FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
CRU-ption.
Posted on 11/25/2009 1:03:51 PM PST by Smogger
As the evidence of fraud at the University of East Anglia's prestigious Climactic Research Unit (CRU) continues to mount, those who've been caught green-handed continue to parry their due opprobrium and comeuppance, thanks primarily to a dead-silent mainstream media. But should the hubris and duplicity evident in the e-mails of those whose millennial temperature charts literally fuel the warming alarmism movement somehow fail to convince the world of the scam that's been perpetrated, certainly these revelations of the fraud cooked into the computer programs that create such charts will.
-snip-
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."
What exactly is meant by "corrected” MXD," you ask? Outstanding question -- and the answer appears amorphous from program to program. Indeed, while some employ one or two of the aforementioned "corrections," others throw everything but the kitchen sink at the raw data prior to output.
For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline."
But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."
And such games are by no means unique to the folder attributed to Michael Mann.
A Clear and Present Rearranger
In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or 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 two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen 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.
And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.
Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart: IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures. Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning: NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).
Care to offer another explanation, Dr. Jones?
Gotcha
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 man 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.
Indeed, miners of the CRU folder have unearthed dozens of e-mail threads and supporting documents revealing much to loathe about this cadre of hucksters and their vile intentions. This veritable goldmine has given us tales ranging from evidence destruction to spitting on the Freedom of Information Act on both sides of the Atlantic. But the now-irrefutable evidence that alarmists have indeed been cooking the data for at least a decade may be the most important strike in human history.
Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks, and also those of the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians, both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life -- all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC in turn bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU -- largely from tree ring data -- who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.
Bottom line: CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.
Gotcha. We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate.
It's time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release November 25, 2009
Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs; Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Mike Froman; and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Carol Browner
Press Secretary’s Office
EXCERPTED TODAY_____________________ PRESS CONFERENCE...##########
Q What’s your reaction to the British e-mails that have come out recently?
MS. BROWNER: I’ve read them. I don’t know that I have a reaction.
Q The Copenhagen talks are going from December 8th to the — or 7th to the 20th — 18th, something around that. And 65 heads of state will be attending at the end. Will the fact that Obama does not plan to be there make any agreement politically binding — or a political agreement at that point less legitimate?
MR. FROMAN: I think the President going to Copenhagen will give positive momentum to the negotiations, and we think will enhance the prospects for success.
Q Who will go then at the end?
MS. BROWNER: We’re releasing it today — we have a whole delegation of Cabinet members and other top officials who will be in attendance throughout the conference.
Q Will Al Gore go?
MS. BROWNER: I don’t know. You’d have to ask him.
Q Okay. But not as part of the delegation?
MR. GIBBS: I don’t know where he’s spending the night, either. (Laughter.)
MS. BROWNER: The U.S. delegation is made up of Cabinet members and senior White House officials, and we’re releasing that list today. Are we releasing when they’ll be there, the main —
MR. FROMAN: Yes.
MS. BROWNER: Yes, they’re coming at various different times throughout the two weeks, so you’ll see all of that. I think we have, what, six or seven Cabinet members going.
Q I hate to back you up on this, but those e-mails — I know they’re controversial, but they’re actually feeding the run-up to Copenhagen. You might have read them, but you know basically the gist of them, which is being used by opponents of this deal to say that the whole thing is made up. But you have to have more than just “I don’t have any reaction.”
MS. BROWNER: Well, first of all, we’ve all seen bits and pieces, we haven’t seen the full e-mails. But I think more importantly there has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isn’t a real problem, that we don’t need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the world’s foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible.
What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there, or the 2,500 scientists? I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.
Never on my watch said: “Boy, I’ll bet Algore regrets inventing the internet now...”
LOL literally. I think i just woke up the entire family! Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you don’t mind if I use this one at the dinner table today. I wonder what my lib-algoreobama bot ‘intellectual’ relatives will say about this story.
From what I understand, programs were created to “fix” data to represent their findings. Amazing, the arrogance. “Scientists” who know better than the facts.
We need to write to our representatives about making laws based on this data.
Any suggestions from someone with more technical understanding of this info?
The only thing man made about global warming is the HOAX behind it-!
My new term is: Man made-up Global Warming.
??????????????????
???
??
how about some of you pocket protector....taped together glasses types convert it to plain American.
A bunch of lawyers just found some work lets says thousands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore
“Within one month of taking office President Obama secured $80 billion for renewable energy and green infrastructure and then just
two weeks ago the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Bill also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act which for all of its flaws does put a price on carbon and is very much a step in the right direction.”
Worse than the collusion shown in the emails.
When tha actual evidence doesn’t support your very important story, a story much too important to fail — just make it up. Dan Rather, the MSM, and the Democrats fully affirm this methodology.
LOL. First the AGW movement was a jobs program for thousands of useless “environmental studies” majors..... now it turns out to be a remarkable “jobs program” for the countless thousands of lawyers who will be retained on both sides of this unraveling mess!
Wouldn't you just love to see inside the Fed and Treasury Department's source code?
Spot on!
We have all been wronged in this.
We have all suffered negative financial effects from this.
We all will suffer future harm from this deliberate fraud.
These people need to be prosectuted, jailed, and lose their credentials for collusion to defraud nearly every person, company, and government in the civilized world.....
.....Then they need to pay damages.
Any company or government that was in-the-know with regard to the data manipulation and/or supression of opposing data and journal articles should face the same.
Perfect!
For those of us who are not tecchies - the best analogy to describe the chicken little climate clymers who are in full throttle denial....
think of them as having been cuckolded by a cheating spouse....ignoring the signs and always the last to know - so it will take time for the betrayal to sink in.
those of us, the skeptics, always knew who was skrooing whom and we must be patient and willing to treat the wounded with some whoopass!!!!
This makes the ponzie guys look like pikers. There is real money here
Even lowlife Bernie Madoff was “only” messing around with $50 billion or so.... these AGW frauds have been trying to control TRILLIONS of $$$.... I don’t know what the tab is that they’ve run up so far but I’m sure that it’s a big number and still growing.
I seem to recall a study that showed the computer model developed by Mann that produced the touchstone “hockey stick” graph would generate the same graph regardless of what data was inserted including purely random numbers.
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.