It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.
The program code however is different.
It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.
Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.
So now everyone has the code.
However now the CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.
It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.
If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries
It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.
Testimony of Richard C. Levin
President, Yale University
Committee on the Environment and Public Works
April 3, 2008
"The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the
end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees."
Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75);
The human contribution to global warming:
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
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
Slashdot Mirror
RE: What am I missing.
Phil got 22+ million over 10 years.
It is understandable that many people have latched on to the emails, but in their defense the people at CRU indicate that the emails are ‘without context’ or somehow ‘normal banter’ in a scientific institution.
The program code however is different.
It is the actual program code, the modeling code that contains the most damaging evidence. I am not talking about the 'comments' in the code but rather the actual computer program source code itself.
Unlike comments and emails the computer code can only be interpreted in one way. Unlike the comments and the emails the computer code is whole unto it self and requires no external context.
So now everyone has the code.
However now the CRU have somehow ‘lost’ the world’s raw climate data that they used in their modeling.
It may have been necessary for them to have lost the raw temperature data. If the raw temperature data was available then they might be asked to reproduce Exactly The Same Results, in front of skeptical witnesses, as they had used in their peer-reviewed publications that were distributed to the world. This might have been impossible without using some infected modeling code, which an investigating scientist might discover.
If the results can not be reproduced the paper that used the results should be withdrawn. Then every paper that cited that paper, and so on until the whole web of pseudo-science that can be traced back to the original fabrication has been purged from the libraries
It is not scientific unless an independent body can reproduce the results.
Please see also:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
For a satirical look and the programming fraud:
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
The human contribution to global warming:
---
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
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
---
That code is from the IDL program:
FOI2009/FOIA/documents/harris/tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro
Those numbers where typed in by a human to adjust the results of the data.
They are not from the data.
Those number may be the cause of human induced global warming.
Testimony of Richard C. Levin President, Yale University Committee on the Environment and Public Works April 3, 2008 "The Panel concluded that, in the absence of corrective measures, global temperatures are likely to rise between 1 and 6 degrees centigrade by the end of this century, with the best estimates ranging between 2 and 4 degrees." Actually Richard, your a bit high but very close, but I think it will be about 1.95 degrees (2.6 * 0.75); The human contribution to global warming: 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 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x) densall=densall+yearlyadj