do-dad

Scientists and their institutions had better watch out, for that possible role, while attractive and surely useful for raising research funding, would also mean the end of science as ‘speaking truth to power’ and future generations. Perhaps we have reached that stage already.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

What is interesting is why anyone would program this in the first place. Clearly something nefarious is going on. And “fudge factor” isn’t jargon you expect to find in any comment.

Destroying the original datasets is kind of the clincher though. Because there is no way of testing the code as it changes over time. With a program of even moderate complexity, there is no way to test all the possible error conditions, and a good way to see if something is really squirrelly is to use the same datasets for checking.

Not to be unkind, but I get the feeling the key programs were being modified to reach some predetermined conclusion.

However as a scientist myself (not in these fields) I am absolutely horrified at the lack of integrity in the “climate science” field.

Destroying orignal data, rigged statistical modeling.

It’s sad to say, but basically money has corrupted science to the point that ANY claims without ALL data being published OPENLY should be immediately put in the trash.

Yours truly is only a new attorney but I nonetheless believe US law is well setttled here. I can’t speak for the Brits but don’t think the UK has a Mapp v. Ohio (1961)-style exclusionary rule. If so, they wouldn’t have a “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine. Thus I would expect the Brits would admit these files into evidence.

In the US we do have that rule, so evidence illegally obtained is not admissable. Thus the outcome would not turn on any distinction between a “hacker” or “whistle blower” in the US. If a private person acting without the knowledge of or at the direction of the police steals the data then that data would be admissable. It doesn’t matter if that stealing person were a hacker or a whistle blower. As long as the police did not tell them to steal it or know beforehand that it would be stolen it’s admissable. If the police come into into possession of material without they themselves violating a law then the material is admissable.

For example, suppose a technician in a shop stumbles across child porn on a customer’s laptop while attempting to resolve a software conflict between two unrelated programs. Tech calls the police. They examine the laptop without a warrant. The porn is admissable. Same situation except now the police tell the tech to examine every computer brought in and call them whenever he finds kiddie porn. In the US that evidence would be excluded. No probable cause; not in plain sight; search warrant needed but not obtained.

However, in this case, I believe the “hacker/stolen” theory is highly unlikely to be the cause of the release. An army of wireheads have analyzed the directory file structure and content of the materials and of course the near universal conclusion is that the Zip file was NOT the work of hackers.

Oh no, that’s horrible. You mean they were taking their data and replacing inconvenient parts of it with made up data?

“…(potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.”

Oh, so they weren’t replacing data outright, but they were interpolating valid temperature readings in a way that skews the result. That still seems bad. Why would they need to skew valid temperature readings?

“This closely resembles the infamous hockey stick graph that Michael Mann came up with about a decade ago.”

Interesting. But… that graph show’s Mann’s 1999 “hockey stick” actually under-projecting the actual temperature readouts. Why would a scientist (even using the word loosely) interested in massaging data to show evidence of global warming massage it to show less global temperature change than actual direct measurement of the temperature shows?

Hey, something else that’s interesting: Mann’s graph shows actual temperature measurements starting sometime after 1800. That makes sense… probably not a lot of reliable direct temperature measurements from before the 19th century. But you said that CRU’s code is manipulating valid temperature readings, and their code also has a skew factor (of 0.0) for 1400. What gives? Where are CRU’s valid temperature measurements from 1400 coming from? And how is Mann’s model going all the way back to 1000?

“the adjustment shown above is applied to the tree ring proxy data (proxy for temperature) not the actual instrumental temperature data.”

Ohh… so these *aren’t* direct, valid temperature measurements after all. They are temperature estimates based on tree ring data.

“we don’t know the use context of this code.”

Perhaps not… but you know, this whole thing sounds a lot like one of those emails that are being bandied about where Phil Jones mentions using Mann’s “trick” regarding tree-ring data.

The explanation I’ve heard about that is that tree-ring data is not not entirely reliable after a certain data for some not completely understood reasons, and Mann found a way to integrate older tree-ring data with other temperature data, but had to employ some method to do so, which was published in Nature.

Could that be what this code is about? If so… is it really the smoking gun you think it is? You clearly have been following all of this enough to have some additional insight, right?

“I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter.”

Oh I see. You *haven’t* been following it, but you decided because you have a degree in Physics, you are qualified to pick some sample code apart and level accusations against others based on your interpretation of what the code is doing, but without actually knowing much more than any of the rest of us laymen about tree-ring temperature series.

Do you really have enough here to challenge people’s credentials and question their ethics?

“having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world.”

If by “work outside of ethics” you mean post excerpts of code whose context one admits not knowing, covers a data in a field in which they don’t specialize, but yet they feel entitled to interpret anyway and cast aspersions upon those who allegedly wrote/used said code… then I agree: that is worrying indeed.

There is no need for a smoking gun…

These guys should never have been listened to whatsoever!! People have been requesting, then demanding (via FOIA) their data and methods for years, to no avail. That in and of itself tells you they are and were lying.

Why don’t they just use a simple spreadsheet like excel, and do the calculations and analysis in there or something like minitab to do all of this. It seems to me that those 2 pre-written programs could “calibrate”, adjust, average, and trend just about any kind of data you wanted. I mean I have HUGE data files from work that I treat this way, with no problems what so ever. Plus that way all of your “raw data” is sitting right beside any kind of HONEST adjustments that are made.

To me I think over complicating all the data manipulations, in a way that makes it harder for someone to double check their work, just makes it more suspicious.

I know exactly how you feel. I have been dealing with that for years in another area of pseudo-science. Your statement is also a perfect definition of evolutionists. Science has very little to do with the theory of evolution. It, like man-made global warming, is just another religion. “Science” takes a backseat to the pre-conceived notions of atheists. It’s a shame so many people are taken in by both of these hoaxes.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?s=Green+Fakers

The failure to disclose the codes really got me all hot and bothered, however. Not only is it detrimental to the scientific community, it hurts the integrity of the practice of science and relationship between the scientist and society as well.

The appropriate action would be for the journals which published the results-in-question to give the following ultimatum: disclose your codes and data analysis in full, or we’re yanking your papers.

Do you think GREENLAND was named as a joke?