The Warmergate Scandal

[Oddball]

To recap:

I. As I've said in Cairo, as a science Climatology falls solidly between phrenology and palmistry

b. Gravity is not "Settled science" and I'm not being coy either look up the "Pioneer Anomaly" there is either something fundamentally amiss with our understanding of gravity or there are other forces at work in our Universe, so how the fuck can you have any confidence in this stupid ManMade Global Warming model?

iii. Obama is an asshole

Maybe they just need some more "peer review".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FI0pDQOW4[/ame]

 

[Annie]

Liberal Credo:

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein

Indeed. Seems where they were going. I'm not saying the opposition wouldn't have done likewise, but never had the chance. Too bad for the libs. Truth to tell, I don't think that the right would have pushed for science data to prove points. OTOH, didn't see the left doing, more so the organizations went down for falsehood.

Costs? Unbelievable! Not just US, but Europe, Asia. The arguments were good, but without the truth? Undermined.

 

[Oddball]

Liberal Credo:

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein

They did it with so-called "second hand" cigarette smoke and got away with peddling the bunk to the gullible, so they probably figgered to go for the BIG whopper all at once.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.

Would they be in the same category of the "Big OILLLL is funding the denier scientists" nutjobs?

all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Ever hear of group think? Like the journalist who apologized and admitted he should have been more skeptical, these you have listed should apologize as well, for all they mostly did was parrot what they were spoonfed.

Sort of like you.

I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.

Doesn't that really, truly say it all?

scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories

"Bought off scientists" doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to you Jay? Do you not see the towering irony in your own desperate, flailing posts? Have you NO shame?

More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.

The FIRST thing we need, is to STOP all laws current or proposed, which are based on this HOAX until we really and truly get the SCIENCE clean.

Agreed?

 

[Annie]

No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.

Would they be in the same category of the "Big OILLLL is funding the denier scientists" nutjobs?

all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Ever hear of group think? Like the journalist who apologized and admitted he should have been more skeptical, these you have listed should apologize as well, for all they mostly did was parrot what they were spoonfed.

Sort of like you.
Doesn't that really, truly say it all?

scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories

"Bought off scientists" doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to you Jay? Do you not see the towering irony in your own desperate, flailing posts? Have you NO shame?

More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.

The FIRST thing we need, is to STOP all laws current or proposed, which are based on this HOAX until we really and truly get the SCIENCE clean.

Agreed?

All I can say, if after all the 'climate change' dissemination, they screwed all social and hard sciences. Unless the scientific communities comes forward, big problems ahead.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

All I can say, if after all the 'climate change' dissemination, they screwed all social and hard sciences. Unless the scientific communities comes forward, big problems ahead.

I just want to see all pending legislation and laws STOPPED immediately which are/were even loosely based on this HOAX, until we get some actual science.

Actual science which always begins with, "We do not know."

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.

I know enough to say "WHOA" to lawmakers, as you and everyone else should. Especially now.

Or, have you no desire to actually get whatever we do RIGHT? Shouldn't we KNOW with absolutely NO doubt whatsoever that climate laws we pass are based on incontrovertible, unbiased and unmolested SCIENCE?

If you have studied this latest controversy, and come away from that study with no doubts, you're simply dishonest with even yourself.

 

[concept]

I want to make hot monkey love with this thread!

 

[Oddball]

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.

I know that someone rolled over on the globalcliamatecoolerwarmering "scientists" you so worship...Who have been, among other things, FAKING EVIDENCE.

And theirs aren't the only dirty hands, because scads of other "scientists", who have been the oh-so vaunted "peers" that you also worship, have signed off on the veracity of that bogus data.

If these people had that feared and loathed (R) next to their names (like, saaaaaay, Richard Nixon) you be pissing yourself.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.

I know that someone rolled over on the globalcliamatecoolerwarmering "scientists" you so worship...Who have been, among other things, FAKING EVIDENCE.

And theirs aren't the only dirty hands, because scads of other "scientists", who have been the oh-so vaunted "peers" that you also worship, have signed off on the veracity of that bogus data.

If these people had that feared and loathed (R) next to their names (like, saaaaaay, Richard Nixon) you be pissing yourself.

Obama himself said it, and look how prophetic it is now:

"What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is, not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence."

A confidence game. Where the con man dupes the Marks on a massive scale. That's what Goebbels Warming is, in a nutshell.

And Marks like the press, politicians, OldCrocks, chris, Jay Cumsuck and their ilk don't care if we get it right, only that their side "wins."

 

[Sinatra]

Well, for sure, you sure as hell don't know anything.

I know that someone rolled over on the globalcliamatecoolerwarmering "scientists" you so worship...Who have been, among other things, FAKING EVIDENCE.

And theirs aren't the only dirty hands, because scads of other "scientists", who have been the oh-so vaunted "peers" that you also worship, have signed off on the veracity of that bogus data.

If these people had that feared and loathed (R) next to their names (like, saaaaaay, Richard Nixon) you be pissing yourself.

Obama himself said it, and look how prophetic it is now:

"What you see in FDR that I hope my team can emulate is, not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence."

A confidence game. Where the con man dupes the Marks on a massive scale. That's what Goebbels Warming is, in a nutshell.

And Marks like the press, politicians, OldCrocks, chris, Jay Cumsuck and their ilk don't care if we get it right, only that their side "wins."

Sadly that is very true...

 

[Diuretic]

While I don't believe the debate is necessarily over, this revelation and scandal cast into serious doubt not only the "research" of the CRU, but all those who reviewed and verified it as accurate and those whose subsequent findings were based upon both CRU's cooked numbers and the conclusions of those reviewers.

This is an instance where nearly everyone within the AGW academic/political structure could well have the misinformation clap.

Indeed they might. I have no doubt that science, like any other human endeavour, is capable of producing egotistical, lying bastards (although politics has science snookered on that one) and if there's been skullduggery here then the individuals who perpetrated it should be sorted out. We know that more than one researcher has been busted for making data fit a hypothesis, but then sometimes that assertion loses it effect in the wake of further knowledge. Sometimes intuition is ahead of current knowledge

Oil-drop experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But that's not an excuse for wholesale fabrication. And as I say, if that is the case here then get the pitchforks out. Anyway this isn't bad thing, it's good to have a bit of sunlight (sorry) on an issue to see what's really going on.

This is not to refute or acknowledge the OP, it is only FYI and is something I have suspected for a couple of decades. It's the proverbial tip of the iceberg and relates to part of your post.

I admit I'm somewhat trusting of science and scientists. I have to say I trust them more than I trust the spokespeople for polluting companies or scientists who have been put on the payroll of the aforesaid companies. Funnily enough I've just been reading a few bits and pieces from Paul Feyerabend, on resisting science. I haven't finished the articles yet but I have to say he presents a really interesting way of looking at science.

But scientists like every other human, have their weaknesses and some might have a weakness for money and some may have a weakness for fame. I always loved that story about Watson and Crick in a pub in England when they sort of intuitively came up with the double helix theory (after a few pints). But then on the sidelines there's the story about Rosalind Franklin. So yes, there can be all kinds of problems there, as I said, they're only human.

However I'm not willing to make the statement that it's all fiction about climate change, not at all. I want to see a useful and informative debate on the facts as we know them and anything we can reasonably extrapolate from them. What I find obnoxious is the ideological battle across the divide. That's the problem.

 

[Diuretic]

No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.

Would they be in the same category of the "Big OILLLL is funding the denier scientists" nutjobs?

all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Ever hear of group think? Like the journalist who apologized and admitted he should have been more skeptical, these you have listed should apologize as well, for all they mostly did was parrot what they were spoonfed.

Sort of like you.
Doesn't that really, truly say it all?

scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories

"Bought off scientists" doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to you Jay? Do you not see the towering irony in your own desperate, flailing posts? Have you NO shame?

More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.

The FIRST thing we need, is to STOP all laws current or proposed, which are based on this HOAX until we really and truly get the SCIENCE clean.

Agreed?

I don't know how many laws have been proposed in various places. I do know here that there's a huge blue about it and the federal governments Emissions Trading Scheme. I'm not going to take on anyone else's domestic legal situation.

But I do see this as a bit of luck. For too long the debate has been conducted on, can I say, two levels, maybe more but I can only think of two. First there's the scientific debate. Occasionally us laypersons get to see a bit of it, usually when someone's pissing out of the tent, but then they go back to furiously arguing with each other in terms that most of us wouldn't understand. What's needed there is a few umpires and a video replay. The second level is the ideological level which is where many of us are at. We take positions based on our political views and yell at one another and call each other Sceptics or Denialists or variants. It's the equivalent of intra-tribal warfare.

I don't see the debates being any clearer soon, I just hope to hell that it gets sorted out before too long.

 

[Ravi]

Liberal Credo:

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein

Except in this thread, it is the "conservatives" doing just that.

 

[Annie]

It's the code:

Pajamas Media » Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story

Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story
Posted By Charlie Martin On November 24, 2009 @ 4:09 pm In . Column1 02, . Positioning, Computers, Environment, Politics, Science, Science & Technology, US News | 38 Comments

So far, most of the Climategate attention has been on the emails in the data dump of November 19 (see here [1], here [2], and here [3]), but the emails are only about 5 percent of the total. What does examining the other 95 percent tell us?

Here’s the short answer: it tells us that something went very wrong in the data management at the Climatic Research Unit.

We start with a file called “HARRY_READ_ME.txt.” This is a file containing notes of someone’s three-year effort to try to turn a pile of existing code and data into something useful. Who is Harry, you ask? Clearly, a skilled programmer with some expertise in data reduction, statistics, and climate science. Beyond that I won’t go. I’ve seen sites attributing this file to an identifiable person, but I don’t have any corroboration, and frankly the person who wrote these years of notes has suffered enough.

The story the file tells is of a programmer who started off with a collection of code and data — and the need to be able to replicate some results. The first entry:

1. Two main filesystems relevant to the work:

/cru/dpe1a/f014

/cru/tyn1/f014

Both systems copied in their entirety to /cru/cruts/

Nearly 11,000 files! And about a dozen assorted “read me” files addressing individual issues, the most useful being:

fromdpe1a/data/stnmon/doc/oldmethod/f90_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/linux/cruts/_READ_ME.txt

fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/README_GRIDDING.txt

(yes, they all have different name formats, and yes, one does begin ‘_’!)

Believe it or not, this tells us quite a bit. “Harry” is starting off with two large collections of data on a UNIX or UNIX-like system (forward slashes, the word “filesystem”) and only knows very generally what the data might be. He has copied it from where it was to a new location and started to work on it. Almost immediately, he notices a problem:

...

Actually seems that others start feeling sorry for poor, overworked Harry:

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Yeah, CBS believe it or not!

...In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...​

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.
...

 

[Annie]

Liberal Credo:

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. -Albert Einstein

They did it with so-called "second hand" cigarette smoke and got away with peddling the bunk to the gullible, so they probably figgered to go for the BIG whopper all at once.

So true.

 

[Annie]

No, you are now officially conspiracy theorists.

Would they be in the same category of the "Big OILLLL is funding the denier scientists" nutjobs?

all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world state that global Warming is a fact, is a clear and present danger, and that we are the primary cause of it.

Ever hear of group think? Like the journalist who apologized and admitted he should have been more skeptical, these you have listed should apologize as well, for all they mostly did was parrot what they were spoonfed.

Sort of like you.
Doesn't that really, truly say it all?

scientists they can buy off so all they are left with is conspiracy theories

"Bought off scientists" doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to you Jay? Do you not see the towering irony in your own desperate, flailing posts? Have you NO shame?

More premature acclamation. Debate over? I think not. What we need are facts and what we need is an understanding of how science is done and what has been happening in this trail of emails which goes back, I believe, some years. We need to know the current state of knowledge about the claims concerning climate change. The debate is far from over.

The FIRST thing we need, is to STOP all laws current or proposed, which are based on this HOAX until we really and truly get the SCIENCE clean.

Agreed?

It's possible that there might be some looking at the costs to the public:

Instapundit » Blog Archive » CLIMATEGATE: If these were internal Exxon-Mobil e-mails, the trial lawyers would be racing out th…

 

[Annie]

Knew this was coming:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

Knew this was coming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

Yep, because even debunked rightwingnut claims sound real if they are repeated often enough.