Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I wanna go
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579350,00.html

You can take the Goreacle's® place...he won't be attending.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nigel99 572]

Quote

Quote

You know, if they had to seek private funds, for their work, they'd all be out, getting a real job.

Yeah, 'cos we all know that science isn't really work... it's just a cushy old boys club, right?

My housmate's just started a PhD, he's in the lab maybe 10 hours a day, often in on weekends and spends a whole lot of his evenings at home reading through literature in the field, working through results data and designing his next experiments. All for what probably works out as somewhat less than minimum wage.

Bloody slacker needs to get out and see how the real world works!

I have worked with PhD and university proffessors and having a PhD does NOT correlate with having real world "knowledge". To quote one of my staff yesterday "during my PhD I was told NOT to include practical considerations in my research". This discussion is the result of us working with a client who are all PhD's with many years academic experience and no exposure to industry - it is very enlightening.

My personal take on global warming is that there are proven cycles of hot and cold periods, while man MIGHT be contributing I don't believe we know enough to be certain we are the main cause. To address Bill's allegation that industry stands to benefit from denial and government's don't benefit from manipulating data, I don't believe that is true. Certainly here in the UK the government HAS to raise taxes to avoid a severe crisis in public funding and it is politically beneficial to implement a "feel good" tax to avoid the backlash of simply raising taxes. That has got to be a huge insentive to find a friendly tax vehicle that people actively pursue.

That said reasons to tackle our consumption of fossil fuels and reduce polution are justifiable regardless of the weather.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[rushmc 23]

Keep praying to your AWG position

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/05/bbc-exposes-fudge-factor-climategate-global-warming-computer-programming-

Newsmax is where I found it
Care to check on your BBC source?

Quote

BBC Exposes 'Fudge Factor' in ClimateGate Global Warming Computer Programming Code
By Jeff Poor
December 5, 2009 - 11:46 ET

Even the BBC didn't let this scoop get away.

A segment on the Dec. 3 broadcast of BBC's "Newsnight," showed the implications of the story behind the so-called "ClimateGate" scandal are more than just e-mails concealing data, but an incompetence analyzing the data by way of faulty computer code.

John Graham-Cumming, a British programmer known for the open source "POPFile email filtering program" explained how the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had wholesale problems with its computer programming analyzing climate change data, with billion, if not even trillions of dollars, on the line.


"This is the source code from the Climatic Research Unit," Susan Watts, science editor at the BBC explained. "John Graham-Cumming is a software engineer. He's not a skeptic on climate change, but he is shocked by what he's seen in the programming. He compared it with the code in the same language written by NASA."

Graham-Cumming criticized the CRU programming for its lack of professionalism and showed faults with it.

"Well, if you look at the NASA stuff, it's really professional," Graham-Cumming said. "You can look at it, you can see the history. If you look at -- what's done here by these alleged CRU files - it's not the thing you'd expect to see in certainly a commercial industry. You would not see this sort of source code because it's not clearly documented. There's not audit history of what's happened to it. So it would be below the standard in any commercial software. "

According to the author of "The Geek Atlas," the programmer even included steps to skip over errors, which shows some of the data analyzed by the East Anglia CRU is completely neglected.

"The programming language actually has a problem," Graham-Cumming said. "And they put in some code to deal with that error. Unfortunately, in doing so they produced another error. And the upshot of this is the error occurs - the underlying error, they will skip over data that they're trying to plot without any warning to the end user. So in some sense there is data that is being lost."

The programmer, unnamed in the BBC segment, even documented his lack of programming skills.

"So in here, he says some things like, ‘Something is very wrong - it's my programming ability, isn't it,'" Graham-Cumming explained. "‘You know, once again, it's further confirmation my abilities are below what is required here.'"

Watts questioned if someone was betting billions or trillions of dollars, should they "be comfortable with" it and Graham-Cumming explained it wasn't.

"I don't think I would be comfortable with that because it is not obvious what it is doing, why it is doing it," Graham-Cumming said. "It needs to be made clear."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Couldn't find the 'fudge factor' referred to, but the 'something is wrong' comment is basically correct.

From the Harry-Read-Me file

Quote

Something is very poorly. It's my programming skills, isn't it.

Of course, then there's comments like:

Quote

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all -
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

I feel sorry for Harry....poor bastard.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Snipped from the blog of the science guy at the Houston Chronicle:

Quote

I got an e-mail today titled, "Global Warming lecture postponed due to cooling." Oh, the irony.

Texas A&M's Gerald North was due to give a lecture on global warming's impact on Texas this Friday at the University of Texas in Austin. As the e-mail went on to explain, "Given the travel advisories issued and the likelihood of freezing weather for the Austin area tomorrow evening, we are postponing the December 4 event, Global Warming - Lone Star Impacts."

Heh.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Couldn't find the 'fudge factor' referred to, but the 'something is wrong' comment is basically correct.

From the Harry-Read-Me file

Quote

Something is very poorly. It's my programming skills, isn't it.

Of course, then there's comments like:

Quote

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all -
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

I feel sorry for Harry....poor bastard.

There are some on this site I should feel sorry for.. ... ... .... but I dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,078]

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

[rushmc 23]

Let's see,
manipulated date
manipulated peer review process
dumped data
information withheld
and now
bad code?

Have I missed anything?

I know the AWG people have......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

*rolls eyes*

Looks like the alarmists have a bit of a 'credibility gap'.

Weak argument.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

Hmm, did you say that when Newts cell phone conversation was taped?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

Please kneel for the hockey stick.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

Of course you have supported "whistle" blowers info in the past saying it is the right of the people to know. How do you feel that this may be a whisle blower as apposed to a hacker sir?

Never mind. I forget we are talking religion here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[d16842 0]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

Criminal... Interesting choice of words. As the former leader of a defense contractor R&D lab, I know that is exactly what the US government would soon be calling defense researchers who knowingly submitted false data and received funding from their use of it.

Tom B

[rushmc 23]

You know Bill

It must be tough being an AWG supporter these days

Being a “denier” the worst I can be accused of is being wrong.

But, being an AWG supporter these days means one could be accused of fraud.

And rightfully so


Personally, I would rather be wrong.

You?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,078]

Three replies to one of my posts! Your blood must be boiling tonight.

> How do you feel that this may be a whisle blower as apposed to a
>hacker sir?

Because he obtained them illegally. Keep supporting him, though; shows your religion's true colors.

[rushmc 23]

Fraud ?
....or wrong?

By the way, who is "him"?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Three replies to one of my posts! Your blood must be boiling tonight.

> How do you feel that this may be a whisle blower as apposed to a
>hacker sir?

Because he obtained them illegally. Keep supporting him, though; shows your religion's true colors.

And what did you think of Newts cell phone conversation being "stolen"?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And

My "blood is boiling"?



No, not really

I am having fun seeing your religion destroyed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

And
I can not think of a forth point responce but
I thought I would try and set a record anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Three replies to one of my posts! Your blood must be boiling tonight.

Bubbling in mirth, perhaps - hardly boiling.

Quote

> How do you feel that this may be a whisle blower as apposed to a
>hacker sir?

Because he obtained them illegally. Keep supporting him, though; shows your religion's true colors.

So, you're saying that Ellsberg was a criminal, too? Quite a departure from your support of the Pentagon Papers leak, but I guess that's what happens when that gerin oil kicks in, eh Bill?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyChimp 0]

Haven't you heard Chicken Little? The sky is falling.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Criminals - the new leaders of the denier movement. No wonder no one takes them seriously.

The hacking of the e-mails was wrong. I hope whomever is responsible is found. Two wrongs do no make a right.

Whomever hacked Palin's e-mails was wrong, but it seems that the information gleaned from those was rather useful in assisting with the determination of whether we want this person helping to set the future of human events.

Here, these e-mails are really pretty good at showing a degree of nefariousness at worst. At best, they show a degree of arrogance. I tend to see something in the middle - that they are self-interested people seeking to be the ones who will lead the planet to their vision of what it should be.

Gavin Schmidt is right - these e-mails do NOT show efforts to get rid of the Medievel Climate Optimum. They do not indicate any for of denial of these existences.

I read realclimate.org frequently. I also note the frequenmt musings of those such as kallend who value peer reviewed literature nearly to the exclusion of others. This is an appropriate attitude in an academic sense.

Some of these e-mails, however, give creedence to the thought that climayte science is dominated by a clique mentality. Mann himself made suggestions of boycotting submissions to journals, keeping certain scientists off of peer review panels, and simply not submitting certain papers for peer review.

By excluding "contrarians" from the peer review process only that which is not contrary will be considered. The "peer reviewed" science will be unanimous!

This, of course, is not science! This is arrogance.

there was a comment from a researcher (whose name escapes me) that it was a "travesty" that sufficient quality data is not available to him. He explained that he meant that this data will ensure he can prove what is going on. This is, of course, conclusion before science. He knows the answer and cannot prove it until he has this non-existent data.

Bill - that fella's e-mail explains my cynicism perfectly. He doesn't have proof. He is forced to say in public that he does not have proof. This would be privately revealed to inner circle, but the public will hear only that weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq AGW is unquestionable and requiring trillions of dollars to save the world.

I have written in the past about politics driving science. This is an example of it. And it is biting back - hard.

I am also not saying that this whole matter was intended or deliberate. Scientists are human. Whenever you put a group of like-minded people in together they tend to feed each other and be fed by groupthink. This is the natural effect of peer selection. The Christian religion is not interested in having pagans assist in its policy pronouncements. You won't find a "contrarian" on the admin board at realclimate any more than you'll find a proponent on climateaudit. Realclimate is aligned with a point of view.

Both sides have something to prove. Both sides want to be correct. And dammit, they'll do what they can to make sure they are, at least, not proven wrong.

P.s. Having read loads of climate science and blogs over the last couple of years, I am fed up with climate scientists' use of the adjective "robust." they use it to describe everything from debate, warming, etc. "How are you feeling today?" "Robust!"

I've been far too busy personally and professionally to comment on this - or anything else - lately.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,078]

>Having read loads of climate science and blogs over the last couple of
>years, I am fed up with climate scientists' use of the adjective "robust."

That seems akin to a scientist who reads legal blogs and gets fed up with the use of the term "speculative."

>You won't find a "contrarian" on the admin board at realclimate any more
>than you'll find a proponent on climateaudit. Realclimate is aligned with a
>point of view.

Looking on the front page of Realclimate today, we have an article stating "the science isn't settled" when it comes to climate.

Looks like your statement is incorrect.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That seems akin to a scientist who reads legal blogs and gets fed up with the use of the term "speculative."

I know this. I take it you found the hint of sarcasm in the response.

Quote

>You won't find a "contrarian" on the admin board at realclimate any more
>than you'll find a proponent on climateaudit. Realclimate is aligned with a
>point of view.

Looking on the front page of Realclimate today, we have an article stating "the science isn't settled" when it comes to climate.

Looks like your statement is incorrect.

it seems that the admins of realclimate are pretty much a direct opposite of climateaudit. they say the science isn't settled. yep. degrees of confidence, however.

but go back to september, 2009. There was a post called, "Communicating Science: Not Just Talking the Talk." here's a snippet;

Quote

What Randy has to say may be tough to hear, but its tough love. He provides some very important lessons on what works and what doesn’t, and they ring true to us in our own experience with public outreach. In short, says Randy: Tell a good story; Arouse expectations and then fulfill them; Don’t be so Cerebral; And, last but certainly not least: Don’t be so unlikeable (i.e. don’t play to the stereotype of the arrogant, dismissive academic or the nerdy absent-minded scientist).

then read the comments to the post that are directly at odds with what they sought to do by making the post.

This is an issue - a huge issue. E-mails like those mentioned add fuel to the fire.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,108]

We return to our normal programming:

www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09climate.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.