[BenV]

And then there is the inconvenient truth the 'ringleader' resigned his high position for SOME reason. The publication Nature seems to have a denialist problem of its own.

It's only right and proper that he stand down during the investigation - using this to claim something is amiss is a bit desperate.

[litespeed]

benV

The guy was, to all appearances, caught red handed leading an actual conspiracy to delete publicly owned data for the specific purpose of contaminating an upcoming audit. I await the 'results' of East Anglia's 'investigation', since Nature finds nothing even suspicious to bother with. How Nature expects their open and complete denial to benefit their cause escapes me entirely.

If there is anything desperate in the air it eminates from the foul Nature response that amounts to screaming THEFT THEFT THEFT, THE DENIERS DID IT, THE DENIERS DID IT! I experienced actual repulsion reading their angry and disengenuous tripe. In particular, they entirely ignore the conspiracy to delete data, and change the subject to other data issues entirely.

The entire paper simply drips with hatred and smear tactics and name calling. It disqusts me that "Science" has fallen to this Junior High School level that is not much more then "Your Mom Wears Combat Boots", but without the humor. But I am glad they wrote it. It reveals both the intellectual and moral depravity that has mestastisized and helps us understand the discussion in that way.

PS: I watched with dismay a similar progression in Scientific American that I have read and subscribe to since the 1960's. Over the years they began more and more to publish political editorial positions that seemed to me to have nothing to do with science but everything to do to ingratiate themselves to various leftist causes. I finally told them to cancel my subscription and keep the money.

It was downright icky, so Orwellian Right Think it made my skin crawl. Thank heavens for the internet. I can get all I need on Bell's Theorem, bubble universes and the higgs boson without the mediation of the scientific priesthood.  I feel like Martin Luther.

[profound]

The Great Global Warming Swindle has finally been exposed folks and it is a shocking revalation as to when a collection or group of so called scientists get together to defraud the world and impose their horrible lies and falsehood religion on a unsuspecting and unquestioning etablishmentand ordinary folk are made to suffer their lies.


I spent a week reading the "Climategate’s Climategate’s “Harry Read Me” File is a Must Read!" at
 http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/11/30/climategates-harry-read-me-file-is-a-must-read/


and , and and Oh My God have I ever read such a shoddy and ramshackle ad hoc collection of absolute haphazard collection of corrupt data to support their false god of global warming.

I urge everyone to save this on to their pc and read it intently.

Here is a small sample:-

- “It’s botch after botch after botch.” (18)

- “The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the network died … no explanation from anyone, I hope it’s not a return to last year’s troubles … This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.” (31)

- “Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.” (37)

- “… this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!” (45)

- “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)

- “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)

- “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)

- “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)...

and on and on....

The amount of stupidity in this small sample file demonstrated by scientists is just shocking.

Like a collection of laid back fat school boys to obese to do any actual work they
sit back on their pc twiddling data which they don't understand in file formats which they have not a clue about and wily nily adjusting the data to match a predetermined agenda.

They should all be prosecuted for fraud and made to pay all the money wasted on funding them and their fake worthless studies.


here is the whole file:-


http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-harry-read_me-file/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
another small sample of the ad-hoc fudges:-

#

; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

[[[ this creates 20 consequtive 5 year subsets (possibly averaged) of the tree ring data by date starting in year 1904 ]]]

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

[[[ these are the 20 different "fudge factor(s)"-the programmer's words not mine - to be applied to the 20 different subsets of data, so here are those fudge factors with the corresponding years for the 20 consequtive 5 year periods:

Year Fudge Factor
1904 0
1909 0
1914 0
1919 0
1924 0
1929 -0.1
1934 -0.25
1939 -0.3
1944 0
1949 -0.1
1954 0.3
1959 0.8
1964 1.2
1969 1.7
1974 2.5
1979 2.6
1984 2.6
1989 2.6
1994 2.6
1999 2.6

a little further down the program adjusts the 20 datasets with the corresponding fudge factors: ]]]

;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

[[[ So, we leave the data alone from 1904-1928, adjust downward a bit for 1929-1943 (different bits), leave the same for 1944-1948, adjust down a little more for 1949-1953, and then, whoa, start an exponential fudge upward (guess that would be the “VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE” noted by the programmer). Might this result in data which don’t show the desired trend or god forbid show a global temperature “DECLINE” after “VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION” turn into a hockey schtick – I mean stick ? and “HIDE THE DECLINE”? You bet it would!
#
2009 November 25


Ian permalink


you call that science?

[BenV]

We've discussed this elsewhere.  I'll merge this post in with the previous thread.

[LeeE]

Climate Change Denialists (CCDs) annoy me just as much as Climate Change Evangelists (CCEs).  That apparent errors have been found in the arguments of the CCEs doesn't prove the arguments of the CCDs.

However, it certainly does mean that just about all of the work done on climate change now needs to be re-done, pretty much from scratch, before we really know what's going on.

[yor_on]

As I understood it they got access to a backup server. It all depends on if they have used that backup or not. If they haven't had any need for it then the main server should be non-compromised, and also be able to use to compare if data has been changed. I hope it is that it haven't been compromised. Otherwise I don't hold to anyone manipulating something as important as the climate and what data we collect on that. So there will certainly be an investigation, but what I found really bad was the way researchers seems to be treated.

---Quote-
Researchers are barred from publicly releasing meteorological data from many countries owing to contractual restrictions. Moreover, in countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the national meteorological services will provide data sets only when researchers specifically request them, and only after a significant delay. The lack of standard formats can also make it hard to compare and integrate data from different sources. Every aspect of this situation needs to change: if the current episode does not spur meteorological services to improve researchers' ease of access, governments should force them to do so.
---End of quote--

That seems just plain stupid to me.