Posted on 11/24/2009 11:38:37 AM PST by Red Badger
We've posted before at Before It's News about the fact that the emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) demonstrated the intent to deceive, but now that the blogosphere is starting to go through the actual models that were built to make predictions, the extent of this scandal will be known. As the email said, "to hide the decline" -- what does that actually mean? It means using hidden mathematical trickery to obfuscate the reality of what is really happening and to adjust the outcome to support your thesis. In science, this is called fraud.
It's one thing to talk about these results, but here is the visual result of this "trickery", courtesy of theblogprof. Before shows what their climate model looks like before "trickery" is applied, the After, shows the result of the "trickery" which makes the climate appear much warmer than it actually was.
Emails taken out of context are one thing and people routinely explain their way out of email "foot in mouth" problems in court all the time. This graphs shows clearly what happens when you use "trickery" to massage the data -- you get the result you want, not the historically accurate result.
This wouldn't be much of a to do, except for the fact that the UN's IPCC and governments around the world are trying to place trillions of new taxes and turn the world's economy upside down to fight something that now obviously doesn't exist.
As we've discussed previously on Before It's News, the comments in these models are especially damaging because they are inserted right at the point of the code that alters the model to fit the scientist's wishes, not the underlying reality of nature. Another point is the fact that these models were cited many, many times in other supporting studies and now that they have been exposed to be the hoax that they are, all of the other study's results are now suspect. It would be interesting to review the IPCC report for all the citations provided for scientific back up of the claims made to see how many of them are based on this fraud.
A picture is worth a thousand words.................
Please God give us the the additional smoking guns on:
Zero’s birth and cleansed records (those behind the plot)
Truths behind Pelosi and Reid’s Mengele/DeathCare
Traitors behind Zero’s Presidency and the plot to destroy our country
OOPS??!?!??!
Sucks to be you (one of the professional hoaxsters...)!
bttt
People need to go to jail, this is a misuse of taxpayer’s money and a blatant fraud.
Not here. The two graphs are identical - the second one just contains a few more years at the end.
I have little doubt the Hadley scientist fudged their data, but this doesn't do anything to demonstrate it.
ALGORE should be the first!
Please, God, help us to find thousands of documents in a dumpster that will expose ACORN.
Thank you God for answered prayer!!
Click the picture:
You need two things to doublecheck the global warming claims. You need the raw data, and you need the adjustments (actually the formulas behind the adjustments). There are legitmate reasons to make adjustments, but unless someone supplies the formulas, and the reasons behind the formulas, you don’t know how they got from the raw data to the final results.
It’s been nearly impossible to get the raw data, inspite of Freedom of Information requests (both here and in the UK). When data has been released, it’s often been without the formulas used for the various adjustments, which meant a lot of reverse engineering and guess work as to why someone made the adjustments.
Non-cooperation has been the hallmark of the global warming activists, and now we know why. They’ve been faking results.
Actually it does - throwing away inconvenient data is a common "trick" used often by people to fool themselves.
Not showing all the data is a fudge. In this case it was Briffa and uu@W(of PSU), not Jones.
I want to know more about this “non-temperature signal imposed after 1960.”
Worshipping blindly at the alter of AGW = fail.
That is exactly the point. In what is supposed to be an objective scientific paper, and not a political screed, the authors have decided to chop off the most recent data because it does not support their preconceived conclusion.
It does.
The email states that they stop the tree-ring series in 1960. If they continued it it would show the end of the most recent warming trend (until 1960) as derived from tree rings.
As I understand their models they use a combination of proxy datasets for temperature for times and places where there are no temperature records (mostly everywhere for most of the period they are studying), and append actual temperature measurements where they have them. Deliberately taking the tree rings out of their proxy mix just at the point where these start undermining their case is bad pool.
Nice post RB! The Warmtards are probably waking up to the fact they’re in the center of the Scientific Scandal of the Century. The morning this broke on BBC Australia I just felt that the Secular Apocylptic Religion of AGW had come down. There might be some resistance but the as a wise man once said “That which is hidden WILL be revealed.”
So is that graph an ac curate representation of a forgery or not? In one post we say it is and in another we say it’s just the same chart with some years added on and proves nothing. So which is it?
The graph doesn’t show a forgery, it shows that they are cherry-picking data to suit their case. Thats not science.
The problem is that they are discarding data for arbitrary reasons.
They use the series until 1960 because it suits their argument. They don’t use the extra years of data that are also available in this series (to 1985 I believe as shown on the other graph). The extra years data shows an end to the warming trend and undermines their case.
BTW, the tree-ring data interestingly shows a cool 1970’s, back when the “an ice-age is upon us” idea was popular.
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.