CRU E-mails and data

[BUSHY]

I take that back, as I see more posts on code manipulation by various programmers familiar with FORTRAN etc. it is becoming clear that something is/was afoot.

[The PIT]

I wonder did Jones even bother checking what conditions the recording stations were in before using the data???

[VillagePlank]

The code is in IDL which looks like a cross between FORTRAN and C.

[BUSHY]

It seems so VP. There have been manipulations identified already but without the complete code it will be difficult to pin down.

(For instance, in the subfolder "osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog," there’s a program (Calibrate_mxd.pro) that calibrates the MXD data against available local instrumental summer (growing season) temperatures between 1911-1990, then merges that data into a new file. That file is then digested and further modified by another program (Pl_calibmxd1.pro), which creates calibration statistics for the MXD against the stored temperature and "estimates" (infills) figures where such temperature readings were not available. The file created by that program is modified once again by Pl_Decline.pro, which "corrects it" – as described by the author -- by "identifying" and "artificially" removing "the decline." <BR itxtvisited="1">But oddly enough, the series doesn’t begin its "decline adjustment" in 1960 -- the supposed year of the enigmatic "divergence." In fact, all data between 1930 and 1994 are subject to "correction."<BR itxtvisited="1">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html<BR itxtvisited="1">

Edited November 26, 2009 by BUSHY

[Devonian]

Dev dont be juvenile, you know what I mean.

And you know what I mean..

I wonder did Jones even bother checking what conditions the recording stations were in before using the data???

Deserving of a similarly contemptuous reply I think. So here goes....

Of course not, he's part of a vast global conspiracy to bring about socialism and world Govt by use of fear of AGW and then taxing us.

Well, what else can I say? You're whole idea is preposterous. I dunno, Phil Jones has been a climatologist for several decades, saying he wouldn't check his data is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson thinks a football is square

Edited November 26, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

Would it actually be the responsibility of just one person, for instance Jones, to check everything? Isn't it more likely that like any good boss he would delegate to qualified people who in turn would collate and report? I know of no organisation, large or small where all responsibility rests on one person.

Fall guy, place where the buck stops, but actually personally being responsible for everything? I doubt that very much.

[Chris Knight]

I think the leak was done by the government to focus attention away from the Iraq war enquiry. They probably thought we needed some harmless diversion whilst they salted away another enquiry under the governmental cloak of inadmissible evidence and evasive Blairite posturing.

If you want to tell a big lie, hide it among a load of little lies.

[The PIT]

And you know what I mean..

Deserving of a similarly contemptuous reply I think. So here goes....

Of course not, he's part of a vast global conspiracy to bring about socialism and world Govt by use of fear of AGW and then taxing us.

Well, what else can I say? You're whole idea is preposterous. I dunno, Phil Jones has been a climatologist for several decades, saying he wouldn't check his data is like saying Sir Alex Ferguson thinks a football is square

Not really. It's long way to Aussie land and we know they've used data from unchecked stations in the past. The presumption would be that stations are all okay. As we know from America thats not true in some cases.

[VillagePlank]

I suspect that the data is checked for statistical correctness, and station data that falls out of certain bounds, say, 3 standard deviations, is flagged for human intervention, or, more likely, the data is removed and is interpolated either from the time series from the station itself (the best way) or spatially averaged from surrounding, and correlating, stations (still good, but not so good - CET uses this method)

Nothing wrong with any of that. Someone might see it as fiddling, I suppose, and on the face of it, it is; but it's done in good faith based on centuries of time honoured scientific analysis - and it works. I use the same techniques at work in so that I can form reports for my Board of Directors that enable them to make informed decisions for the future.

Data is data is data; that some human being might attribute something more important to a number is neither here nor there - it is all dealt with in the same way.

Edited November 27, 2009 by VillagePlank

[VillagePlank]

I should add that if UEA are not using these methods, then there is something very seriously wrong - but I suspect they are, and that people will see such methods as evidence for people doing .... their job right.

Would it actually be the responsibility of just one person, for instance Jones, to check everything? Isn't it more likely that like any good boss he would delegate to qualified people who in turn would collate and report? I know of no organisation, large or small where all responsibility rests on one person.

Fall guy, place where the buck stops, but actually personally being responsible for everything? I doubt that very much.

Can't possibly do that - you have to defer to people who know more about something than you do. For instance, I very much doubt that PJ is an expert software engineer - if he was he'd probably be doing that as a job, since it's generally much better paid than scientific work. Therefore, he must employ people who will do what he asks. In an ideal world this means the generation of requirements, specifications, and design, before a piece of code is written.

We now know that this is not how the computer systems in PJ's remit were developed. They were developed piecemeal, it appears, over a very long period of time. Such is the case in many successful businesses. This means there will be errors, dead-code, inefficiencies etc etc throughout the code-base. This is expected, but it is NOT necessarily materially important. Many businesses run on the same basis - local councils are one class of business that comes to mind.

But what is does mean is that the chances that any one person being able to understand the structure of the software is very slim.

It needs to be rewritten. From scratch.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I think the leak was done by the government to focus attention away from the Iraq war enquiry. They probably thought we needed some harmless diversion whilst they salted away another enquiry under the governmental cloak of inadmissible evidence and evasive Blairite posturing.

If you want to tell a big lie, hide it among a load of little lies.

The BBC online news and BBC 24 is multiple stories on the Chilcot report but both mediums are completely silent when it comes to the leak and its significance.

Nice theory, back to the drawing board.

[Methuselah]

I should add that if UEA are not using these methods, then there is something very seriously wrong - but I suspect they are, and that people will see such methods as evidence for people doing .... their job right.

Can't possibly do that - you have to defer to people who know more about something than you do. For instance, I very much doubt that PJ is an expert software engineer - if he was he'd probably be doing that as a job, since it's generally much better paid than scientific work. Therefore, he must employ people who will do what he asks. In an ideal world this means the generation of requirements, specifications, and design, before a piece of code is written.

We now know that this is not how the computer systems in PJ's remit were developed. They were developed piecemeal, it appears, over a very long period of time. Such is the case in many successful businesses. This means there will be errors, dead-code, inefficiencies etc etc throughout the code-base. This is expected, but it is NOT necessarily materially important. Many businesses run on the same basis - local councils are one class of business that comes to mind.

But what is does mean is that the chances that any one person being able to understand the structure of the software is very slim.

It needs to be rewritten. From scratch.

Thanks for all your effort with this one, VP...Sometimes, we (including me) need to keep our opinions in-check until the knowledgable ones have had a proper look...

[SteveB]

A bit of a live debate on question time last night regarding the possible fabrication of information on global warming.

It's getting out there into the main stream now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/8382037.stm

[Methuselah]

Thanks for the link, Steve...IMO, both the professors (on the link within a link) talked sensibly and with erudition; and both made valid (if sometimes opposed) points...However, that Daily Mail 'hack' came-across (to me) as a bit of a nutjob???

[Chris Knight]

The BBC online news and BBC 24 is multiple stories on the Chilcot report but both mediums are completely silent when it comes to the leak and its significance.

Nice theory, back to the drawing board.

That's funny, I entered "Chilcot" into the Netweather TV forum seach box and only came up with a single hit - with your above post. I need to get out more...

[Chris Knight]

Homage to "Harry"

[Methuselah]

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That's funny, I entered "Chilcot" into the Netweather TV forum seach box and only came up with a single hit - with your above post. I need to get out more...

For a lot of people the Chilcot investigation is to confirm what everyone already knows.

For a lot of people Climategate confirms what was not popularly known.

So RE: Chilcot there is little to talk about that is new - that is why the BBC is giving it blanket coverage.

[Mr Maunder]

Thanks for the link, Steve...IMO, both the professors (on the link within a link) talked sensibly and with erudition; and both made valid (if sometimes opposed) points

Yes they did.

Just as important was the chairmanship of the debate by Andew Neil. He had obviuously done some prior preparation, asked some good questions and gave the two Professors time to make their own points. It does make a difference.

I contrast this to the rather poor "Newsnight" effort, earlier in the week, with Mr Paxman!

MM

[Devonian]

Yes they did.

Just as important was the chairmanship of the debate by Andew Neil. He had obviuously done some prior preparation, asked some good questions and gave the two Professors time to make their own points. It does make a difference.

I contrast this to the rather poor "Newsnight" effort, earlier in the week, with Mr Paxman!

MM

Professor Singer said of the little ice age 'the Thames used to freeze over every winter'. Oh no it didn't. He also said that for the last decade or so the planet has been cooling. Not correct.

[Methuselah]

Professor Singer said of the little ice age 'the Thames used to freeze over every winter'. Oh no it didn't. He also said that for the last decade or so the planet has been cooling. Not correct.

Both those statements (of yours) are true enough...What I meant to say was, that the professors both made their points (however incorrectly) politely...The 'hack' merely prognosticated her right-wing political bias, IMO...

[rob48]

"Actually, no, I'm rather enjoying it."

Not as much as I am.

[Devonian]

"Actually, no, I'm rather enjoying it."

Not as much as I am.

Good, then we're both happy. And, as ever, time and evidence, not allegation and conspiracy theory, will tell who is right.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Devonian

[DAVID SNOW]

Good, then we're both happy. And, as ever, time and evidence, not allegation and conspiracy theory, will tell who is right.

Indeed. Then no more need to post in this thread then, come back in say... 50 years?

[PersianPaladin]

I just can't see any evidence of a conspiracy...Is that because I'm not looking hard enough, or is said conspiracy just so brilliantly concealed that there isn't any evidence?

I cant see any evidence of a massive conspiracy here either. The only conspiracy I see (and its not really a conspiracy theory to be honest) is that big energy companies don't want to lose more of their capital-assets or risk losing them for carbon-credit derivatives that are a restrictive game and more along the lines of damage-control (and under too much influence of the big banks like Goldmann Sachs). Capital-intensive, labour-intensive and financial-sector businesses tend to form different blocks and naturally will form compromises or oppositions to such shifts in political-economic policies. The carbon-credits are perceived as another ponzi-scheme and not everybody in the corporate world are going to "buy" it.

Big energy companies based in the US are trying to discredit global-warming science. One potential reason is that cost-increases on capital-assets could damage profits for burgeoning markets. For example, the proposed Afghanistan TAPI gas pipeline could be rejected by India in favour of the cheaper Iranian IPI pipeline if GW legislation occurred.

So, people are being "played". The government and a few big banks are taking advantage of a real crisis, and the big energy companies are maintaining a false front of support for AGW whilst simultaneously funding anti-AGW front-groups.

I think people just look for conspiracies when its convenient to them. How much are people looking into this? Probably not very much in my view.

Edited November 27, 2009 by PersianPaladin