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.
One key difference is that people like us can now respond forcefully with the facts of this case. In the past the alarmists controlled all the data; that is no longer so. I think this release has severely damaged the AGW cause.
So if I can't give you New York Times stock prices for a week, I can't predict a general decline?
Uh, no.
My new tag line.
At least one ex-climate researcher at Cato Institute was complaining about the University of East Anglia’s lack of transparency long before the email story broke. Amazing.
What most people don’t realize is how cowed most college science/business profs are by the vocal anti-intellectual groups on campus (black and gender studies, etc.), and how they fear for their status. They know that the president, VPs, deans, and board of trustees are dominated by the leftwing culture, and that the path of least resistance is to keep quiet when lies are being told. This was illustrated in spades during the Duke Lacrosse hoax, as poster abb can remind us.
That being said, sometimes the evidence of fraud is too overwhelming for “collegiality” to suppress. Granted, schools are relying on funding from government and many other leftwing sources, and that has a very chilling effect. Yet, these revelations might stimulate a little spine. They are so blatant and outrageous.
But clearly they are no lovers of science.
This massive betrayal of the scientific method is deplorable and is a betrayal of the public, who now have every reason to be demand a figurative lynching of these bastards.
Make that gal.
Absolutely! They should be excoriated by the science community and prosecuted where ever appropriate. They are destroying public trust in science in a way that will last for decades.
“....where will a fraudulent Climate sciewntist GET another job that pays half a million bucks a year? DO YOU NOT CARE FOR THIER CHILDREN????
LOL, “H” NO!
Wondering if I should contort, and squeeze out something along the lines of a tear for the poor bastards.
I’m a programmer for a small college. FORTRAN is not one of my languages but I can follow it. I’ve also been lurking in programming forums and blogs where they are talking about this.
From the programming side of this the most damning thing I’ve learned is that they are not using source control! Any professional programmer uses some kind of source control, whether its CVS, Subversion, Mercurial, Git or even god awful SourceSafe. Source control allows you to track each revision in a code file, knowing when changes were made, what changes were made in what lines of code and who made the changes. This allows you to figure out when bugs were introduced to the code, for example. But it also allows you to roll the code back to a prior state.
How do I know they don’t use it? Because in these files “Harry” the programmer complains about identically named files being differentiated by where they reside in the folder tree. And not knowing which version of a program a previous programmer used to achieve a certain output. Also he complains about a file that has a comment with one ‘Modified Date’ but that same file has a different modified date in its file properties. Suggesting that the file has been modified in an undocumented way.
As I read Harry’s comments I feel sorry for him. He’s inherited a giant clusterf*ck of an application with completely inadequate documentation. He’d rather start over from scratch than try to maintain that monstrosity (we’ve all been there!)
So how does not using source control affect the science? Because real science is repeatable. Someone else should be able to follow the same procedure and produce the same result. If you don’t keep an accurate record of all the revisions of your code this is impossible.
re: “2,500”
If she is referring to the IPCC group I’ve heard it said by people I respect infinitely more than any of these Globull warming clowns that a large proportion of that group consists of govt. bureaucrats, “enviro studies” majors, and other people completely incapable of assessing the data and scientific issues, even had it been made honestly available. The IPCC has been far more a political/ideological “movement” than any scientific body.
Pardon me, ma’am.
Been known to step in more than one cowpie and embarass myself.
Welcome to FR anyway......... :-)
That does generate the desired headlines....
Juicy!
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
Yes, this article was one of the most satisfying I have read. Technical red meat, but still comprehensible to us mere mortals.
I look forward to more of the same as the code warriors dig deeper into the code and data.
bmp
Super plusgood (though long)explanation of UK FOIA request and CRU here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/
excerpt, “Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So blocking the FOIA allowed Phil Jones to claim that his temperature record (HadCRUT3) was valid science.
This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and seeing if your math is correct.”
Take care, all.
You don’t need a computer model to do make that prediction.
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.