5 Dec

The Fudge-Factor In CRU’s Global Warming Data & How It Was Used

                                       

The BBC show “Newsnight” aired a show a few days ago that delves into the code the Climatic Research Unit used to dupe and scare the masses:

Newsbusters has a partial transcript:

“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.”

Then we have the British MET office. They issued this statement a few weeks back:

A statement from the Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.

The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world-class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change, now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

As three of the UK’s leading scientific organisations, involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.

~~~

These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections, giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming decades than have been seen so far.

And now? (via QandOBlog)

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

~~~

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

~~~

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

Sounds great, if the government will let them re-examine the data. But I think they need more then just a re-examination. They need a complete scrub of the scientists responsible for this scandal. They’ve lost all credibility and I doubt anyone will have much confidence in the data they will produce….except of course those who are getting rich and/or gaining power due to AGW. How in the world can they believe that allowing the old crew of scientists who fudged the data, to re-examine that data, will restore confidence?

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in ClimateGate, Environment, Global Warming, Politics, Science. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
| 342 views

6 Responses to The Fudge-Factor In CRU’s Global Warming Data & How It Was Used

  1. Magycian says: 1

    If the “Science is Settled” then it should be replicable. Even with the initial data having been dumped by Jones in the first place there should be a way of extracting non corrupted data all over again and begin the study once more. I understand that “millions of man hours” have been invested in this but that means the framework has already been built.

    ReplyReply
  2. Common Sense says: 2

    And what does airhead Boxer want to do?? Investigate the Email finder?? Could she be more stupid??

    ReplyReply
  3. RatDog says: 3

    In the words of the late, great Michael Crichton:

    I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

    (from http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html )

    ReplyReply
  4. George says: 4

    Oddly, they show the fudge factors up on the screen but they talk about a different dishonesty in the code.

    Forget about those “hide the decline” T-shirts. What you really want is a T-shirt with the fudge factors:
    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

    This is criminal.

    ReplyReply
  5. lucas says: 5

    This global warming scam is only just beginning to unwind.

    This interesting article shows how key CO2 monitoring stations seem to have somehow been located very close to active volcanos (huge CO2 emmiters) and other suspect areas of higher than normal CO2.

    You have to wonder how deep the scam goes or if it could be a coincidence of continual massive collective stupidity over a number of years by AGW cultists.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html


    Mauna Loa has been producing a readout which supports Manning’s predetermined goal by showing steady growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since 1959. This record, highlighted in Al Gore’s discredited movie An Inconvenient Truth, is known as the Keeling Curve. A graph of the curve is engraved on a bronze plaque mounted at the entrance to the Observatory’s Keeling Building, 10,000 feet above sea level on the rocky north flank of Mauna Loa. According to the Observatory website: “The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.”

    For some reason, they fail to mention the erupting volcano next door.

    ReplyReply
  6. tfhr says: 6

    The Brits will not embrace “Climate-gate”. It’s sounds too American and the BBC really hates that. They need a scandal to call their own, even if the fraud stemming from this manipulation of data is being perpetrated on a global scale.

    Someone else already coined “Climaqquidick”, to honor the cover-up and corresponding media acceptance, if not outright facilitation of a crime. Though it has already been used, I can’t help but repeat it here because I admire the common thread of rising water in that comparison as well.

    So with those options taken or rejected, allow me to be the first to offer up “Climatehenge“, a uniquely British creation that combines the much needed elements of religious faith for the faithless while preserving the illusion of a scientific fig leaf dangled from the slippery finger tips of political scientist and carbon credit entrepreneur, Al Gore.

    The suddenly inconvenient truth of manipulated climate data should have lit a fire beneath the Oscar and Nobel Prize recipient but so far I’ve not heard much from him. Maybe he is in consultation with Druids.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>