Drudge and the denialists

Yesterday, I wrote:

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?

Of course, the answer was none of them. Instead, Drudge decided that my post was supporting the trumped out charges against NIWA and linked it. As a result, the comments were overrun by nutty denialists. I added a link to the Copenhagen Diagnosis to the top of my post and it would seem that this to Drudge what sunlight is to vampires, because he deleted the link. In the meantime someone blindly following Drudge put a link on Digg that presented my post as saying the opposite of what it did.

And over at WUWT one Gene Nemtz decided that the IPCC or someone was magically redirecting links:

It appears there is something going on with links going to ClimateGate stories. Some are being redirected to sites that say something like this:

You are being lied to–man is causing climate to change

A Drudge link to the NZ temp story actually ended up [at my post]

Below the fold for your amusement, a selection of the nutty comments from Drudgoids:


It’s not science, it’s the religion of the left… Science has never had one thing to do with it. It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government! All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple. We do not trust people or equipment that needs judgments of opinion when it comes to altering our lifestyles significantly and costing us Trillions of Dollars, not to mention the anxiety added.

Sounds like a bunch of you morons are a little upset that the biggest scam in the history of the world is out of the bag and into the light where it will die the death it deserves. Can’t wait to see Al Gore in jail oh happy happy day.

Is this computer scientist on the AGW dole, modeling grants say, or just a true believer? Because what kind of scientist hears “ADJUSTMENTS” and their BS detectors do not flutter. Enjoy your carbon trading scam, Zealanders.

ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don’t bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don’t you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.

Tim L – Please seek mental help. AGW is hoax and you continue to push this hoax on a public that is aware of it. You and your colleagues look like idiots. Please STOP. Give it 5 or 10 years and a new great cause will come along.

Al Gore, q low grade moron has made over 100 million dollars off promoting his global warming scam. Gore has taken 500 million more from the US taxpayers in preparation for the Cap and Trade SCAM. I REST MY CASE. SCAM. SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM

Lovely SCAM! Wonderful SCAM!

Comments

  1. #1 MarkB
    November 27, 2009

    Well that’s a bit of comic relief.

    It’s absolutely astounding how irrational and fanatical the global warming denial cult it.

  2. #2 MarkB
    November 27, 2009

    Drudge probably thought the “New Zealand Climate Science Coalition” sounded like a real scientific organization (instead of a group of denialist political hacks), so when he saw that name along with the word “lying” he jumped on it. Tabloid types like Drudge often don’t get past the headline.

  3. #3 peppanicky
    November 27, 2009

    The scam is over. Come out from your mothers basements and join the real world you arrogant Pseudo science freaks. It is over. Experience reality.

  4. #4 Ben
    November 27, 2009

    Startling, but hilarious!

    I love Drudge’s own goal, I love the confused response by the ditto heads. They do seem to be reaching some kind of crescendo about it all, don’t they? Maybe their pinheads will finally pop and we can get back to everyday life.

  5. #5 Andrew
    November 27, 2009

    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

  6. #6 Jeremy C
    November 27, 2009

    It gives me confidence that the denialists will end up shooting themselves in the foot collective over ‘climategate’.

    Tim, as well as the spam sketch can you perhaps post the upper-class-twit of the year sketch from Monty Python.

  7. #7 Zarquon
    November 27, 2009

    Bloody vikings denialists!

  8. #8 Brian D
    November 27, 2009

    Andrew, which file are you quoting? The only one I can find that contains the words “fudge factor” is briffa_sep98_d.pro, which doesn’t refer to densall at all.

    That said, with briffa_sep98_d.pro, the code doesn’t stop at defining the adjustment. It goes on:

    ;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow

    ;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20

    ;

    filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy,tslow=tslow

    oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=21

    That’s the only point in the program where the adjustment is actually used, as opposed to being updated.

    If you’re familiar with IDL, the semicolon delineates a comment. Note that the adjusted value is commented out and thus nonfunctional – common practice for debugging (change the comments and you readily compare the adjusted to nonadjusted data, for instance).

    What’s needed here is someone showing that maladjusted data was used in the literature.

  9. #9 CapitalClimate
    November 27, 2009

    In response to Jeremy C’s request and in honor of the Discount Viscount Mock-ton:
    The Upper Class Twit of the Year

  10. #10 Brian D
    November 27, 2009

    Correction: It also shows up in briffa_sep98_e.pro, which I missed on my initial search.

    My point still holds, though: Show me where this corrupted the actual literature, if anywhere, rather than in context-free snippets of code that may or may not have been actually used (several of these files appear to be in-progress test programs, for instance).

  11. #11 Janet Akerman
    November 27, 2009

    OMG!

    Melissa was not a Poe!

    >It’s not science, it’s the religion of the left… Science has never had one thing to do with it. It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government! All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

    Well, at least one quote was not Poe!

  12. #12 JennieL
    November 27, 2009

    I think that much of yesterday’s troll deluge could have been avoided if, in order to comment, they were first required to solve a simple problem in arithmetic or identify a basic grammatical error in a sample sentence.

    Honestly, I’m mildly surprised that many were capable of navigating the interons at all. (Just think – what we got might have been the smart end of Drudge’s readership, namely, the ones who could puzzle out the intricacies of a blog comment form).

    And Janet Akerman@11: I had her pegged as a Poe too.

  13. #13 Hal9000
    November 27, 2009

    My fave was this snippet… “I realize it is one of the tenants of your socialist/communist libtard religion…” A lovely mix of illiteracy, Mrs Malaprop, and spittle.

  14. #14 Dave Andrews
    November 27, 2009

    Tim,

    You,and many of your commenters, just don’t seem to understand. The cat is well and truly ‘out of the bag’, indeed, the ‘bird has flown’.

    I note that Mike Hulme, an erstwhile colleague of Jones at CRU and later the Tyndall Centre, has joined the fray at Andrew Revkin’s site.

    Sorry to use another cliche or two, but the stone has been turned and people will not like what it has revealed. Rather than continuing BAU you need to be building bridges.

  15. #15 Oscar
    November 27, 2009

    Whatever you say, one thing stands out to me from the NIWA story: the upward trend in temperature is wholly dependent on *what kind* of correction you apply to the actual temp measurements.

    The data don’t prove warming, it’s the treatment you give to the data that brings out a warming trend.

    OK… that’s not shocking. But:

    Objective fact – the treatment is inevitably subjective.
    Subjective comment – the treatment is not exactly openly documented for review by others.

    Given the importance of the outcomes, should we not see much, much more openness about this fact on data treatment?

    I am not surprised that sceptics are radicalising. The dogmatic stonewalling of major facts like the one above would have that effect on many free-thinking individuals.

    It will sure have that effect on me, if this hysterical stonewalling continues.

  16. #16 zoot
    November 27, 2009

    Only one minor fault with your otherwise impeccable argument Oscar; the data do show warming.
    But thank you for your concern.

  17. #17 Holly Stick
    November 27, 2009

    It’s snowing today. Aaaagh! Global warming has stopped!!!!111! The ice age is coming!!!!!111111111!!
    It’s snowing… in Calgary… in November… Oh, wait…

  18. #18 Ian Forrester
    November 27, 2009

    Dave Andrews said:

    Rather than continuing BAU you need to be building bridges.

    If we continue BAU we will be building bridges all right, lots of them to replace those washed out by the ever increasing frequency of floods. See Cumbria for pictures of the bridges that will now have to be built. Just imagine that a hundred times over in 30 to 50 years.

    It will cost a pretty penny. Dave, don’t you think it would be better to spend a little now rather than huge amounts in the future? Of course, I forgot that you are selfish and arrogant so you don’t care what the cost of BAU will be to future generations.

  19. #19 Ian Forrester
    November 27, 2009

    Ah yes Holly, but it is warm snow :-)

  20. #20 Stephen Gloor (Ender)
    November 27, 2009

    The problem we had before was that people ignorant of the science of climate change but read the skeptic sites would think “The hockey stick is broken therefore AGW is wrong”.

    Now we have in addition “the CRU emails show AGW is a fraud therefore AGW is wrong”

    Before the fact that the Hockey stick was not broken did not affect the climate ignorant from trumpeting this mantra. In exactly the same way facts will not change the mantra of the CRU emails. You cannot counter a political argument with science.

    The skeptics are politicians not scientists. They now have something new to deceive the ignorant. My suggestion is to not engage. They have no science so why are we arguing with them about the science.

    I did this with the Hockey Stick. Arguing with them only encourages them – I think it is better to let them have their own little denial world while the real scientists talk in the peer reviewed literature like the did before. As none of the skeptics can participate in the conversation, unless of course the start doing science, then they will be left shouting in a vacuum.

  21. #21 Brian D
    November 27, 2009

    Stephen Gloor: Does this give you any ideas?

  22. #22 Marion Delgado
    November 27, 2009

    The proper title is Christopher Robin, the Discount Mountebank of Benchwarmer, FTHL*, OG†

    “Why settle for peer review if it’s not from peers?™”

    *Frequent trespasser, House of Lords.

    †Order of the Garter Snake

  23. #23 George Darroch
    November 27, 2009

    The clanging in the denialsphere seems to have got much much louder since 2005.

    None of the people who should be fighting for climate scientists are doing so. So it is only the scientists themselves – and they look aggressive as a result.

    I did this with the Hockey Stick. Arguing with them only encourages them – I think it is better to let them have their own little denial world while the real scientists talk in the peer reviewed literature like the did before. As none of the skeptics can participate in the conversation, unless of course the start doing science, then they will be left shouting in a vacuum.

    You’re right. But only insomuch as these people do not have the ear of curious leaders and opinion makers who are willing to be swayed away from certainty.

  24. #24 Nick
    November 27, 2009

    Dave Andrews :;”..you need to be building bridges.” No,Dave ,you need to learn how to use them. For instance,what was Mike Hulme suggesting as he mused about science communication?

  25. #25 Tyler DiPietro
    November 27, 2009

    The people obsessing over that FORTRAN code are making a hell of a lot of assumptions based on things other than what the code actually does. I don’t code in FORTRAN, but from what I can see that’s just an array of scalars used for an interpolation function that isn’t defined in the snippet. Has anyone with a knowledge of FORTRAN actually attempted to run the code to verify any of these claims or is all just the usual gas and noise from denalists?

  26. #26 dhogaza
    November 27, 2009

    The people obsessing over that FORTRAN code

    It’s not FORTRAN, it’s IDL.

    Someone was poking at their program investigating how that would change the output.

    For instance, “if X were true causing the measured data to be wrong by Y amount, how would affect the analysis?”

    I suspect that several scientists in several countries in the world have done something similar with data they’re working with in the time it has taken me to type this post.

    Since methods portions of published papers describe, well, methods if the denialists had evidence that such playing around with the dataset had led to fraudulent analyses being published … they’d be able to show us in at least one such paper, right?

    They can’t – so they point to the “smoking gun” of some lines of code computing something that IS THROWN AWAY AND NOT USED.

  27. #27 ben
    November 27, 2009

    argh.

  28. #28 Tyler DiPietro
    November 27, 2009

    “It’s not FORTRAN, it’s IDL.”

    I’ve been looking at an IDL reference to make sense of the code, I’m mostly trying to figure out what the return values of the INTERPOL and FINDGEN functions are and how they’re used. Regardless, it seems that the whole portion code is commented out by “;”‘s.

    I’m still waiting for someone out there to actually run the code to see what it does, and furthermore see if anything like it was actually published in the literature. If not, then the whole argument is useless.

  29. #29 TrueSceptic
    November 27, 2009

    Tim,

    Surely your nutty quotes weren’t all genuine? None of those were spoofs from Deltoid regulars?

  30. #30 Hank Roberts
    November 27, 2009

    > one Gene Nemtz decided that the IPCC or
    > someone was magically redirecting links

    That would be the World Wide Warming conspiracy.
    Anything you type in a web browser has to go through their filter.

    “http” stands for “help to take part”

    The colon slash slash — well, you know about that.

  31. #31 dhogaza
    November 27, 2009

    I’m still waiting for someone out there to actually run the code to see what it does, and furthermore see if anything like it was actually published in the literature. If not, then the whole argument is useless.

    CRU says the fudging was never used for anything published in the literature.

    Now, if Eric Raymond or others can prove that CRU is lying about this, or can show that the adjusted data was presented as being unadjusted, or any one of several other scenarios, then there’d be a firm basis for claiming scientific fraud.

    But they’re not even trying. They’re saying that the very existence of these lines of code proves that all of climate science is a massive fraud.

  32. #32 dhogaza
    November 27, 2009

    Ah, Hank has explained it. So I assume https stands for “help take part secretly” …

  33. #33 Katharine
    November 27, 2009

    Why do conservatives, fundies, and denialists hate smart people?

    Their anti-intellectualism smacks vaguely of the Nazis’ anti-intellectualism.

  34. #34 silkworm
    November 27, 2009

    You global cooling deniers need to stop drinking the “warm aid” and stop worshiping at the altar of Al “I’m not fat anymore” Gore.

  35. #35 el gordo
    November 27, 2009

    ‘Truth is the enemy of the state,’ said Hitler’s propaganda minister. The ABC will have a lot to answer for when the conservatives regain the treasury benches.

  36. #36 D. C. Sessions
    November 27, 2009

    Objective fact – the treatment is inevitably subjective.

    I’m missing the part where normalizing the values between the earlier and later locations of stations that move is “subjective.”

    Subjective comment – the treatment is not exactly openly documented for review by others.

    Maybe that’s because until the last few years, nobody made a political football of the data. It was a technical footnote among professionals who accepted each others’ professionalism.

    Local example: the official reporting station for Phoenix was, up until recently, at Sky Harbor Airport. Back in the 1930s, that was out in a lettuce field. By the turn of the century, it was in the midst of square kilometers of concrete and asphalt runways and parking lots, surrounded by the center of the fifth largest city in the United States. It was routinely reporting temperatures several degrees hotter than anything else in the metropolitan area — so the official reporting station was moved.

    Sky Harbor still records temperatures (they need it for things like flap settings) — which means that we have a very good set of parallel measurements. For historical purposes it’s easy to compare the “before” and “after” values, and with a little work it’s not too hard to separate the urban heat island effects from the underlying climatic shifts.

    HTH. HAND.

  37. #37 dan satterfield
    November 27, 2009

    Well Tim,
    You have gone and done it. Those emails are crazier than the ones I get. I do have a couple that can stand on the same stage, but I hereby pronounce you the recipient of the nuttiest of the nutters in the email arena!

    Dan

  38. #38 Janet Akerman
    November 27, 2009

    >*CRU says the fudging was never used for anything published in the literature.*

    >*Now, if Eric Raymond or others can prove that CRU is lying about this, or can show that the adjusted data was presented as being unadjusted, or any one of several other scenarios, then there’d be a firm basis for claiming scientific fraud.*

    >*But they’re not even trying. They’re saying that the very existence of these lines of code proves that all of climate science is a massive fraud.*

    dhogaza, following the lead of Myron Ebell, ‘acadder’ has [taken up the cause](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2108419) and will shortly produce evidence that that CRU data was fraud.

  39. #39 silkworm
    November 27, 2009

    Here’s a little humour from the true believers

    http://buythetruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/heretic.jpg?w=500&h=349

  40. #40 Daniel J. Andrews
    November 28, 2009

    That is all too funny. Do these people expect to be taken seriously? How can you sound that stupid and still operate a keyboard?

    JennieL has a great idea…have people solve a simple logic problem before they can post. That’ll cut down some of the infestation. E.g. finish the conclusion

    All men are mortal
    Socrates is a man
    Therefore, Socrates is…
    :)

  41. #41 AmandaS
    November 28, 2009

    Socrates is all man?
    ;)

    A

  42. #42 Ray C.
    November 28, 2009

    @40, @41: All men are Socrates.

  43. #43 Donald Oats
    November 28, 2009

    Ohhh, my achin’ head.

  44. #44 Stu
    November 28, 2009

    I’ve previously joked that there actually is profound debate about climate change within the scientific community – debate about whether the deniers are selfish, sociopathic stooges for the denial industry or idiotic, right-wing, mouth-breathing flat-earthers.

    Unfortunately I can’t use that joke any more, it appears to have been settled.

  45. #45 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    >*I’ve previously joked that there actually is profound debate about climate change within the scientific community – debate about whether the deniers are selfish, sociopathic stooges for the denial industry or idiotic, right-wing, mouth-breathing flat-earthers.

    >*Unfortunately I can’t use that joke any more, it appears to have been settled.

    Aah, but Stu, who’s winding up the crazies?

    Absence of evidence and all that…

    You could turn it into a Chicken-egg joke perhaps?

  46. #46 Michael
    November 28, 2009

    Katherine wrote:

    Their anti-intellectualism smacks vaguely of the Nazis’ anti-intellectualism

    I think they’re more like the Taliban.

  47. #47 Marion Delgado
    November 28, 2009

    So, crates are more tall.

  48. #48 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    Unfortunately the neo-McCathyism experienced by scientist (and sampled here yesterday) is the predictable consequence of classic divide and conquer demagoguery.

    Galvanise a vulnerable populous (disaffected, faux-news watching types [who should be angry at being ripped of], and divert that anger by playing them off against another target.

    The oldest trick in the book, rule by dividing “your people” into manageable competing groups.

    Would be an interesting exercise to count the groups that have been vilified for a similar ends throughout history.

  49. #49 Chris O'Neill
    November 28, 2009

    el gordo:

    The ABC will have a lot to answer for when the conservatives regain the treasury benches.

    Yeah, in the 20+ years it will take them to do it. I’m sure the ABC staff are shaking in their boots.

    BTW, to whom it may concern, oh please, please, please make Tony Abbott leader of the Liberal Party. I can barely contain the anticipation of overwhelming laughter.

  50. #50 Janet Akerman
    November 28, 2009

    Chris,

    And lets not forget the other main point, el gordo is full of rage that ABC don’t give Bolt a platform to spruke his BS on science.

    Why would ABC not do this, cos who is Bolt to represent anything on science. Bolt misleads his readers with crap such as sea-level is not rising. It’s an outrage that he is so over represented in the media.

    If ABC want to report what Flannary says, I’m sure they can interview Flannery. They don’t need cherry pick bit of BS, that’s not news, it is simply out of context quote mined BS, which is why el gordo want more of it. It all they have.

  51. #51 clippo
    November 28, 2009

    Read this for a laugh :-
    On an obscure UK political website, (British Democracy Forum, Energy & Environment thread), that I post on, in favour of AGW, I recently posted the link to video lectures:-

    A series of video lectures to help you all to understand REAL science:-

    “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” by David Archer

    These are the replies I received :- (I have reduced the fontsize to save space & italicised for reply emphasis)

    ……………..

    First reply from Gimlet

    Anthropegenic Global Warming (AGW) and the climate change myth is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetuated onto the general public, created by environmental extremists and supported by governments who wish to enact their political, social, and economic agendas. The main argument used by these alarmists is that CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic global warming. There is absolutely no science that substantiates such claims, period.
    The following quote sums it up in a nutshell:
    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
    - Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
    It couldn’t have been stated better. Let’s now review the history and the facts:
    Global warming is something that has been happening for a long time. The temperature of the Earth has been increasing more or less continuously since the time of the cave man.
    Approximately 18,000 years ago the Earth began a gradual process of warming up after more than 100,000 years of Ice Ages. Much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. By about 15,000 years ago the Earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth’s temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
    From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an “interglacial phase,” or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.

    …………..

    Second from g hall

    anothe one of Clippo’s realclimate BLOGGERS and as we all know Clippo does not believe Bloggers unless thay are mugs like him
    BTW I note realclimate are now making their excuses for the stuff revealed from the publication of the emails cracked from the UEA – more cr@p

    ……………

    Thirdly from Keyser Soze

    Why can’t clippo understand that tens of millions of us in this country just don’t believe the CC/MMGW information that has and is constantly being presented?
    Why can’t he understand this?

    ……………

    Fourthly from g hall again

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Keyser Soze
    Why can’t he understand this?[endquote]

    I suggest a poll

    gullibility

    stupidity

    financial interest

    er that’s it

    …………

    Fifth, from Keyser Soze again:-

    It looks like he qualifies on all three of those then.
    I feel sorry for him now.
    We’re all to blame I suppose, but I did try to get you all to call an ambulance for him about two years or so ago and you lot said he was just a bit dizzy and hallucinating because he had just found out that he had been had by the MMGW crims and he was worried about losing his pension from the Co-op Dairy job he had had for 45 years or more. He actually thinks he’s a scientist nowadays. Aaaaaw the poor little sucker.
    OK, the parties over for you sonnyboy, back in your box clippo.

    …………..

    My last reply:-

    I gave you some rope and you all just hanged yourselves
    added in edit:-
    especially for any dozey geyser(s) here, you my find this link interesting:-
    Climate Activism Soars Planetwide Ahead of Copenhagen Climate Talks | SolveClimate.com
    from which:-
    [quote] In the span of three months, nearly 10 million people have signed on to TckTckTck to tell leaders they’re concerned about the future and ready for global climate action. [/quite]
    where can I find the signatures of your ‘millions’ of people?

    ………….

    See what ludicrous intelligence, (if any), we are up against.

  52. #52 Frank O'Dwyer
    November 28, 2009

    D.C. Sessions

    “I’m missing the part where normalizing the values between the earlier and later locations of stations that move is “subjective.”"

    Right, however when the adjustments are of the same order of magnitude as the trend you can see why it looks like a plausible argument – i.e. any error in adjustments will affect the trend and it is not clear to most people how much (it’s not clear to me, anyhow). So people go away thinking the adjustments *are* the trend.

    Some kind of idiot’s guide as to why this is not so would be useful. For example in the case of a station move, it should be possible to analyse the data after the move as presumably the trend is also present in that (and therefore cannot be an artifact of the adjustments).

    I would have a crack at this but stats is not my strong suit.

    Another point that is not clear to me is what do you do in the case where you don’t have any parallel measurements to work out the appropriate adjustment?

  53. #53 Michael
    November 28, 2009

    Janet Ackerman wrote:

    Bolt misleads his readers with crap such as sea-level is not rising. It’s an outrage that he is so over represented in the media.

    Affirmative action for conservatives.

  54. #54 TrueSceptic
    November 28, 2009

    51 Clippo,

    I think you’re wasting your time [there](http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/).

    That lot are beyond rational discussion. They are:-

    Disgustingly arrogant.

    Shamefully ignorant.

    Depressingly stupid.

    Scarily fanatical.

    Pathologically dishonest.

  55. #55 Jeremy C
    November 28, 2009

    I streamed the Lateline interview with Tony Abbot the other day (sorry non Australian posters). Tony Jones asked Abbot if he had read any of the science on climate change. Abbot replied, abashed, that he hadn’t and then offered the excuse that he didn’t have time to read it and thats what he had policy people for. He then came back swinging saying that there are some good scientists being ignored on AGW.

    So he is well qualified to dismiss the science

  56. #56 ToddPT
    November 28, 2009

    There was even a denialist at anncoulter.com who linked to Tim’s post as support climate scientists are cooking the books.
    I thanked him for joining the forces of reason. :-)

    They don’t read or think much do they?

  57. #57 Holly Stick
    November 28, 2009

    RealClimate has put up a page of links to data sources:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    The introductory post, asking if they’ve missed any links:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/

  58. #58 Paul UK
    November 28, 2009

    >Bolt misleads his readers with crap such as sea-level is not rising.

    I intend to take a photo of a place near where I live where on a high tide the water laps into the street a bit.

    I just need to look at the tidal tables to arrange for the correct time.

  59. #59 Joseph
    November 28, 2009

    I’m mostly trying to figure out what the return values of the INTERPOL and FINDGEN functions are and how they’re used. Regardless, it seems that the whole portion code is commented out by “;”‘s.

    INTERPOL is an interpolation function. You give it a discrete set of 20 data points, and then you say, interpolate these and produce 100 data points – just to give an example. (The interpolation used in the code is linear.)

    FINDGEN creates an array, initialized with its corresponding indexes. For example, the line that reads

    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

    creates an array of the form [1400,1904,1909,1914,...], 20 elements total.

    An yes, the artificial adjustment is commented out in that source file.

    I’m still waiting for someone out there to actually run the code to see what it does,

    Does anyone know where to get a copy of IDL 5.x? Either way, I’m not sure all the necessary files are there, and it’s not clear how to produce them (there are a number of options.)

    I think some perspective is important. Coders only add comments in code when they want to remind themselves of something, or when they want to communicate something non-obvious to their fellow developers. If you add all-caps comments ending in “!!” such as “VERY ARTIFICIAL” you’re cautioning your team-mates about something, namely that the code is rudimentary and that it likely needs to be removed or replaced with something else in the future.

    If you were trying to obfuscate wrongdoing, you’d never do that. That explanation makes no sense to begin with.

  60. #60 Michael Ralston
    November 28, 2009

    Coders only add comments in code when they want to remind themselves of something, or when they want to communicate something non-obvious to their fellow developers. If you add all-caps comments ending in “!!” such as “VERY ARTIFICIAL” you’re cautioning your team-mates about something, namely that the code is rudimentary and that it likely needs to be removed or replaced with something else in the future.

    Very true – and I speak as a person doing research in computer science.

    I’ve done some modelling-type things, and I have had a few occasions where I put super-artificial hacks into the code, because I knew from external knowledge that certain parts of the dataset I’m working on are – if only examined with the information the code has – wrong, and I know from first principles how to work out something to patch those errors for that specific dataset.

    Back towards the matter at hand – I remember reading that the temperature measurements for the 1940s are believed to have been erroneously high; something about ocean measurements being primarily in the wake of warships. If that’s so, and the dataset they’re using is some kind of unadjusted measurements, you would expect a patch to lower those temperatures and otherwise apply that adjustment.

    Also, to anyone who tries to claim the code is a mess and that that’s a problem: If messy code invalidated research, the entire field of computer science would be a lie. Research code is TERRIBLE, absolutely full of special-cases and warts and hacks and tricks and bugs, and it always will be. There’s absolutely no need to put in the extra time required to make it clean and correct and maintainable, because it won’t be maintained by anyone but the original creator who knows all the warts, and if it requires careful massaging of input to make it work that’s okay, because the code is written once and then run once, and it’s run by someone who knows it in and out and it doesn’t need to be robust. But all that ugliness doesn’t matter anyway! What matters is that different people writing code for the same research question get the same results, and it’s almost certain that any errors will not get replicated.

  61. #61 Paul UK
    November 28, 2009

    Well I’m glad someone else has the same opinion M Ralston.
    I worked in the commercial software sector (actually designed a system for Sydney Light Railway many years ago, almost forgot about that, that was a long time ago!).

    Although I haven’t worked on research software I’m well aware that the needs are different. From my experience the vast majority of code in commercial real time software is to cater for the unexpected, faults and errors. A tiny part of the code actually does anything positive.

    It would be ridiculous to expect the same levels of testing and fault checking etc in research software. It would be hugely expensive for a start.

  62. #62 drmabu7
    November 28, 2009

    Kicking in the heads of atheists one at a time…

    http://nostradamus-america.atspace.com/

    PZ, I thought the Morris Police Department was going to save you from the wrath of God…

  63. #63 Donald Oats
    November 28, 2009

    Janet Akerman says:

    Why would ABC not do this, cos who is Bolt to represent anything on science. Bolt misleads his readers with crap such as sea-level is not rising. It’s an outrage that he is so over represented in the media.

    And, just to prove the point, Bolt was again on The Insiders on the ABC, this morning. How can one MSM-hack have such clout? Oh, that’s right, the ABC board is to a person – and I pick my words very carefully here – to the far-right of Genghis Khan.

    I want my eight cents a day back!

  64. #64 Donald Oats
    November 28, 2009

    Michael Ralston and
    Paul UK:

    I largely agree too. The idiot-proofing required for absolutely every contigency with commercial software is generally a much higher bar than that required for research-purpose software. However, some distinctions exist within research software. Clearly, if a scientist is writing software for their own research, they probably won’t bother with traps where the scientist will easily spot an error for what it is anyway. On the other hand, inputs that are negative when they are expected to be positive is something that must be caught in commercial software – no ifs or buts about it.

    For a scientist who has control over the inputs, it really depends on whether they think it is worth extra time and effort to check in the code, versus checking at an earlier stage of their data pipeline. Commercial code, on the other hand must check – even redundantly, in standard business cases – at every point of the data pipeline where an explicit interface exists, whether human-software or software-software module type of interface. For real-time or embedded code, redundant checks might be omitted for speed and/or memory constraints to be met: in my experience, the testing process is extremely unforgiving on such software for just this reason.

    Once researchers start working in teams though, what worked for a single researcher or researcher and one colleague, starts to unravel fairly quickly when more colleagues are involved. I’m certain many research teams would have had at least one experience like the following:

    “Did you use the version I emailed you with the kludge for X, or the old version I gave you (yesterday!)? Ans: My email server was down yesterday, so I borrowed last month’s copy from Ralph…”.

    We all know where that kind of conversation ends up going, and it is pretty ugly.

    Once a team of more than two is involved, some form of software version control is generally required – it isn’t onerous or particularly difficult. If the team is responsible for public release of data, then some level of software configuration management should really be in place and funded properly.

  65. #65 Chris O'Neill
    November 28, 2009

    ToddPT:

    There was even a denialist at anncoulter.com who linked to Tim’s post as support climate scientists are cooking the books. I thanked him for joining the forces of reason. :-)
    They don’t read or think much do they?

    They don’t need to read or think because they know they’re right.

  66. #66 Arie Brand
    November 28, 2009

    I suppose that Bolt gets into that program time and again for the sake of “balance” – that holy MSM cow to which we owe so much denialist stuff that never should have seen the light of day.

    This morning he gave me a good laugh when he said on that “Insiders” program that Joe Hockey didn’t have the “intellectual discipline” to understand climate change. He, Bolt, had talked to him to no avail.

    Another good experience this morning was to see Ian Plimer being knocked back at least four times by the moderator on Monbiot’s Guardian blog (presumably not Monbiot himself)when he tried to comment. Seeing what some other people were saying there P.’s comments must have been pretty outrageous.

  67. #67 Donald Oats
    November 28, 2009

    Just in case you hear the rumour, perish the though, that data sources are hidden away in secret-squirrel-like treasure troves, note that Gavin Schmidt and the team are assembling a directory of links to myriad data sources. Most of them have existed for quite some time, as in years. They have called the page – you guessed it – RealClimate Data Sources.

  68. #68 silkworm
    November 28, 2009

    drmabu7 is lost in more ways than one. He is a creationist who thinks he is posting at Pharyngula.

    Creationists are mostly shamefully ignorant, depressingly stupid and scarily fanatical. Some of them are disgustingly arrogant and pathologically dishonest. When pressed just about all of them will reveal themselves to be AGW deniers.

    The denialist-in-chief of these creationists used to be James Inhofe, who himself is a leading member of the Family, dedicated to turning America into a theocracy. The new face of the creationists and denialists is Sarah Palin.

  69. #69 el gordo
    November 28, 2009

    Now that Andrew Bolt is calling Penny Wong a ‘denier’ I feel obliged to disassociate myself from the Denialati. Effective immediately!

  70. #70 silkworm
    November 28, 2009

    Welcome, el gordo. Please state your reasons for now accepting the science of climate change. If you have any difficulties with your new understanding, such as how the greenhouse effect works, how it differs from photosynthesis, or what type of human activities are contributing most to global warming, don’t hesitate to ask.

  71. #71 JennieL
    November 28, 2009

    This morning he gave me a good laugh when he said on that “Insiders” program that Joe Hockey didn’t have the “intellectual discipline” to understand climate change. He, Bolt, had talked to him to no avail.

    LOL!

    What’s scary is that Bolt probably believes this – that he is intellectually disciplined and a fearless seeker after truth. Dunning-Kruger Effect doesn’t even begin to explain it.

    Oh, and btw, drmabu7 is “David Mabus,” aka Dennis Markuze, a very disturbed individual obsessed with James Randi. He’s been banned multiple times at Pharyngula, but tends to reappear under new nyms, and when he can’t get through, spams random scienceblogs threads instead. Best to just ignore it.

  72. #72 el gordo
    November 28, 2009

    bing has Climategate getting over 50 million hits, which sounds a little excessive.

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=climategate&go=&qs=n&qb=1&FORM=AXRE

    Hockey doesn’t have the intellectual discipline, so it will have to be the mad monk. I didn’t realise there were so many Catholics on the conservative front bench.

  73. #73 Daniel J. Andrews
    November 28, 2009

    At clippo 51. Gimlet (or was it Giblet?) is likely right when he said, “The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when. ”

    Orbital variations will probably take us (or the earth anyway) into the next ice age in, ohhhh, a few thousand years or more. A wee bit late to do any good right now.

  74. #74 el gordo
    November 28, 2009

    Climategate was first coined at WUWT by a character named ‘bulldust’ on 19 November at 3.52 am.

    ‘Hmmm how long before this is dubbed ClimateGate?’

  75. #75 Gary Ruppert
    November 28, 2009

    Ian Plimer being knocked back at least four times by the moderator on Monbiot’s Guardian blog

    Are you sure that was really Plimer?

    I’ve heard that unscrupulous people have been known to comment under fake names.

  76. #76 Hushashi
    November 28, 2009

    Um, “deltoid” … with all that’s going on, is this really the best post you have to offer? FFS… get serious.

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009

    el gordo:

    Hockey doesn’t have the intellectual discipline,

    You forgot to point out “unlike Bolt”.

  78. #78 zoot
    November 29, 2009

    Um, “deltoid” … with all that’s going on, is this really the best post you have to offer? FFS… get serious.

    FFS Hushashi, is this the best you can do?

  79. #79 el gordo
    November 29, 2009

    Slow news day CON.

    Andrew Bolt is part of the intelligentsia. My guess he will run for the Senate at the next election and be an outstanding politician.

    Keep in mind he is from the left, but has moved with me to the right over this CC scam.

    It is my melancholy duty to inform you that we are right and you are wrong about global warming.

  80. #80 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    el gordo:
    >Hockey doesn’t have the intellectual discipline, so it will have to be the mad monk. I didn’t realise there were so many Catholics on the conservative front bench.

    Read as: Abbott (“The Mad Monk) is know by deniers to have the correct intellectual discipline, after being forced to admit (on the ABC -damn them) to have not read any IPCC summaries.

    Deniers love opinionated ignorance.

    Others ask, why do deniers love opinionated ignorance on an issue that has such critical consequent risk?

    el gordo?

  81. #81 clippo
    November 29, 2009

    Re truesceptic # and Daniel J Andrews #, thanks for comments on my earlier post. This was just one very small example of hundreds of posts from such nutters – and I know they post elsewhere and are definitely members of the UK Libertarian party etc.

    The point I was making is that their GW warming comments are comic and I posted it to give you all a relaxing chuckle. (and this is why I visit Deltoid daily – for a laugh from the best denialist debunking site around imo).
    For the last year or I’ve only posted there mainly to wind them up but yes, I am now getting out –a pity in some ways, because there are others there who are genuine doubters i.e. doubt because they don’t have all the information. One of my tactics has been to try to give them facts but targeted at their perceived level.

    I don’t doubt they have used wind-up tactics on me – as, for example, el gordo must be doing here (smile)

  82. #82 MadScientist
    November 29, 2009

    @Oscar #15: The information you claim is not available is in fact available as NIWA claims; it is part of the most basic bookkeeping done by meteorological institutes for over 100 years now. I doubt it would help you any though; you have to know what you’re doing to make any meaningful conclusions from the data. Your claim that the post-processing of the data (assuming that’s what you mean by ‘treatment’) is subjective is incorrect. There is nothing subjective about the treatment of the temperature data between the station near sea level and the station at a higher altitude. If you are not even aware of this basic fact, how can you possibly interpret the data?

  83. #83 el gordo
    November 29, 2009

    Akerman

    Abbott is a political opportunist who will keep the seat warm until Cory or Barnaby pick up a lower house seat and replace him.

    The msm say he is the intellectual heart of the party, which of course is nonsense. He knows next to nothing about the CC debate and also believes in God.

    Phooey…

  84. #84 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    el gordo,

    Others ask, why do deniers love opinionated ignorance on an issue that has such critical consequent risk?

  85. #85 Michael
    November 29, 2009

    At least the denialists are going to do something useful for a change (here at least) – making the political home of denialism and delay in Oz (AKA the Liberal Party) unelectable.

    The deniers don’t seem to have twigged that in the sphere of public opinion, scientists are rated highly on trustworthiness, while prominent deniers tend to come from professions that are found at the other end of the trust spectrum – journalists and politicians.

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    November 29, 2009

    81 Clippo,

    I didn’t read just what you posted here. I read a few threads over there. In particular, I was amused by Baron von Lotsov’s obsession with [Piers Corbyn](http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/68087-piers-corbyn-should-ukip-s-climate-adviser.html). He is utterly devoid of critical faculties, isn’t he?

    I should also mention that there *are* some sane people there other than you, Besoeker and ron, for example. :)

  87. #87 TrueSceptic
    November 29, 2009

    81 Clippo,

    If you don’t already know them (unlikely), I can strongly recommend [Greenfyre](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/) and [Tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/).

  88. #88 Bernard J.
    November 29, 2009

    [Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/drudge_and_the_denialists.php#comment-2110172).

    You have almost convinced me that you are in fact a Poe. Had you said that you expect the unemployed Marohasy to run on Bolt’s ticket, I would have been just about certain.

  89. #89 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2009
    Hockey doesn’t have the intellectual discipline,

    You forgot to point out “unlike Bolt”.

    el gordo:

    Andrew Bolt is part of the intelligentsia.

    My pleasure for reminding you.

    It is my melancholy duty to inform you that we are right and you are wrong about global warming.

    Sure.

  90. #90 el gordo
    November 29, 2009

    Dr Jason Wilson says ‘the best way to take a troll down is not to react.’

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/26/2754284.htm

  91. #91 Paul UK
    November 29, 2009

    66 Arie Brand:
    >Another good experience this morning was to see Ian Plimer being knocked back at least four times by the moderator on Monbiot’s Guardian blog (presumably not Monbiot himself)when he tried to comment. Seeing what some other people were saying there P.’s comments must have been pretty outrageous.

    I think it might be because someone was impersonating Plimer?

  92. #92 el gordo
    November 29, 2009

    Now here is a discussion, lasting only four minutes, which clarifies the debate very simply.

    The left/green alliance thinks Begley beat the anchor, but you can make up your own mind.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIl2gdDtbCg&feature=player_embedded

  93. #93 Ian Plimer
    November 29, 2009

    You stupid drongos could never tell, could you?

    Off to crack a few tubes to celebrate my book earning 1,000,000 AUD. :)

  94. #94 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    el gordo,

    No answer? Why do deniers love [opinionated ignorance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/drudge_and_the_denialists.php#comment-2110187) on an issue that has such critical consequent risk?

    I’ll just let that context sit there for a while, while you chose to respond or not.

  95. #95 Steve Chamberlain
    November 29, 2009

    Daniel J Andrews (#40): “All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore, Socrates is…”

    … made of wood?
    ;-)

  96. #96 silkworm
    November 29, 2009

    Dr Jason Wilson says ‘the best way to take a troll down is not to react.’

    Is this el barto’s way of admitting that he is a troll?

  97. #97 el gordo
    November 29, 2009

    I don’t react to anti-trolls like Akerman.

  98. #98 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    :)

    I wonder why not?

    ***

    el gordo, there’s a easy way to do Troll-dackers out of a job.

  99. #99 Janet Akerman
    November 29, 2009

    Really elgordo,

    [Is this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/drudge_and_the_denialists.php#comment-2110187) not a valid question?

    The next question that arises is, why is this questions so difficult for el gordo to articulate an answer?

    I have named some of el gordo previous practice as ‘smear-and-run’, where he spams the thread with stuff he is either not willing or able to defend/substantiate.

    So el gordo, lets see something a little different today, a little less run, and a little more accountability.

  100. #100 silkworm
    November 29, 2009

    Nada. Troll is asleep?