IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud

I have 3 fretless and 2 fretted basses - all four string though. I’d really like a 5 string fretless, but the dough I’d have to cough up makes it unlikely in the near term. That is a pretty cool bass as far as looks go though. One of mine in a mexican fender Jazz bass that I ripped the frets out of (carefully with the right tools for the job) and re-filled in with “plastic wood” and finished like Jaco did with his basses. I so rarely play anything but fretless now, they just seem to get in the way...

Thanks for the info!

I stole the Frank Drebin “please disburse there is nothing for you to see here” from that blog. Thanks.

I have a five string fretless I bought from rondomusic.net. It was $149. It is deep blue flamed maple with gold hardware. I put black tape wounds on it. It’s pretty striking.

But you really should check this out:
http://www.rondomusic.com/Bassguitarfretless.html

You don’t have to break the bank. And if you get it with a case you save shipping on one.

If you are unfamiliar with software programming best practices, we tend to leave “notes” behind describing what each subroutine accomplishes. Because it may be months before we revisit a program for enhancements, the “notes” or comments are our guide to make quick modifications and roll out updates. I tend to overdo my comments in our company’s software, but it saves hours of debugging and testing down the road.

At any rate, I have all of the available “hacked” CRU files. I have been searching their research/data reconstruction algorithms for programmer comments.

Below are some comments (in red for emphasis) written by CRU programmer(s). I have quoted a few new comments beyond the original two from the story. Please note: These comments are not an exhaustive investigation of all of the code from the downloaded CRU data, just a sample of the first hour’s worth of work. There is much much more.

This is about as damning as it gets... the programmer’s comments back up the version of the email that suggests CRU is manipulating tree ring proxy data to achieve a desired result. (Tree ring proxy data being the one of the foundations of the infamous MBH98 Hockey Stick graph, IPCC policy and Al Gore’s fictional movie.) While they may be able to argue that their emails were “taken out of context”, the programmer’s code comments gives those emails an entirely different context.

comments from files
maps12.pro
maps15.pro
maps24.pro

calibrate_mxd.pro

calibrate_correctmxd.pro
pl_decline.pro

Here is the story for some context:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story
When the CRU emails first made it into news stories, there was immediate reaction from the head of CRU, Dr. Phil Jones over this passage in an email:

From a yahoo.com news story:

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

Dr. Jones responded.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?

There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:

Here’s the code with the comments left by the programmer:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

and later the same programming comment again in another routine:

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

For more details, see Mike’s Nature Trick http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

_________________________________________________________________________________________

(I added these from the programmers’ code):

;
; Calibrates the gridded and infilled MXD data against instrumental
; summer temperatures (land&sea). On a grid-box basis first, using the
; period 1911-1990 for calibration and the period 1856-1910 for verification,
; where data is available.
;
; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
; 40-yr filter, although the calibration equation is then applied to raw
; data.

; fdcltmerr is the mean over the calibration period of the MXD data that has
; had the high-frequency calibration applied to it. It will therefore be
; in error, because the high-frequency calibration says nothing about the
; long-term mean.

; Anomalise the reconstructed against the full calibration period
; (excluding missing MXD values, but not excluding missing temperature
; values), then compute the mean of the anomalised reconstruction
; over the actual calibration subset. Use this to work out what
; offset should be applied to the calibrated values to give the
; correct mean level.

; But the calibrated series had the high-pass calibration applied to
; the raw MXD, which would have left the reconstruction having a
; near zero mean over 1881-1960, while we would prefer to match the
; observed temperature mean over the calibration period. So let’s
; impose that.

; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

; Now verify on a grid-box basis
; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these
; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.

; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them - i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
printf,1
printf,1,’Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH and Jones PD (2004)’
printf,1,’Annually resolved patterns of summer temperature over the Northern’
printf,1,’Hemisphere since AD 1400 from a tree-ring-density network.’
printf,1,’Submitted to Global and Planetary Change.’
printf,1
printf,1,’Osborn TJ, Briffa KR, Schweingruber FH and Jones PD (2004)’
printf,1,’Annually resolved patterns of summer temperature over the Northern’
printf,1,’Hemisphere since AD 1400 from a tree-ring-density network.’
printf,1,’Submitted to Global and Planetary Change.’

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4221

http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/RuthetalJClimate05.pdf

I am sold, but the blog above bakes it down to plain English.

As far as the artificial adjustments using real temperature data, I think that is crystal clear to everyone now.

But the ramifications for the proxy is it is crap and so is the model because of it.

Very interesting links. Thank you. I love this comment:

“This comment pops up in a few of the source files:

;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

:-D”

The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

What???? That is utter, utter nonsense! Since when is absolute truth determined by consensus?

In other news, the evidence that the world is flat and that the sun goes round it is so widely accepted that the evidence of Galileo's telescope observations is unlikely to erode the overall argument...

Hm. That is interesting.

In that link you provided, Asimov sounds like someone who understands Matlab and data sets...his sputtering indignity at the way these global warming statists are pulling and pushing the data to get what they want while seemingly completely losing track of where they are and what they are doing is both hilarious and horrifying.

Hilarious because it is as if the curtains just parted, and they look up to see a huge audience looking at them while they stand there with their pants and underwear nowhere to be found.

Horrifying because trillions of dollars, our entire economy, our sovereignty, and therefore our way of life could be flushed down the tubes because of THIS.

Unbelievable.

ROTFLMAO! Great! I love the imagery!

Ping for later...

Unfortunately, the media will help explain away these emails, but the real damning evidence is in the programmers’ code comments and the code itself.

The world needs to see this!

They are going to stick with “fake but accurate”, and it’s gonna work.

AGW is too important to too many people, economically and psychologically, to be undone by the truth.

If C02 controls the temperature, why do all weather forecasters use maps of Radar, and Water Vapor?

Because @ .034% of the atmosphere, they can't find any.

*** Bookmark! ***

Absolutely correct. They want us travelling barefoot down “Hayek Road”, across the wrongside of the tracks to the shotgun shacks on the outskirts of plantation-land, to put it prosaically.

A.A.C.

bttt