Think about it – the stress, the ‘Twilight Zone Syndrome’ mentioned in trying to deal with it – SWEARING in the rem notes!

If it was me trying to deal with this, and I had Phil Jones and Michael Mann up my rear, I could totally see myself, jacked up on too much coffee, no sleep, and a head full of total bullshit just deciding one night to hit the reset button on the whole charade.

It’s funny how they talk of ONE email taken out of context, when clearly “Hide The Decline” was literally their mantra, spoken and written hundreds of times daily.

Let this trigger the end of the UN, Socialism as a whole, the arrogant, shrill nonsense of the ‘Green’ movement, and Taxation-as-Industry in our time.

Let’s quit whining, and get back to work – there is an entire galaxy to explore.

The sum of the squares is a basic calculation in statistics, and is one of the steps taken in doing a regression or correlation. It is a measure of the amount of error; lack of correlation is another way of saying it.

If the sum of the squares is very large it means there is a lot of error and almost no correlation at all. If the sum of the squares gets really large, and they are using integers in the calculation, then the sum of the squares will go negative. Whatever word size they are using in the program – 16 bit, 32 bit, etc, – when it is maxed out, it will be a negative number.

This means the errors that they are calculating are so large, they max out the integers being used to store the sum of the squares.

I’m taking a little more active stance since I’ve done more research (which seems to show that both sides are full of crap).

I’m a software developer (admittedly about half self-taught) in computer graphics. My experience with university CG code hasn’t been that much better then what I saw in the files, thus why I was so confused why people were blowing up at it. I’ve also seen much *worse* code in my work, it happens all the time in the commercial world.

As for the water vapor feedback, I was simply reporting it (I’m not fully convinced of its validity myself, and I thought I implied as much). Just look at the NASA news release on it from last year (I’ve not really deciphered the paper it was based on, it *seemed* weak but I’m not qualified enough to say).

Anyway, I stand on my original point. I don’t want the skeptic movement to die (I think they ask some very interesting questions, and serve as a check on the climate change activists, and since I think both sides are full of crap I don’t want either one to win outright). But I’m afraid this will come back and bite them in the long term.

The tree ring data did turn out to be faulty, and modern models are robust without them. It’s not like they were the only ones used; there’s ice cores, core reef samples, etc.

The ring data fit the temperatures before 1960. Correcting them to match the observed temperatures after 1960 sounds a bit off, but I’m not a statistician so I’m not totally sure. You could argue that humans had changed the world so much that the tree ring inconsistency was caused by us (this view would fit the relevant scientist’s worldview quite well, though I disagree with it), but ultimately tree rings were judged to be too unreliable to rely on in the latest models.

The “spike” in the hockey graph comes from temperature records, it’s not affected by the proxy data (which is inherently less accurate and more error-prone). My original point is that the “spike” is the important part, and if you assume the temperature records are correct, they do show a significant global temperature increase, that does seem to correspond to the models.

That’s why I said the real question was the temperature record accuracy, not the proxy data. Since this so many sites and blogs fell to the fallacy of concentrating on the proxy data, I worry that skeptics have shot themselves in the foot, resulting in a significantly weakened position in the long run, and no check on the climate change activists.

My position has morphed to “well, it is happening, the question is how fast; drastic measures will do more harm then good, especially in developing countries that might not be able to bear the economic strain.” But it’s hard to tell, there’s so many shadings, and both sides are biased to hell and occasionally lie their asses off.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but finding it seems impossible without access to the raw data of temperature stations across the world (and a statistician skilled enough to normalize the data and analyze it).

“…………….Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a
member of South Park Evangelical Church.”

from this article:

http://www.e-n.org.uk/1129-Climate-change-and-the-christian.htm

google the following sentence for his bio, link
“In 1997 I moved to Norwich to carry out the research for a PhD at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. ..”

Tim Mitchell bio: ( a little bit changed to CAPS by me)
In 1997 I moved to Norwich to carry out the research for a PhD at the
Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. My subject
was the development of climate scenarios for SUBSEQUENT USE BY RESEARCHERS investigating the impacts of climate change. I was supervised by Mike Hulme and by John Mitchell (Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office). The PhD was awarded in April 2001.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html – Cached

These guys found him FIRST . Weeks ago! (about 2/3 down the page)
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13

To quote Harry: (Dr Ian ‘Harry’ Harris – Harry_Read_Me.txt)
So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.”
Whilst many people of faith are excellent dedicated professional scientists.

I have a few doubts that an evangelical eco christian (my label), that
obviously is passionate and committed to the above, and clearly believes in
human pollution/corruption, and is aparently anticipating Christ’s return to
earth due to impending climate armageddon, may not be perhaps open as they may think they are, perhaps they should be, to both sides of the debate. (ie the theory could be wrong!)

http://www.e-n.org.uk/2625-Day-after-tomorrow.htm

“The librarian chooses to rescue an old Bible, not because he believes in
God, but because its printing was ‘the dawn of the age of reason’. In this
film we see how far we have fallen. Lost, we retreat into a virtual world
where disaster becomes entertainment and the unreal seems more real than reality itself. ‘For whom tolls the bell? It tolls for thee.’

Dr. Tim Mitchell, climate scientist”

Where is Tim, Why can’t ‘Harry’ just ask him?

Dr Tim, obviously left CRU around 2004, as published research papers dry up
2004 Dr. Tim Mitchell,formerly a scientist, now a student at LTS

London Theological Seminary
Evangelical Protestant college for the training of preachers and pastors.
Provides degrees up to Masters level. includes course details and resources.

http://www.ltslondon.org

This guy has an opinion on the code:
http://di2.nu/200912/01.htm

Don’t forget the church he worshiped at(the irony):
South Park (Al Gore – ManBearPig – South park episode)
need to save my $ for those CO2 taxes

As someone with a PhD in Chemical Engineering I at least have a solid grounding in scientific programming (10+ years) and the scientific method (15+years). I do not presume to propound theories on the science indovled (I only maintain a heathly scepticism regarding *any* scientific theory, mine included) but I can judge that this project is typical of a university grade project and simultaneously damages the claim that these scientists have access to the extrodinary evidence required to support their extraordinary claims.

Again, with all due respect, who on earth are you to judge?

Feel free to disagree with any or all of my points.

1. Tree rings were used to reconstruct past temperatures
2. In order to do that one must calibrate against known temperatures
3. Briffa produced a reconstruction that showed that there were serious calibration issues.
4. Jones & Mann used a “trick” to “hide” this fact

To the extent that any money was obtained by Jones and/or Mann based on the “trick” (given that they knowingly hid facts that were at least pertinent, even material, to the issue at hand) then that is *obtaining financial advantage by deception*

I’m pretty sure that’s a crime in most countries around the world. Certainly is in the UK (although it may be called something slightly different).

This is criminal

There are unresolved issues in AGW (e.g. is the water vapor feedback really as huge as the models suggest, what about the data the CRU lost, etc) but I believe the false furor these documents have spawned has really hurt the credibility of global warming skeptics. If you have any sort of expertise at all, it’s obvious the documents themselves aren’t nearly so damning as they appear on the surface.

In the end, I hope investigation is done into the real inconsistencies, but I worry these documents have damaged the chances of that happening (if I were prone to conspiracy theories I’d say that was why the CRU wasn’t more active in denying the validity of the documents, to lure skeptics into shooting themselves in the foot, but I doubt the decision was that simple).

The reality is that global warming is happening; the real question is how fast. I don’t have a stance on this myself (I’m not a scientist, nor do I have accurate to the right data), but I’m hoping we have enough time we don’t have to sacrifice world economic growth to fix this problem.

Interestingly enough, water vapor levels in the atmosphere are the real driving force here; it’s widely believed that the relatively small amount of warming from CO2 causes ocean water to evaporate faster, producing a feedback where the warming temperatures cause more and more water vapor to enter the atmosphere (water vapor is a huge greenhouse gas). The alleged validity of this theory is the defining factor on whether global warming is truly catastrophic or not.

“Somebody should Slashdot this, it is exactly the sort of thing the programming geeks there will understand and appreciate. They may also be able to provide valuable insight.”

I’ve been watching Slashdot for this story to come up, obviously this is just the sort of thing that SHOULD show up there.

It won’t. Slashdot is filled with pro AGW types, and controlled by them. I wouldn’t be surprised if it never show up there at all.
—————————-

hahaha

“it is exactly the sort of thing the programming geeks there will understand and appreciate” and “Slashdot is filled with pro AGW types”

do you get it? oh please this is so ridiculous!

The scientist(s) have told the programmer results they want. He has worked all weekend to adjust the data to produce the “correct” results and hide the cooling after certain dates.

This is not just the smoking gun: this is the bullet in motion being scored by barrel of the gun.

Crap like this shows up all the time in real coding work, and especially in more math-heavy code produced by universities and engineering companies. Honestly I don’t understand all the “developers” who keep saying how evil this is; this sort of sloppyness happens all the time. Sloppy code doesn’t equal inaccurate code; a sloppily-written program may run just as well as one coded better.

It’s not that sloppy programming always produces incorrect results (though it can), it simply produces hard and expensive to maintain programs.

One lot of monitoring gear ran nice and quietly for twenty years with no modifications and religiously reporting a decline in temperature, quietly tucked away in a corner of a national park – free from any man made sources of heat.

This data is not unique – any company that derives its income from planting would also have good records. Why can’t NASA and the UK idiots at least release their data for public scruting? Because it has been thoroughly doctored in order to support their beliefs. This is just the most blatant disregard of their own scientific profession – it seems proof is simply not required to support their political and monetary goals but the newspapers just don’t seem to care.

Thanks god for the US senate and the few people around the world who just won’t take the media crap!!