Click to get your own widget

Monday, November 23, 2009


For the first few days the news has been about the emails because they are accessible. Now we are starting to see people having had the time to check the data. I am certainly not qualified to do this but it seems to be very much the sort of thing one would expect from pseudo scientists rather than the real sort.

Via Devil's Kitchen:
The hacked e-mails were damning, but the problems they had handling their own data at CRU are a dagger to the heart of the global warming “theory.” There is a large file of comments by a programmer at CRU called HARRY_READ_ME documenting that their data processing and modeling functions were completely out of control.

They fudged so much that NOTHING that came out of CRU can have ANY believability. If the word can be gotten out on this and understood it is the end of the global warming myth. This much bigger than the e-mails. For techie take on this see:
There is another problem: the values are anomalies, whereas the 'public' .grim files are actual values.
How handy - naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!
dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead of 600!!!
This isn't science, it's gradeschool for people with big data sets.
the filenames in the _mon and _ann directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet both contain monthly files.
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.
There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
WattsUpWithThat has
As soon as the emails became public showing Professor Jones saying had used "Nature's trick .... to hide the decline"

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Ok fine, but how Dr. Jones, do you explain this?

There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:

"People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing."
Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.

This all rather reminds me of the findings of Professor Wegman when he was called in by Congress to say whether Mann's Hockey Stick maths were correct, as he insisted, or wrong as Stephen McIntyre said. His conclusion is limited by the fact that he is a gentleman & writing for Congress & I assume has not had access to the raw data here but:


In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis.

However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the
narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has
been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

We are clearly seeing persons not even competent to do statistical analysis masquerading as scientists This is snake oil of the first order & since politicians do have real scientists, like Professor Wegman, to call on the fact that they & our obedient journalists have deliberately limited themselves to these fraudsters & proclaimed them to be the scientific "consensus" & provided them with such excessive amounts of money (£13.7 million to Jones) cannot be coincidence. The only answer which remotely fits the facts is that since "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." (Mencken) they quite deliberately hired these charlatans to pump up a scare story because, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, they needed another hobgoblin.

This has a long way to run yet - these people are just the hired assassins, it is the hirers who count. The BBC, naturally, are still censoring.

Richard Black of the BBC has been muzzled. It is official the BBC is involved in a massive cover up.

Update 2309: Because comments were posted quoting excerpts apparently from the hacked Climate Research Unit e-mails, and because there are potential legal issues connected with publishing this material, we have temporarily removed all comments until we can ensure that watertight oversight is in place.
(comment 09:40:01)

Labels: , ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.