The "climategate" scandal just gets better and better. "Programmers all over the world have begun wading through the code and they have been stunned by how bad it is. It’s quite clearly amateurish and nothing but an accumulation of seat-of-the-pants hacks and patches."
<http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10399.html#more-10399> The real kicker is in the comments of the second programmer. He COULD NOT reproduce the original results on the original data set. (WTF? no source code control?) so, finally.. "Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full." <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html > Which sounds great until you read this. "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based." "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece"; So not only is the original data NOT going to be released, just the "massaged" data, they actually can't even get their hands on the original. "In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” Bullshit. Unless someone wants to argue that science is based on faith, data not available and not reproducible is worse than no data at all. It is especially egregious if a large organization like the IPCC uses this supposed data to advise the UN on climate issues. Their own programmer, by his own admission, could not reproduce their conclusions when he had access to the original data set but some how the "value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data" is magically to be believed. Scientifically, We must say that ALL of the conclusions based in this data are therefore invalid. No peer review possible, no data available and the comments of the programmer says that the original conclusions cannot be duplicated.. Am I arguing against AGW? No. I believe in GW (more or less) I don't know what to think about the contribution of "A". I'm arguing that none of their conclusions can be trusted, and by extension any IPCC report that uses their data must be assumed to be flawed. Which brings me to this email from the CRU (note the subject line) "From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann” Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones" and “From Phil Jones: "If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.” When you ask someone to DELETE emails related to a Freedom Of Information request you are likely hiding something or committing fraud. It's not like they were discussing holding back personal information, they are talking about holding back information that might affect every person on earth.. As a scientist, that is bad juju no matter how you try to explain it away. IMHO, even the suggestion of deleting emails to avoid FOI is grounds for dismissal. Suggestion it to several people should require a conspiracy investigation to see if they all actually acted on that suggestion. When you say that you will "hide behind" agreements to avoid releasing data that supposedly proves your claim of AGW you confirm that you have no desire to be open and honest with data that might have world wide significance. Of course this all begs the question, why the fuck does anyone need to use the FOI to get the data? If it's good then you should demand to publish it where EVERYONE can have a look. If AGW is a fact, then refusing to share the data and "allowing" the controversy to continue while you "hide" it from FOI requests, your actions will cost human lives. Anyone on the list a real scientist? If so, do you delete your data when asked for it or try to figure out how to "hide" behind agreements to avoid letting others review your work? Does "the dog ate my data" work as an excuse at your university? It doesn't at mine. How about if you claim your results are so important that the world MUST act on them to save the planet? Would your first thought be to keep it away from people and avoid an FOI request? It doesn't pass the smell test, does it? No backup for the most important data on the planet, with world wide ramifications? WTF?!! No source code control for the code that takes that data and manipulates it? Are you fucking kidding me? If this is indeed "change the world" importance and not just out right fraud, then why the hell were the data not backed up? Oh but it gets EVEN better.. Look at this bit of THEIR code <http://www.qando.net/?p=5936> (look at the graphic) "This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century" As they say. "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" When their own code has a, and I quote, "Fudge Factor" that just "happens" to produce the famous Hockey Stick" AND the original data has gone missing, then we must assume that fraud is afoot. That Fudge Factor, gentlemen might literally be the smoking gun that people will use to claim climate change fraud. "It's not", they will say? No problem. Just show me the data and explain your reasoning for *forcing* a hockey stick to appear out of no where. What? No Data? Under the BEST reading. That the data was accurate and important, that the code ran perfectly, they have, through sheer mind boggling incompetence, provided the climate change deniers enough ammunition to bury them for years to come. Unbelievable. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
