CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

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

[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.

[Smogger]

I have always scoffed at these computer models anyway. As a computer programmer, I can certainly give you whatever result you want. Does it prove anything?

That's always been my contention about the entire Global warming theory. You tell me what data you want to see and I can make it happen. This goes on all the time in "real world." Computer models say what I make them say. If the source isn't open no-one will be the wiser. After all I'm the "expert."

[Domandred]

Oh bloody hell I’ve been sitting on these .pro files and such and didn’t even think to open them in stupid notepad to see what the were.

[Publius6961]

BUMP!

[Domandred]

Oh neat comment in the code:

“Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!”

[tcrlaf]

“Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted.”

Haven’t you been listening to the Climate Religionists today?

NONE OF THIS MATTERS...

The ONLY thing that matters is the peer reviewed documents based on this data, and they are SO IMPORTANT, that they can never be peer reviewed again!

C’mon DUDE!

You’re threatening the livelyhood of literally HUNDREDS of University Department Grant Programs with your denial of non-science!!!

I mean, where will a fraudulent Climate sciewntist GET another job that pays half a million bucks a year? DO YOU NOT CARE FOR THIER CHILDREN????

[Freedom56v2]

Boy, I’ll bet Algore regrets inventing the internet now...

---

Almost lost another keyboard on this....very funny comment! :)

[tcrlaf]

“Those 2,500 climate scientists aren’t wrong. They’re liars!”

There NEVER WAS 2,500 Climate Scientists...

At LEAST 1,500 of them were POLITICAL SCIENTISTS, and only a few in the media DARED to ask why that was...

[RedCell]

Exactly what I was thinking. The left can B.S. their way around most accusations (much to my frustration) but this is the stuff that sticks in the eye like that icicle in that dude's eye from Die Hard 2.

What we need is for someone with enough credibility and visibility to boil it down to a message that can be digested for the ADD public (lather, rinse, repeat) until it's sunk in.

Of course the lamestream media doesn't help because, well, they're lame. And always will be. Damn them all to hell.

Cheers!

[RaceBannon]

Not too techical, but when you intentionally change math forulas and even use rem statements to define why you changed it, it shows the change is INTENTIONAL

And to use a REM statement? It means you wanted to tell yourslf and any one else on your side, ‘”Hey, dont get fooled if you wrote your own code, this one is fudged to be false!”

TRICK??

[WOBBLY BOB]

“We may be wrong,” Biden said. “But the point is, we believe in what we’re doing.” (Uncle Joe Biden)

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20091124_Biden__at_Committee_of_70_fundraiser__puts_positive_spin_on_economic_outlook.html

...and carbon credits are High Priest Algore’s way of paying indulgeneces to his church of Gaia.

[spokeshave]

Albore can uninvent the internet as well as 0bama can unjump the shark

[drierice]

The CRU should now be the ACRU - the Anti-Climatic Research Unit.

[Mozilla]

Global Warming is a fraud. It was established by scientists who wanted to exploit the idea that environmental damage would lead to alarming crisis. It is pretty much what happened in the movie 2012 what many climatologists have said for years. Truth is that it is not really happening anymore than when they predicted Global Cooling. Facts over decades do not back them up.

[Anti-Bubba182]

If NBC’s parent company GE is expecting to make Billions off the Carbon Credits business you can expect NO coverage from them or MSNBC. It is a corrupt situation.

[Magnum44]

As a kid of 6 years old, I had a chemisty set and I used to randomly mix chemicals to see if I could get color changes or fizzy reactions. That certainly did not make me a chemist. These so-called enviro-scientist are no more scientist than I was at 6.

PS - I did get some really cool reactions occasionally, that I was never able to repeat. My old play area would probably be a toxic waste site today :)

[skr]

LOL!

[fhayek]

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.

I need add no further comment.

[Anti-Bubba182]

The bigger system they are trying to model the more iffy it all is EVEN if they try to do it honestly.

[Mozilla]

The Left won't admit they are wrong.

Ed Begley Jr. Loses It On Fox News Over Global Warming.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Michael E. Mann (born 28 December 1965) is an American climatologist, and author of more than 80 peer-reviewed journal publications. He has attained public prominence as lead author of a number of articles on paleoclimate and as one of the originators of a graph of temperature trends dubbed the "hockey stick graph" for the shape of the graph. The graph received both praise and criticism after its publication in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. In August 2005 he was appointed Associate Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, and Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center. He previously taught at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences (1999 - 2005). He was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science’ and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups. Dr. Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research. Mann is one of several climate scientists who contribute to the RealClimate blog. He is best known for his paleoclimate 'hockey stick' reconstructions of the past several millennia from tree ring, ice core, coral and other data. See temperature record of the past 1000 years for more details and dispute. Mann's recent work has been on modelling El Niño, and he has said that "we are already committed to 50 to 100 years of global warming and several centuries of sea level rise" and that reduction in fossil fuel emissions is required to slow the process down to a level that can be coped with.[1]

Wicki