder of the CRU FOI2009 file contained more than enough probative program source code to unmask CRU’s phantom methodology.In fact, there are hundreds of IDL and FORTRAN source files buried in dozens of subordinate sub-folders. And many do properly analyze and chart maximum latewood density (MXD), the growth parameter commonly utilized by CRU scientists as a temperature proxy, from raw or legitimately normalized data. Ah, but many do so much more.
Skimming through the often spaghetti-like code, the number of programs which subject the data to a mixed-bag of transformative and filtering routines is simply staggering. Granted, many of these “alterations” run from benign smoothing algorithms (e.g. omitting rogue outliers) to moderate infilling mechanisms (e.g. estimating missing station data from that of those closely surrounding). But many others fall into the precarious range between highly questionable (removing MXD data which demonstrate poor correlations with local temperature) to downright fraudulent (replacing MXD data entirely with measured data to reverse a disorderly trend-line).
In fact, workarounds for the post-1960 “divergence problem”, as described by both RealClimate and Climate Audit, can be found throughout the source code. So much so that perhaps the most ubiquitous programmer’s comment (REM) I ran across warns that the particular module “Uses ‘corrected’ MXD - but shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”
~~~Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.
But here's what's undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960 then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest men of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it's a crime against mankind.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
Ouch, that will leave a mark. Too bad no one in MSM land could follow, much less report what this man is saying. I am sure the perky katty couric will hammer this like she did Sarah.
This great hoax was adopted to empower those who have global governance on their agenda, for the power, the raw power of dictating to the entire of humanity. And the ones most impacted are the poor in underdeveloped and primitive lands, because it is they who are being commanded to not use their carbon resources to bring electricity and industry to their people as the 'fix' for the bogus threat al goron and co. use to empower themselves. This great hoax is a deadly assault upon those most vulnerable. And the obama types don't care a whit about the death and chaos they create with their mismanagement.
Personal observations for the last 60 plus years can not be refuted. I have never experienced two days in a row with the same climate. Temperatures change, wind conditons and directions change. The sun rise and sun set times change as do the length of the day and night! Clear skies and cloud cover and percipitation change from day to day.
SARC OFF!
bfl
Well, they can't really be blamed though. I mean they're really just too intelligent to follow such witless "computer logic".
Logic is a science the Left and MSM have mastered and it begins with the fallacy of presumption, but after burning the strawman logic moves on to the tagteam efforts of appeal to ridicule and ad hominem and concludes with affirming the consequent. Oh dontcha know.
I'm reasonably certain that it had come out earlier that the tree-ring data used to develop the Hockey Stick were cherry picked to give the desired result - namely a warming trend in the late 20th century. This is recent news but it is pre-Climategate.
The Climategate news, at least to me, is that the fraud went beyond the cherry picking. The scheme: truncate the tree-ring data at 1960 (where it was starting to DECLINE) and replace this data with measured temperatures. Of course the measured temperatures have been massaged over the years to show the 'desired" warming. The result of all of this: A Gore Academy Award and Nobel Prize, a UN report predicting we will die if we don't act immediately and the House of Representatives passing a Cap and Trade bill that will bankrupt us all if passed by the Senate.
Someone (I have some candidates) needs to go to jail.
I commented early on that it would be the code that was the story much more than the emails. The emails are sensational, but of course ‘taken out of context’ according to the AGW scientists. The code is the code, and the fact Steve McIntyre has been trying to get his hands on it for years and been refused is very telling. The readme files only confirm that the process they used was constructed in order to get their predetermined result of global warming.
It is like knowing the answer and designing the equation and data to fit the answer. A little backward I would say.
OH MY.
I like this line best.
“Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he/she wasn’t kidding. Now, IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.
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
These 2 lines of code establish a 20 element array (yrloc) comprised of the year 1400 (base year but not sure why needed here) and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960) but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.
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.