A warning before going any further: This blog will not be used as a dumping ground for the text of climategate related “released” emails. I have surveyed my readers and overwhelmingly have been told that people would prefer to not see that. So don’t do that.

Now, on with the show…

Just two items, recent blog posts on this issue:

Real Climate: The CRU hack: Context

This is a continuation of the last thread which is getting a little unwieldy. The emails cover a 13 year period in which many things happened, and very few people are up to speed on some of the long-buried issues. So to save some time, I’ve pulled a few bits out of the comment thread that shed some light on some of the context which is missing in some of the discussion of various emails.

Here. But also, check the RealClimate home page for the latest as well.

The Intersection: Why “ClimateGate” Ain’t Nothing

The science of climate change doesn’t stand or fall based upon what a few scientists said in emails they always thought would remain private. And as for the “hockey stick”; well, fully four years ago, in The Republican War on Science, I explained why the right was using this as a distraction from the real issues…

Here. Again, check the home page at The Intersection for the latest.

Comments

  1. #1 History Punk
    November 23, 2009

    If the American right-wingers so upset about CRU’s claimed violations of FOI laws would do the same about the CIA’s documented and proven violations (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20081105/index.htm) of FOIA, than maybe the bureaucrats in DC would get off their duffs and fulfill their legal obligations under the law

  2. #2 passing stranger
    November 23, 2009

    CRU is subject to British FOI laws in any case.

  3. #3 Douglas Watts
    November 23, 2009

    This is like the “human footprint next to dinosaur footprint” times googol.

    At least the creationists give us nice little dioramas to look at.

  4. #4 Proud Carbon Spewer
    November 23, 2009

    I though it was hilarious that someone finally exposed these leftist frauds wo are using the extortion disgiused as science to balckmail us all into paying higher taxes to fund a world government. It’s about time someone finally exposed these nuts. Now, if the news media would do their job …

    A death blow to climate science
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

  5. #5 Tyler DiPietro
    November 23, 2009

    “…to balckmail us all into paying higher taxes to fund a world government.”

    The NWO will simply switch gears to another area to bring about world communism. Pretty soon our supreme commander Malcolm Hussein Obama X will have you skeptics rounded up and put into FEMA camps, where you’ll be forced to do landscaping for Mexican reconquestadors.

    Fair warning, I’m off to collect my weekly payoff of 10,000 Ameros for spreading disinformation about climate change.

  6. #6 Proud Carbon Spewer
    November 23, 2009

    Tyler DiPietro,

    Sadly, your comments are not so far fetched. The FEMA camps are real. Good thing I was taught escape and evasion (SERE)techniques. If some lib nut puts me into one of those illegal and unconstitutional communist reeducation camps, he better pray I don’t escape. I’ll have my own little camp set up all for him … and it won’t be up to ACLU standards I promise. It may not even be up to Vietnamese POW camp standards.

    this administration is scary as hell. I am not sure who instigated the building of these camps, it may have been Bush Sr. He was fairly dangerous and a member of MJ-12.

  7. #7 Tyler DiPietro
    November 23, 2009

    I just accidentally over 9000 MB of *facepalm*.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    November 23, 2009

    Evolution denier: [6]If some lib nut puts me into one of those illegal and unconstitutional communist reeducation camps, he better pray I don’t escape.

    That verges on an inappropriate threat. First warning.

  9. #9 dhogaza
    November 23, 2009

    CRU is subject to British FOI laws in any case.

    And McIntyre’s FOI requests were rejected by UEA, and the rejection upheld on appeal.

  10. #10 Douglas Watts
    November 23, 2009

    Gavin Schmidt has now given the details on the hacking attempt at their RealClimate site several days ago wherein the hacks tried to put this entire email splooge up as the site’s headline post. At first glance, it sounds like the haxxors have the mentality of kids throwing eggs at their high school teachers’ house on Halloween. On second glance, it is the commission of two separate felonies with the intent of destroying these scientists’ professional reputations.

    This was a very careful and long prepared crime/smear involving at least a few folks with intimate knowledge of all of the byzantine intricasies of the nearly decade long “debate” (err) about the “hockey stick.” That narrows the potential suspects down to a fairly small number of people, just using basic set theory. Who would do this, and have the nerve to do it, be willing to commit multiple felonies to do it, use ftp servers in Russia and ISP addresses in Turkey, and be willing to wade through 1,000s of emails and select a certain bunch aimed at certain group of scientists re: a technical, data-based gripe that has been dismissed by the real scientific world for more than half a decade?

    Eddie Haskell?

  11. #11 Pierce R. Butler
    November 23, 2009

    Just for the record: the post on the other end of that Intersection link is swamped with AGW-denialist trolls, should anyone here be in a mood for troll-brawling and find Spewer too unsavory.

  12. #12 dhogaza
    November 24, 2009

    Eddie Haskell?

    My intuition is in, a sense, more mundane, and more practical.

    Russia’s Putin is, shall we say, dubious about AGW. Russia’s working actively to build oil and natural gas pipelines to western europe. Russia has no interest in seeing european countries adopt more stringent CO2 emissions cutbacks.

    But, at this point, who knows? No one but the perps.

  13. #13 wolfwalker
    November 24, 2009

    It should be noted that there is much more to the leaked materials than just emails. There are also samples of program code and analyses of same, which (assuming they’re genuine) illustrate that the said code and the corresponding datasets are a total mess, such that any output they produce is untested and unreliable. No documentation, no QA, rampant compile and runtime errors, no version control, rookie coding mistakes … all told, an enormous mass of programming FAIL. One example is written up here.

    There is also reason to believe that it was not a hacker who obtained these. It may have been an inside job — ie, a whistleblower.

  14. #14 Greg Laden
    November 24, 2009

    wolfwalker: Let’s see your code. The code for your private work, not the code you are working on for some company that might have hired you. Let’s look at the inside of your garage and see how you have stored things and compare it with the stockroom at a hospital OR suite.

  15. #15 Eric Lund
    November 24, 2009

    There are also samples of program code and analyses of same, which (assuming they’re genuine) illustrate that the said code and the corresponding datasets are a total mess

    And how, exactly, do we know that this code was not a preliminary version with bugs that were subsequently fixed? We already know that the hackers leaked only a small unrepresentative subset of the e-mails. Why do you expect the document dump to be any different?

  16. #16 Stephanie Z
    November 24, 2009

    Anybody else tend to read the unspecified “reason to believe” as “I think it would be awesome if it were true”?

  17. #17 Tyler DiPietro
    November 24, 2009

    From what I can see, that HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is nothing but a standard issue bug report. It’s also funny that the best thing wolfwaker’s source has come up with is some floating point errors and some badly named directories. Woopdie-friggan-do, I’ve seen 10X worse. Oh yeah, and OMFG THEY USE FORTRAN FOR NUMERICAL/SIMULATION WORK. NOBODY DOES THAT ANYMORE.

    If this is the best the denialists can come up with, they’re in even sadder shape than I thought they were.

  18. #18 Tyler DiPietro
    November 24, 2009

    Jesus Christ, I’m in the middle of writing good material for my new science blag. I don’t, repeat DON’T, want to have to deal with these hordes of CSIII graduates discerning scientific fraud from old error-logs.

  19. #19 wolfwalker
    November 24, 2009

    And how, exactly, do we know that this code was not a preliminary version with bugs that were subsequently fixed?

    Wait a minute. Since when is it up to me to prove the code and data are corrupt? You’re the ones making the claims based on these programs. It’s up to you to prove that they aren’t corrupt. Until we know that “Harry” was not reporting on bugs in production code — for sure, beyond a doubt, verified by an outside auditor — then we, or at least I, can’t trust a single number that came out of it. East Anglia CRU is touched by corruption, and nothing that it produces is worth a load of fetid dingo’s kidneys.

    Oh, and Greg: I’m a programmer by trade. I always follow good programming practices. Even when no one will ever see it besides me. That’s what good programmers do. It’s part of what makes us good programmers. The same as you always follow good field procedure even with dime-a-dozen fossils that you know will be put in a drawer and never looked at again.

    I’m also vastly amused by the people who casually toss this file off as “just a bug report.” Any good programmer knows that such an enormous collection of visible errors means the code was written by a grossly incompetent programmer, and it almost certainly has many other errors buried within it. No version control? No naming conventions? Sign-bit errors? Ye gods and little fishes! In any Programming 101 class such a program would get a failing grade; in any business environment, it would be grounds for firing. And yet, academics seem to consider it not even worth thinking twice about. Nope, just make up an ad hoc reason to ignore it, and go on your merry way.

    Pathetic.

  20. #20 Greg Laden
    November 24, 2009

    You’re the ones making the claims based on these programs. It’s up to you to prove that they aren’t corrupt.

    Not it is not.

    It is up to you to prove the relevance of this information.

    Oh, and Greg: I’m a programmer by trade. I always follow good programming practices. Even when no one will ever see it besides me

    Hey, we found one!!!! You are truly a snowflake, man!

    I happen to be one of those scientists who has done programming as part of my science. I have news for you. 3 out of 5 “standard” programming practices in the programming biz are not only irrelevant to scientific programming, but are detrimental because they introduce problems. I’ll give you one example. When writing software to carry out some complex computation or run a simulation, it is not the case that cross-platform compatibility is considered. I do know something about programming, and I know that cross-platform or cross-environment usability is normally considered when writing code. Not so in scientific computing unless there is a specific reason to do so.

    So, yeah, you might be a programmer (or might not, we don’t really have a way of checking on that) but you do not know what you are talking about and you seem unprepared to learn.

    Most scientists who do programming would not pass the computer science tests without taking the classes. And most programmers would not be able to pass the science tests, either. There are reasons that large well funded science protects hire programmers. but a lot of day to day scientific programming is done without the same approaches as one learns in programming school (as it were).

    Yes, Pathetic is exactly what I thought as well by the time I got down to the end of your comment! But that’s OK, you can learn.

  21. #21 Stephanie Z
    November 24, 2009

    wolfwalker, this is a claim:

    There are also samples of program code and analyses of same, which (assuming they’re genuine) illustrate that the said code and the corresponding datasets are a total mess, such that any output they produce is untested and unreliable.

    Silly puppy, you started it. Don’t do that if you don’t want to follow through.

  22. #22 Eric Lund
    November 24, 2009

    Since when is it up to me to prove the code and data are corrupt?

    You are the one who is accusing the scientists of making mistakes in research that has passed peer review, so the burden of proof is on you to show that the results are erroneous. That implies that if you are basing claims of error on a piece of code that was posted on a server somewhere, you must show that that code was the actual code used in production and not an earlier version of the code that produced the published results. Until you do that, you have no evidence. As for data: The data are what they are, so again you have the burden of proof to show why the data don’t mean what they seem to mean. Scientists routinely argue over data quality, as the scientists who are the subject of these e-mails do.

    Also, this may be news to you, but most academics are not trained programmers. There are a few people who are specifically trained to produce computer code for models. As for the rest of us, if we need to do a quick calculation, we write a simple code to do that calculation, because the rest of the community assumes that we can. Most of that code is not intended for circulation beyond a group of a few people who are part of that collaboration. A simple cost-benefit analysis (you know, the sort of thing business types are supposedly fond of) will tell you that in most cases version control is more effort that it’s worth, and when a piece of code has a single author (a common scenario in academia) the naming conventions amount to whatever that author wants. That differs from the typical corporate situation where you have large teams of programmers working on a code–there, yes, you want to have detailed naming conventions and version control to make sure everybody’s code fragments work together.

  23. #23 Tyler DiPietro
    November 24, 2009

    Wolfwaker, they weren’t designing commercial software. They were likely writing small programs for numerical and simulation work. Code construction practices in such an environment are just be overly time consuming.

    I’m also having a hard time believing you’ve never run into weird floating point errors. If that’s the case you’re either a very exceptional programmer or a very lucky one.

  24. #24 Brian Macker
    November 24, 2009

    “This blog will not be used as a dumping ground for the text of climategate related “released” emails. I have surveyed my readers and overwhelmingly have been told that people would prefer to not see that.”

    I guess it’s not hard to survey a dozen people about whether they want to stick their fingers in their ears and go “La, la, la”.

  25. #25 Goon
    November 24, 2009

    Im no global warming expert, but after years of hearing deniers tell me all about the vast conspiracy, its striking that these emails emerge and it’s all so mundane and boring, that it seems some people have spent more time looking at these emails than at any real climate change science. The story to me is what the emails DONT show – the retarded death campy marching order flagrant conspiracy they’ve been claiming. Why? Because that conspiracy DOESNT EXIST, and if reading these emails make you think it does, well its a pretty sad state of what passes for a conspiracy these days

  26. #26 Evo Denier
    November 24, 2009

    GREG Laden: You said

    That verges on an inappropriate threat. First warning.
    ——————

    Sorry. I did not intend it to be a direct threat to you or anyone on this sight. I was speak in general. I do not fear the FEMA camps as much as some people, but I would be a very pissed on man if I were put in one. As a matter of fact Greg, hvaing this type of camp in America is an act of evil. Any govermment that trusts it’s own citizens little enough to place them in detention centers ansd re-educate their politcal thinking status is a desperate and weak government. Ever hear of “sensitivity training”. It a pathetic attent at re-education. I refuse to be their slave puppet of marxist brainwashing. I don;t do “sensitivity training” unless the person doing the training get to attend my class on national soverignty afterwards.

    What’s more this administration has repeatedly announced its outright hatred for traditional thinking Americans. Remember the watch list, or should we call it a hit list? What was it, FLAG@whitehouse.gov?

    Let’s face it Greg. If Bush had announced this type of list where liberals were being watched, there would be liberlas burning cars (and promoting global warming by doing so), looting buidings, fighting police, trashing colleges, burning buildings, beating people in the streets, etc. The typical response.

    Greg, this comment was not a direct threat to anyone. It was merely a statement of concern for my future well being in this dangerous world.

  27. #27 wolfwalker
    November 25, 2009

    … a lot of day to day scientific programming is done without the same approaches as one learns in programming school (as it were).

    And now we see why that’s a bad thing.

    Greg, you’re squirming. So are the other commenters who have tried to handwave this aside, like Tyler and Eric.

    First, the fact that some Good Programming Practices don’t apply to science programming does not mean that none of them apply. There are some programming practices that are simply A Damned Good Idea no matter what venue you’re in. Like standardized naming conventions, and variable initialization, and version control, and documentation. Rule Two of programming: always assume that someday someone else will have to read and understand your code. If you write a long program in ways that only you can read and maintain, and only if you don’t forget anything important, then by definition it is not a well-written program and you are not a good programmer.

    Second, a computer program is not an inductive argument. It can never be accepted as “valid until somebody proves otherwise.” I don’t give a damn how many peer reviews the resulting numbers have been through. I wouldn’t give a damn even if the peer-review in question was solidly based, and in this case many of the emails give the strong impression that Jones and Mann and others of their ilk were rigging the peer-review system. Programming doesn’t work that way. A computer is a mathematical machine. A computer program is like a mathematical proof. One error anywhere has the potential to infect the entire rest of the code. Therefore, any suspicion of error requires that any and all affected code be retested for validity.

    Yes, I know how expensive and time-consuming that can be. I’ve had to do it more than once. That’s why programmers have Good Programming Practices: it’s easier to write it right from the git-go than it is to try to unravel bad code. It’s also easier to debug when you do find errors. With a well-written, well-documented system you know immediately that an error here will affect code there/i>, there/i>, and over there/i>, and nowhere else. But the system described in the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is clearly not well-written or well-documented. Therefore it can’t be trusted until it has been tested. Thoroughly. Every single line of code. Either trace it and prove that it works as intended, or else feed it a complete set of test inputs, for which you already know the proper outputs, and see if it gets from I to O accurately. Those are the only two ways to test program code. “The numbers that came out have been peer-reviewed” doesn’t work.

    Oh, and Greg: you do, in fact, know me, although it was many years ago in another venue. There was a time when you trusted me enough to take my word for this. I find it both amusing and sad that now you don’t, simply because I’m saying something you don’t want to hear.

  28. #28 Good Boy
    November 25, 2009

    I can’t stand these global warming deniers, these are the same idiots who don’t realize that we needed to invade Iraq to free its people and stop Hussein from making WMD’s. They are probably the same nutjobs who think that the folks in Wall Street are using their influence to enrich themselves. I’m sorry, but in the real world, it just doesn’t work that way. These lousy hacks need to just shut up and realize that people like the folks on Wall Street, in the White House, in the Pentagon and yes on the IPCC, are just simply smarter than they are. Shut up conspiracy nuts, and listen to the people who know what’s best.

  29. #29 m Miller
    November 25, 2009

    Scientific community audit yourself before your reputation of objectivity is damaged beyond subjectivity.

  30. #30 wolfwalker
    November 26, 2009

    Well, now, this is interesting. For those who are a) still reading this and b) still have at least a crack of open-ness left in their minds, this blogpost and its comments include some enlightening bits of information.

    First, note that the blogger is clearly an experienced coder. You can tell by his fluent use of coder-jargon.

    Second, his analysis of the code in HARRY_READ_ME.txt is much harsher than mine.

    Third, the comments include links to newsgroup posts that seem to be by the gentleman who actually wrote the HARRY_READ_ME file. These newsgroup posts allow a better understanding of what “Harry” was trying to do … and incidentally, confirm that “Harry” was doing this recently, and working on production code and data. No one would put this kind of effort into analyzing prototype or discarded code and data.

  31. #31 Greg Laden
    November 26, 2009

    Wolf walker, First, the documents are still uncontextualized. Second, the commenter is absurd when he says that certain computer languages are inappropriate for certain things. As a scientist who codes I can’t tell you how loud I laughed at this. Do you understand why that is absurd? Do you have a clue? Go get a clue and come back and we’ll talk more (perhaps after thanksgiving dinner).

  32. #32 Buckaroo Banzai
    November 26, 2009

    I don’t understand why this is absurd, and even though I’m not a professional programmer, I’m not completely clueless. Isn’t true that can be far more easy to do some things in some languages than in others, though? Maybe I’m missing something on the context (which I didn’t read), but it seems to be perfectly OK to say that some languages are more proper or inappropriate for certain things. It’s not like they’re all the same, alternatives developed for no reason.

  33. #33 gary Johnson
    November 27, 2009

    I think you guys are missing the point. These emails point to fraud, data modification, withholding publicly funded scientific data. This is going to be investigated. In addition, there is a serious non-criminal legal aspect in what would be called tortious interference.

    The source code of the modelling programs was also in the files that were either hacked, or most likely, posted by a whistleblower. These source files are being rapidly analyzed by a number of computer scientists. The results do not look good. The code is buggy, is written like spaghetti, but worse, shows much data manipulation to achieve the “desired” results.

  34. #34 Greg Laden
    November 27, 2009

    Buckaroo, yes you are missing something. There is a handful of programming langauges that tend to get picked up by scientists who do programming, they learn these langauges and then they use them for everything. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. This is common practice, and in fact, it is best practice for the simple reason that it is inefficient and unreliabe to use newly learned programming languages for specific tasks because people think those langauges happen to be optimal. The truth is that for the most part, what can be done in one language can be done in another.

    What you have to understand here (and there is a a good chance you already do but are pretending you don’t get it for political reasons) is that the accusation by anonymous people with a political agenda is being made senslessly and defended rather clumsily.

    Gary, no they don’t, and no it wasn’t. The only point that is begin missed here is the one on top of your head.

  35. #35 Charles. U. Farley.
    November 29, 2009

    What an odd state of affairs.

    It would appear that the “denialists” have switched sides, with the pro agw camp firmly denying the emails have any legitimacy.
    In fact theyre now promoting their own “conspiracy” theories.
    Who’d have thought it!

    Anther oddity.
    An accusation thats always being levelled at anyone who isnt on the “believer” side gets tarred with the claim that theyre in the pockets of the oil companies.
    Funny that one of the emails discusses courting Shell ( you know that big evil oil company thats always ruining the planet?) for funding for the Tyndall centre.
    If it wasnt november id swear it was april 1st.

    Obviously the truth seems to matter not one jot for some people, but id like to suggest that if the pro camp are so certain, so absolutely convinced, so faithful (to the point of radicalism in some cases) that they do the right thing and consent to allow full, transparent and free ( theres a word we dont hear much nowadays) debate of the FACTS,the models, the so called science, the theories, just allow an open and uncluttered debate and see where it goes.
    If the overwhelming view is agw is real and polar bears are hanging onto ice cubes by the skin of their claws, then so be it, itd be accepted.
    If the opposite turns out to be true then so be that.

    As things currently stand there are way too many unknowns.

    I dont want to hear “peer review” spouted as the ultimate trump card to win the argument because i can trump that easily- the science when its based on flawed data means what?
    It means youre wrong.

  36. #36 Stephanie Z
    November 29, 2009

    Farley, nobody’s been denying people the opportunity to debate AGW. The topic is approaching porn in the amount of internet real estate appropriated. The fact that the debates haven’t gone the way you’ve wanted them to doesn’t change the amount of verbiage.

    Also, nobody is claiming that the emails aren’t legitimate. They’ve been recognized as such, and the information has been confirmed by third parties. What is going on is equivalent to hearing someone say, “I could kill my mother right now,” and not feeling a need to call the police immediately or saying, “Let’s read the published book before worrying about the typos in the author’s final draft.”

    While I’m well aware that you would prefer the peer-reviewed data to go away, but you’ve got a little problem. One of the things these emails haven’t done is even hint at the existence of a global conspiracy that would make the whopping mass of peer-reviewed data suspect. Nope. It still stands, and you haven’t even shown problems in the data from this one lab.

  37. #37 Greg Laden
    November 29, 2009

    firmly denying the emails have any legitimacy.

    I don’t think anyone has firmly denied the legitimacy of the emails. What else have you got?

    t theyre now promoting their own “conspiracy” theories.

    Interesting. I have not heard any of those. What are they?

    An accusation thats always being levelled at anyone who isnt on the “believer”

    What is the “believer” side in all this? Certainly not the climate science side. Scientists are not “believers” in science. This might be new to you, but it was covered in 9th grade in most US schools … the scientific process and stuff.

    allow full, transparent and free ( theres a word we dont hear much nowadays) debate of the FACTS,the models, the so called science, the theories, just allow an open and uncluttered debate and see where it goes.

    Nobody gets to “allow” that… it simply happens as part of the day to day scientific process. Which is flawed, but not terribly flawed. It mostly works pretty well.

    Please keep in mind that the scientific debate and discussion about climate change is many decades old. The so-called AGW denialists are pretty late to the game and have a LOT of catching up to do, even on the basic science itself, let alone the history of this discussion.

    I dont want to hear “peer review” spouted as the ultimate trump card to win the argument because i can trump that easily- the science when its based on flawed data means what?

    You are eliminating peer review? Why? Do you prefer unfettered bullshit? Apparently so….

  38. #38 Pet
    November 29, 2009

    “Greg, you are squirming”

    LOL.

    Obvious to all except him.

  39. #39 Greg Laden
    November 29, 2009

    Pet: Thanks for pointing out Wolfwalker’s comments. I was busy for a couple of days and missed that.

    Wolfwalker: You tell me that I actually know you from a different context and would have trusted you when you tell me about programming in science and best practices. I don’t believe you. If this was true, you would have used an identifiable email address or otherwise indicated who you are.

    In any event, this is not a matter of trust. It is a matter of what actually happens, and of personal/professional experience. It is simply true that the best practices of professional programmers and the typical “good enough” practices of scientists using programming are just not the same. They really really aren’t. You can say it again and again that they are but you are simply wrong, whoever you are.

    So who are you?

  40. #40 Charles. U. Farley
    November 29, 2009

    [i]Farley, nobody’s been denying people the opportunity to debate AGW.[/i]

    But of course they are! Phil Jones certainly is.
    Al Bore most definitely is! The main stream media surely is!

    [i]The topic is approaching porn in the amount of internet real estate appropriated. The fact that the debates haven’t gone the way you’ve wanted them to doesn’t change the amount of verbiage.[/i]

    The debate hasnt gone the way i wanted? And which way was that Steph?
    I wanted the truth. Simple as. I dont want biased opinions and screaming hysterical fanatics calling for people to be “strangled in their beds”.
    I just want the facts.
    Dont you?

    [/i]Also, nobody is claiming that the emails aren’t legitimate. They’ve been recognized as such, and the information has been confirmed by third parties.[/i]

    Then the debate has to be restarted because as youve just stated, the emails and the information within is legitimate.
    Whats that mean?
    It means the whole global warming edifice is built on nothing more than the hot air it professes humans are to blame for!
    I can say that with total conviction because data has been manipulated, destroyed, tampered with, withheld from legitimate FOIA requests and all the other underhanded things we have seen.

    [/i]What is going on is equivalent to hearing someone say, “I could kill my mother right now,” and not feeling a need to call the police immediately or saying, “Let’s read the published book before worrying about the typos in the author’s final draft.”[/i]

    Actually its equivalent to hearing someone say; ” I have just killed my mother…..etc etc”.

    [i]While I’m well aware that you would prefer the peer-reviewed data to go away, but you’ve got a little problem. [/i]

    I have no issue with peer reviewed data at all.
    So long as its been done straight and not perverted by people with an agenda.
    People named in the emails for example, the main proponent being Mr Jones.

    [i]One of the things these emails haven’t done is even hint at the existence of a global conspiracy that would make the whopping mass of peer-reviewed data suspect. Nope. It still stands, and you haven’t even shown problems in the data from this one lab.[/i]

    Steph, my dear, just pull back a second and have read of what youve written.

    You accept the emails are legitimate.
    You accept the actions described within as having truth.

    Since Mr Jones and his band of globally based corrupt peer reviewers have destroyed evidence, fiddled data, committed illegal actions in regard of FOIA, attempted to stifle any kind of data release, plus a 100 and one other actions; Just how do you get past the fact that the data, being as its been “peer reviewed” by these people be taken as factual and of the highest quality?
    If you have an ounce of logic, you cannot have any confidence that the info being given is correct.
    Its the integrity of the reviewers, Jones et al thats the problem!
    Theyve misconstrued the case, the peer reviewed data you point to is trumped by the fact that it was peer reviewed by people with an agenda, an agenda to get the “right” answers come what may.
    The scientific method was abandoned in favour of theories that didnt fit the facts.

    That dosent make me happy, it makes me sad because its going to impact on ALL science and ALL scientists due to personal bias and criminal behaviour of some major league bad apples.

    One last thing regarding the issue of a global conspiracy.
    I tend to rather believe that people see what they want to.
    Scientists are likely to be no different except theyre the ones who should be questioning everything.
    Clearly some have not and have either gone along with the “peer reviewed data” ( Jones is too high up the ladder to ever misrepresent the data surely?) or as we have seen, the data they have been given is the same flawed and massaged twaddle theyve been giving the rest of us.
    The ones that have had doubts, have had questions and have asked them have been marginalised and ridiculed by a new breed of “scientist”.
    One who believes everything and questions nothing -in case Shell Oil cuts off his research grant.

    Peer review papers are not worth the shoddily massaged data theyre based upon, because since the raw data is no longer available, its not possible for even a pro agw scientist to go take a look at.

    However, im sure youll continue to spout the case for peer reviewed data as the be all and end all, so feel free.

  41. #41 Greg Laden
    November 29, 2009

    Farley, don’t be an ass. Zoologists threw the whole idea of bigfoot out of zoology in the mid 20th century. GW denialists got thrown out of the climate discussion after a much longer period of time that we understood global warming to be quite real.

    Otherwise there is quite a bit of room for debate within the actual scientific community.

    [i]

  42. #42 Charles. U. Farley
    November 29, 2009

    [quote]You are eliminating peer review? Why? Do you prefer unfettered bullshit? Apparently so….[/quote]

    Do you believe that peer review when conducted fraudulently is acceptable then?

    Apparently so…….

  43. #43 Greg Laden
    November 29, 2009

    Farley, your judgment in these areas is highly questionable.

  44. #44 Charles. U. Farley
    November 29, 2009

    Greg, If you wish to discuss anthropology, how about commenting on Piltdown man?

    So, far from scientists with a differing analysis being allowed to debate, they got “thrown out”?

    Seems obvious that anyone who dosent fall into line with the pro agw view is persona non grata and must be eliminated from the discussion.

    One final question before i depart the blog, What will you say when you find out that you were wrong?
    Will you apologise to my children, or theirs?

    I would.

  45. #45 Greg Laden
    November 29, 2009

    If you wish to discuss anthropology, how about commenting on Piltdown man?

    OMG … are you serious?

    Cool. Anthropology is of questionable validity because of Piltdown Man.

    We now understand that Farly is an utter nut job. Astounding.

    Seems obvious that anyone who dosent fall into line with the pro agw view is persona non grata and must be eliminated from the discussion.

    Yes, and what is your problem with this? GW is indisputable. The A part is not any longer in dispute but some interesting details to be worked out. Humans really did evolve from an ape-like common ancestor with chimps, the world did not start 4004 BC, and it is not flat, and so on.

    One final question before i depart the blog,

    You’re not going anywhere, Farley. You don’t have teh balls to walk away from this conversation.

    I would.

    Good. My second child was born three days ago and he’s sitting (in a manner of speaking) right there looking at me (or staring into space, really) waiting for your apology.

  46. #46 Tony Hooper
    November 29, 2009

    My god, what a disgraceful blog. I’m sure my limited IQ has taken a backwards step from reading this.

    And I’m equally sure that if this is the type of informed debate people with greater intelligence than I have with themselves, I really don’t want my tax dollars going into universities.

    If climategate has highlighted one thing, Question Everything!

  47. #47 Denbo
    November 30, 2009

    Ugh… I suggest you all look at some of the software comments in the code. The hide your head in the sand mentality doesn’t bode well.

    By all means keep labeling the skeptics. It’s appears to be all you have left.

  48. #48 Stephanie Z
    November 30, 2009

    Denbo, did you want to point to the comments you find so overwhelmingly problematic, or are you just repeating what someone told you about the big, bad comments?

  49. #49 Frank
    November 30, 2009

    Oh my God they still believe in it… won’t you drop it, you darn AGW fanatics?? It’s over, got it? OVER!

    What do you need to accept that the scientists manipulated the data? Did you expect a comment like : “Hello, I am Harry the programmer and in the following lines of code I will MANIPULATE THE DATA because if I don’t people will see that AGW IS A BIG FARCE! LOL!!!1″.

    I bet you would still deny that AGW is a fraud even if Al Gore told you so.

  50. #50 Stephanie Z
    November 30, 2009

    I think I finally understood something about the AGW denialists today. Not the ones in the pay of Big Fossil; I already understood their motivations in jumping up and down and screaming that there was a smoking gun somewhere in all the emails. No, I’m talking about the people who clearly don’t have a clue what the science says or how much of it there is, people like Frank and Tony and….

    I don’t know why it took me so long, but only today did I get that they think we take this stuff on faith. I mean, it’s obvious once you think about it. They have to, so they assume we do too. And they assume our faith will be destroyed if one or two of these scientists throw snit fits and prove themselves to be less than gods, because part of the appeal of denialism for them is tearing down the gods.

    Um, news for you, guys. We expect scientists to screw up now and again. That’s why other scientists review the work before it’s published. That’s why other scientists replicate (or not) work after it’s done. That’s why scientists look at the problem from multiple angles and point out where there are data conflicts.

    Frank, Tony, in case you don’t remember, one of the things that made you feel so good a couple of weeks ago was that you were fighting the “good fight” against a vast, global conspiracy. That’s because that’s what it would take to produce the heaps of evidence that we have for AGW. Not a single group of researchers. Not a single (draft of a) computer program. Not a few annoyed people exchanging revenge-fantasy emails.

    Call me when you’ve found your conspiracy in the emails. In the meantime, realize that we’re not denying that those emails weren’t sent by gods. And realize that we’re not that excited only because we never expected them to be.

  51. #51 Dacks
    November 30, 2009

    It’s hard to get excited about the denialists because – it’s SO BLOODY OBVIOUS! Arguing about a few emails is entirely beside the point. The trend lines didn’t start last week, last year, or ten years ago. Thousands of people, each looking at his or her own little domain of data points, have concluded roughly the same thing. The world is warming, and no matter what we do big changes are coming our way. IF we try really hard, we can, possibly, avoid the worst but that seems less likely.

    From David Roberts at Grist
    “If I can’t convince a guy standing in a downpour that it’s raining, seems to me the dumbass in the rain is the story, not my poor messaging.”

  52. #52 Jason Thibeault
    November 30, 2009

    So all you have to do to make a movement you don’t like be “over, got it? OVER!” is be a member of the movement and do something unsavory? Okay, got it. So maybe we can take down the Catholic church by planting a priest who — get this — happens to be a paedophile. Or, maybe we can overthrow the government by getting one of our guys into office who happens to take kickbacks on the side from corporations! Wow, the possibilities are endless!

    Not that science is as rife with examples of unsavory characters as my two examples, but I’d like to point out that science itself is not wrong where one scientist (or even multiple, on the same team) did something assholish. You know, in the same way that it’s impossible to shake people’s faith in religion by exposing the hypocrisies of the religious leaders, since NOT ALL RELIGIOUS LEADERS ARE LIKE THAT. In fact, one might even say MOST religious leaders are not like that. And since science thrives best in broad daylight (as opposed to my examples, which fester best if left in the dark), when someone turns out to be an immoral sack of shit that’s doing the science behind AGW a major discredit, why is it the same people that are quick to defend corrupt politicians (e.g. Republicans) and/or corrupt clergy (e.g. any fundie sect) are also so quick to declare every scrap of science part of a global conspiracy of fearmongering? And this just because one tiny piece of science was fudged in such a way that it brought one study’s data into question, questions being raised by OTHER SCIENTISTS!?

    Don’t you Minnesotans have a phrase for this? Uff da?

  53. #53 Greg Laden
    December 1, 2009

    Ufda is one word. It is spelled in various ways.

  54. #54 Hugh
    December 1, 2009

    If science is the search for knowledge, can anyone explain why these climate scientists refused FOI requests?

  55. #55 Tony
    December 1, 2009

    Wow, you people have no clue what’s going on. There is no “Right” and “Left” wing. They are all corporate fascists. Please follow the money. The same bankers and equity firms that own all of big oil also own all the carbon trading rackets as well as fund all the “climate change” rhetoric.

    I am all about cleaning up the environment, but with innovation and technology, education and a paradigm shift away from the wasteful nature globalism/consumerism.

    The fraud that climate-gate represents, and the people behind it have no intention of actually address real environmental issues. They’ve simply hijacked the movement to make billions off of it. Nothing could be clearer if you just simply follow the money.

  56. #56 Stephanie Z
    December 1, 2009

    Hugh, they didn’t. They talked about wanting to refuse them from particular people, but they never received one. Read the emails instead of taking people’s word for what they say.

    Tony, who’s talking about Left and Right?

  57. #57 Tony
    December 1, 2009

    Seriously, what makes you think the same “peer-reviewed” fraud that goes on in the pharmaceutical industry can’t happen with global warming research? Only when big-pharma fudges the numbers, people die; and they STILL do it!

    Do you understand how many billions are to be made with the proposed pyramid schemes of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes alone? Didn’t catch Gordon Brown’s TED talk on YouTube about how a global government is coming to roll all of this in? Do you understand what power will come with said global government?

    Don’t realize the UN is putting up banners in Laos telling these people not to use energy? They barely have electricity to begin with and they are already being told to limit its use?

    The Internet has already destroyed the elites’ monopoly over information, now CNC and personal manufacturing is threatening their monopoly over industry and manufacturing – in fact, it is threatening their entire consumerist paradigm.

    The march of progress is no longer benefiting the elite, but rather its empowering the people. They aim to stop it by regulating human activity in regards to “climate change.”

  58. #58 Jared
    December 1, 2009

    Tony, are you really that clueless?

  59. #59 Tony
    December 1, 2009

    Wow Jared, way to stick it to me. Care to explain what clue I’m missing?

    The goal of all men with power since the beginning of time has been world conquest – now something is magically different and they no longer want it?

    Obama, Bush, Al Gore; don’t represent the elite? They aren’t all connected to the big oil companies and Wall Street???

    Is Obama reforming education and emphasizing technology and innovation? Dismantling the wasteful consumerist construct that caused all of this in the first place? Where’s the trains and affordable mass-transportation? How come we are still burning thousands of tons of diesel fuel to ship plastic crap from China when we could be making it locally?

    Why aren’t incentives being made to encourage local manufacturing and agriculture? They don’t want decentralization which will threaten their bloated, inefficient monopolies.

    Nope, all they are proposing are new taxes, new ponzi schemes, new rackets, none of which will stop global warming be it real, man made or natural.

    I believe the world is facing catastrophic environmental hazards, including full spectrum pollution from the petro-chemical industry that needs to be stopped whether or not there is GW or not, franken-food from Monsanto, over fishing etc. We need real solutions by innovators and technocrats, not politicians who are so clearly on the payroll of special interests.

  60. #60 Dacks
    December 1, 2009

    “The goal… world conquest…

    … the elite? They … big oil companies … Wall Street???

    … They don’t want decentralization…

    they are proposing are new taxes, new ponzi schemes, new rackets…
    full spectrum pollution from the petro-chemical industry … franken-food from Monsanto, over fishing etc.
    … on the payroll of special interests. ”

    Tony, I’m sensing some paranoia here.

  61. #61 patrick
    December 1, 2009

    Hi

    Yes the program analysing the data are modified to ignore any decline.
    I have 20 years of programming as a professional and this shows forgery!

    I downloaded the eMails and the various programs hacked from the university read the eMails and started to analyze the programs used to produce the temperature analysis results. It appears that these programs have been purposedly modified to hide cooling periods!
    Here are some extracts of these programs with the comments put by these ‘scientists’ in the source code:

    ——
    ; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
    ; standardised datasets.
    ; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
    ; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
    ; “all band” timeseries
    ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
    ;
    yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
    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
    if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
    ;
    loadct,39
    def_1color,20,color=’red’
    plot,[0,1]
    multi_plot,nrow=4,layout=’large’
    if !d.name eq ‘X’ then begin

    Note: Here we see that clearly an artificial correction is applied.

    Here is the result of a search for the occurrence of ‘decline’ in all the source code available. The line containing the word decline is preceded by
    the file name of the Fortran (Fortan is the programming language used by thee guys) module. These programs are used to analyse the series of data produced b temperature probes from all over the world and produce human readable result especially temperature curves. All the programs are modified so any decline of temperature becomes invisible. I personally find it very choking as the carbon taxes are voted in the belief of global warming and I intend to show that in fact it is a scam, ran by scientist, who do it to get the credits for their own benefit.

    File harris-tree\briffa_sep98_e.pro:
    7 ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
    File harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro:
    6 ; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
    File harris-tree\recon1.pro:
    7 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon2.pro:
    8 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:
    7 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon_jones.pro:
    8 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon_mann.pro:
    12 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon_overpeck.pro:
    9 ; the decline
    File harris-tree\recon_tornyamataim.pro:
    8 ; the decline
    File osborn-tree3\nature_comb.pro:
    238 ; title=’!5Ring density decline!3′
    419 ; title=’!5Ring width decline!3′
    File osborn-tree3\nature_comb_large.pro:
    237 ; title=’!5Ring density decline!3′
    429 ; title=’!5Ring width decline!3′
    File osborn-tree5\briffa_fellow1.pro:
    198 ; Now overlay instrumental curve to show the decline
    File osborn-tree5\pages_fig3.pro:
    187 ; Now overlay instrumental curve to show the decline
    File osborn-tree5\recon1.pro:
    6 ; the decline
    File osborn-tree6\analyse_mxdmoncorr.pro:
    7 ; ALSO computes correlations after smoothing (to identify the decline).
    File osborn-tree6\analyse_trwmoncorr.pro:
    17 ; ALSO computes correlations after smoothing (to identify the decline).
    File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro:
    32 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
    52 ; ‘Northern Hemisphere MXD corrected for decline’],$
    File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_decline1.pro:
    7 ; Results are then saved for briffa_sep98_decline2.pro to perform rotated PCA
    8 ; on, to obtain the ‘decline’ signal!
    146 save,filename=’briffa_sep98_decline1.idlsave’,$
    File osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_decline2.pro:
    3 ; correctly normalised etc. Rotated PCA is performed to obtain the ‘decline’
    8 restore,filename=’briffa_sep98_decline1.idlsave’
    File osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet.pro:
    18 ; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
    File osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro:
    18 ; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
    File osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro:
    103 printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
    File osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
    3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
    12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
    21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
    91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt=” else ttt=’ (corrected)’
    145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+’una’ else fn=fn+’adj’
    154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
    File osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
    7 ; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
    44 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro:
    5 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
    74 ; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_mxd.pro:
    7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\funct_decline.pro:
    1 pro funct_decline,x,a,f,pder
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro:
    10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.pro:
    10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro:
    10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
    3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
    12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
    21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
    91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt=” else ttt=’ (corrected)’
    145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+’una’ else fn=fn+’adj’
    154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
    7 ; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
    42 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_pcr_modesslp.pro:
    45 ; mxdyear,nretain,usefilt,usecorr,usedecline,useper,userot,thalf
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\mxd_stp_modes.pro:
    14 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    85 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\olat_stp_modes.pro:
    87 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_calibmxd4.pro:
    3 ; calibmxd4 has calibration done on both decline-corrected and uncorrected
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_decline.pro:
    2 ; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
    85 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
    92 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
    99 declinets(kkk)=cval
    105 function_name=’funct_decline’)
    107 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
    109 oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
    174 ; Now apply I completely artificial adjustment for the decline
    177 tfac=declinets-cval
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\pl_mxd_stp_modes.pro:
    20 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    File osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\testeof.pro:
    3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
    12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
    21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
    93 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt=” else ttt=’ (corrected)’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\brambatti_f6ab.pro:
    2 ; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
    104 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
    111 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
    118 declinets(kkk)=cval
    124 function_name=’funct_decline’)
    126 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
    128 ;oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro:
    5 ; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
    76 ; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_mxd.pro:
    7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4alps.pro:
    72 printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
    74 printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro:
    65 printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’
    67 printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\funct_decline_matchvar.pro:
    1 pro funct_decline_matchvar,x,a,f,pder
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\funct_decline_regress.pro:
    1 pro funct_decline_regress,x,a,f,pder
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps12.pro:
    10 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps15.pro:
    14 if doyr[0] gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps24.pro:
    13 if yrstart gt 1937 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\maps_general.pro:
    59 if ndec gt 0 then message,’Plotting into the decline period!’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_eof_rotate.pro:
    3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
    12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
    21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
    91 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt=” else ttt=’ (corrected)’
    145 if usedecline eq 0 then fn=fn+’una’ else fn=fn+’adj’
    154 usedecline,useper,usecorr,nretain,userot
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro:
    7 ; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
    44 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_pcr_modesslp.pro:
    66 ; mxdyear,nretain,usefilt,usecorr,usedecline,useper,userot,thalf
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\mxd_stp_modes.pro:
    16 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    91 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\olat_stp_modes.pro:
    87 ; Leading mode is contaminated by decline, so pre-filter it (but not
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_calibmxd4.pro:
    3 ; calibmxd4 has calibration done on both decline-corrected and uncorrected
    146 title=panlab[jpan]+’Verification RE (decline-adjusted)’
    259 title=panlab[jpan]+slopetit+’ (decline-adjusted & infilled)’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro:
    2 ; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
    10 ;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
    11 ; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
    16 ; 2=do go on and produce a new data set with adjustment for decline
    200 ; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
    207 declinets=fltarr(mxdnyr)*!values.f_nan
    214 declinets(kkk)=cval
    222 function_name=’funct_decline’+funcadd)
    224 declinets(kkk)=vval(*)
    226 oplot,mxdyear,declinets,thick=5
    300 ; Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline
    303 tfac=declinets-cval
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_mxd_stp_modes.pro:
    23 ; usedecline,useper,userot
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\testeof.pro:
    3 ; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
    12 usedecline=1 ; 0=uncorrected 1=decline-corrected
    21 if usedecline eq 1 then fdcalibu=fdcalibc
    93 if usedecline eq 0 then ttt=” else ttt=’ (corrected)’
    File osborn-tree6\summer_modes\old\calibrate_mxd.pro:
    7 ; Due to the decline, all time series are first high-pass filter with a

  62. #62 J dub
    December 1, 2009

    Despicable !
    I want my money back !

  63. #63 Curt
    December 1, 2009

    I see all kinds of talk… about big money… billions are funneled thru to proponents of global warming and if they get their way, hundreds of billions more will fall under their control and direction… their very pride, power and position rides on their global warming predictions coming true, but which so far are not coming true. There’s huge money at stake for the proponents of global warming. HUGE!

    But that’s not the real crime here. The biggest crime is the damage being done to the name of science.

    By misleading and lying and closing off open debate the very trust in science is being killed. There are plenty of important issues (health, clean water, education, food supply, pollution) which need to be addressed. If the very trust in science is spent on a contentious issue (and global warming is contentious) where will that trust and support be for science in the future… heavy metal poisons in the water? “Yeah right! More pollutions scares, we’ve heard it all before.”

    The very nature of science is founded on skepticism and doubt… Davinci, Galileo, Darwin, Huxley… I will gladly stand on the side of skepticism and open debate and questioning… and I will stand in good company.

    Time will shed the light of truth on the theory of global warming and CO2. Right now the light shines favorably on the skeptics. And by the global warming proponents own words (Mojib Latif), will continue to do so for the next 20 to 30 years.

    It’s time to open up the debate and give equal voice and funding to both sides. Take the emotion and vindictiveness out of it and get back to reason.

    Let’s not sacrifice the trust of science on the alter of global warming.

  64. #64 Greg Laden
    December 1, 2009

    Note: Here we see that clearly an artificial correction is applied.

    Have you not read any of the numerous blog posts that discuss and adequately explain this?

    The rest of your grep job is senseless. Do it again with the word “increase” ….

    Oh, and your appeal to authority, that you are some sort of expert, is verifiably untrue. I looked you up and you are not an expert. You are just some moron on the internet.

  65. #65 Chess
    December 3, 2009

    Richard Dawkins, or one of his types, used to say that “Science corrects itself”

    Apparently it is taking a hacker this time to correct it.

    Correct itself my ass!

  66. #66 Stephanie Z
    December 3, 2009

    At least he didn’t try to insist that denialist types could read.

  67. #67 wildlifer
    December 3, 2009

    @61
    Another example of someone seeing something that fits their biases and runs with it, without checking any further.
    “Hide the decline” has to do with an anthropogenic-induced divergence (believed due to acid rain) of the data post 1960 in a single set of tree rings. You don’t like that proxy? Get rid of it. It changes nothing.

  68. #68 chess
    December 3, 2009

    Never the word “denailist” has brought joy and pride to my heart as it does these days.

    Seeing a buffoon saying that “science is settled” and then going to take a picture with the Hollyowood guys, and then running to get his Nobel prize should wake up all brain washed types.

  69. #69 chess
    December 3, 2009

    Oh yes and about the reading thing, the my denialist types do sometimes read; actually read the e-mails and the joke of the “dog ate my homework” (aka deleted raw data).

    We leave reading the “piiieeeer reviewed” to your enlightened types, to tell us exactly how we should live our lives.

  70. #70 cdf
    December 3, 2009

    Lies, Lies
    Spin, Spin
    Once the toothpastes out….
    It’s hard to get back in

  71. #71 Stephanie Z
    December 3, 2009

    Huh. I’d never thought to base my scientific conclusions on nursery rhymes. This is way easier than actually grappling with data!!!

  72. #72 chess
    December 3, 2009

    Data!!!!!

    Where is the data?

    The dog ate it?????

  73. #73 Stephanie Z
    December 3, 2009

    chess, link to actual email in context?

  74. #74 wildlifer
    December 3, 2009

    chess, the raw data resides with the custodian of the raw data – the met service. CRU is not the custodian of the raw data.

  75. #75 Mike Haubrich, FCD
    December 3, 2009

    Could somebody PLEASE explain to Farley the difference between a “>” and a “]”? I can’t even read his replies because he has screwed this up.

    Perhaps I am better off.

  76. #76 Stephanie Z
    December 3, 2009

    Come on, Mike. You know you want Farley to call you, “my dear,” too. And you know he will, because he wasn’t being transparently condescending to me just because he couldn’t stand being out-argued by a girl. Right?

  77. #77 assman
    December 3, 2009

    I looked at the code and it look like shit to me.

    I looked at Gavin Schmidt’s code and it also looks really really bad.

    Is this a smoking gun? Yes it is. There is not need for proof of nefarious schemes. Horribly written code is sufficient for me. Does this call into question climate science. No IT CALLS INTO QUESTION ALL SCIENCE!! All scientific fields are like this. Code is written by grad students who function on coffee and who knows what. There is little to no testing. Code quality is uniformly attrocious. I don’t trust anything that comes out of academia and is produced by computer models. Its all garbage. But is anybody going to correct this? No because academicians have no incentive. They are incentivized to do really shoddy work, really quickly and then hype it so that others follow them. Science sucks.

  78. #78 Steven
    December 4, 2009

    It’s not just the emails and the context, it’s the data that was taken and disseminated to people such as myself who back this stuff up and HELP disseminate it further.

    This whole defensive attitude all of you WARMERS (How do you like name calling now, don’t be hypocrits now, play fair) is in complete vain because this institute that the IPCC fed off of for all pivotal data turned around and said miraculously that THEY LOST ALL OF THE DATA THAT THE MODELS WERE BUILT WITH.

    If you deny the context of Emails is in question or the extent of a smear campaign this is all well and good, but stop avoiding the fact that the REACTION these PROFESSIONALS gave was to act like a little child caught with their hands in the cookie jar. If the data stood the test of scrutiny it would still be there. PERIOD!

    And you’re all blaming the hacker for theft alone?

    What do you call the most massive re-organization of world economy to solve a problem they had a mandate to propel for political reasons from the start which was to be taken care of by a GLOBAL TAX which in effect is GRAND THEFT? Is this not theft also of a much larger kind? Global extortion and manipulation?

    You should all be ashamed of yourselves for not allowing your logic to form you opinions rather than your pre-dispositions and or personal agendas ignoring the cold hard truth.

    THEFT is THEFT. Don’t blame the hacker who was probably at the back end of a decades worth of career smearing for having had enough of this Gravy Train nonsense and deciding to fight fire with fire.

    In NAZI Germany they called them Brown shirts; give them a job when there is un-employment and they will rip apart democracy like a pack of ravenous dogs. I guess in this new public introduction of Fascism 21st Century style they only needed to change the colour of the shirt. Green is the new Brown.

    The HONEST scientists who have been trodden on, who actually CARED about getting an answer to whether man did or did not ‘drastically’ affect the climate via CO2 deserve your support and focus right now instead of trying to ‘burn’ a hacker because what he revealed has destroyed the Green Ego of band-wagon style droves of Media programmed masses…..Deep Breath…..You all need to realize that current Geo-Politics and agendas are all about globalization; Period! They care not about the environment.

    If you don’t believe this then you have a problem. The idea of a world government was bound to come along sooner or later and if you look at history they have been announcing the intention to do this for at least the last century. The only way to fund a world government would be a World Tax. Period. This is not conspiracy theory, it is common sense. Bureaucrats need to get paid too.

    The real victim here is the HONEST scientific community, and the fellon is those who subverted the truth and conspired to commit world wide FRAUD. Stop making the hacker look like the bad guy and start looking at the Gores of this world and their true intentions. In Criminal psychology they call this ‘Motive’ and it is the FIRST step in getting to the bottom of a CRIME.

    The CRIME is exposed. It’s too late to ignore it or palm it off as un-important. Start acting like adults people. Ask the real questions first and stop playing with the fringe arguments. It’s quite nauseating to watch grown adults act like this.

  79. #79 Tony
    December 4, 2009

    Using the word “denialist” which isn’t even a real word, is a total cop out from real debate. You suggest automatically that the case is closed. Since your science has been exposed as a fraud, I guess hysteria, ill-reason, and fanaticism would be the best way to continue your crusade.

    Where’s our CO2 level data come from? Ice core samples. How far back does that data go? How come it doesn’t go back any further? The answer is, there were NO ice caps beyond that point. CO2 levels are between 300/400 ppm now, when the Antarctic ice began to form 30 million years ago, it was TWICE that! Before that period, there were temperate forests covering Antarctica, which was already located on the southern pole.

    This AWG scare is voodoo witch doctor science at best, demanding gold, women and power to make the snake god spit the sun back out – because people didn’t know what an eclipse was yet. Luckily for us, we can check Texas A&M studies, paleontology records who work independently and neglected by the big money tainting the AGW debate, and see the truth ourselves.

    Climate and CO2 levels are anything but steady. Today’s climate and CO2 levels are considered some of the lowest levels ever in Earth’s long history … they have no where to go but up. CO2 and temperature increases have been seen to cause an explosion of plant and animal life, not destroy it.

    Humans need to be prepared to handle the climate no matter what it does or why. We need to continue focusing on progress, science and technology, not arresting it or even turning the clock back, while paying taxes, tributes and giving up our human rights to a bunch of GD lawyers and bankers!!!

    And finally, we have a host of real issues of poison and pollution, waste and fraud that is endangering our planet and our own health, and its not even being mentioned! Why? Because that would require big business to change, not us.

  80. #80 Greg Laden
    December 4, 2009

    Tony, you are correct when you note that there have been major changes in the climate of this planet over long periods of time, including large changes in CO2. This is well known and man of the details are well understood and it has nothing to do with the argument at hand … about the significance of C02 being above 350 or 400, or the fact that such increases are human caused. Nothing.

    This is a difficult topic. I don’t expect the average person who has not sat down and taken the time to really study this to grasp it easily, but it can be understood if you want to. In your case, maybe not, because you seem to have made up your mind with only a vague understanding, probably for political reasons.

    But, there is an excellent book coming out in a few days that I’m currently reading and that I highly recommend as a starting point. You can pre-order a copy now: Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity

  81. #81 Rice
    December 4, 2009

    Tony, why do you think “denialist” is not a word?

  82. #82 Tony
    December 4, 2009

    Greg, you don’t make any sense. CO2 levels were past 700ppm when Antarctica started to form ice 30 million years ago.

    CO2 levels have been as high as 4,000 ppm in the past. In fact, CO2 levels recently (geologically speaking) have been the lowest ever in earth’s long history.

    AWG proponents are taking a tiny (and convenient) sliver of time, and jumping to conclusions (also convenient). Not only is this dishonest, its just plain bad science.

    What caused CO2 levels to be at 700-800 ppm 30 million years ago? How come the planet started to cool despite these high CO2 levels?

    That book you referred me to says 350ppm is our limit, beyond that we face disaster. But it is naturally possible for levels to be twice that. Natural climate change usually takes a long time, but it has frozen or thawed this planet in 10′s or 100′s of years as well! So honestly, my point is, I haven’t made up my mind, but beyond evidence that appears to be fraudulently manipulated for political and personal reasons (Gore’s data, and now Climate Gate), I see nothing convincing about the AWG arguement.

    I think we need to worry more about GMO, poisoning our food and water with chemicals, mercury, fluoride, dumping depleted uranium in war zones, neglecting mass-transit, and the overall waste that comes from globalization, corporate fascism, consumerism, and our throw-away mentality.

  83. #83 Greg Laden
    December 5, 2009

    Tony. … the last, oh, let’s say, 65 million years is not a “convenient” sliver of time. Comparing CO2 levels over the last tens of millions of years with hundreds of millions of years ago is like comparing how different fules may work in your car but only considering hay and alphalpha because that is what we fed horses long before the car was invented. It is utterly stupid. You are being utterly stupid when you spout that sort of nonsense.

    Yes, “natural” levels can be far beyond that. Do you base all your decisions on what you perceive as “natural”? Do you know what the Naturalistic Fallacy is?

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/naturalistic_fallacy/

    Read the book.

    Regarding what to worry about, I don’t think we need to pick one thing. We need to worry about a bunch of stuff, and number one, actually, is having our policies driven by ignorance rather than good science. You are a great example of Teh Ignorance, in this case. I mean, really. “Gore’s data”??? What the fuck is “Gore’s Data?” Climate Gate? In your dreams.

  84. #84 Tony
    December 5, 2009

    Ok Greg, seems as if you are way too emotionally attached to your convictions to produce anything objective, reasonable, or based in logic.

    Naturalistic fallacy? Are you referring to the philosophical definition or another contrived term used to ramrod global warming through empirical impasses? That link seemed to direct me to political nit-picking thus I would assume the ladder.

    The fact that CO2 levels have been twice what they are today while the earth was cooling has not been explained by AWG proponents or you. 30 million years ago isn’t actually far back in geological or even evolutionary terms – in fact, during this Oligocene period, modern flora and fauna were already appearing.

    My whole point is, 700+ ppm didn’t cause problems back then – the earth was actually cooling, and its not going to cause problems today. Global temperatures are going to fluctuate – it is irrational to look at a system this massive and complex, facing both terrestrial and solar variables and expect temperatures not to fluctuate!

    You are saying that we can determine from a mere 200 years of industrialization, in which only 60 years of it has been on a semi-global scale – that we are 100% certain man is the cause of rising CO2 levels and temperature increases? That is bad science, that isn’t even sound logically.

    Plus, Climategate suggests the researchers even making these questionable assertions, were manipulating their data and doing more politicking than science.

  85. #85 Stephanie Z
    December 5, 2009

    Tony, you seem to be suggesting that a fallacy, if it appears in a political context, stops being a fallacy. Interesting.

  86. #86 Tony
    December 5, 2009

    Ok Greg, seems as if you are way too emotionally attached to your convictions to produce anything objective, reasonable, or based in logic.

    Naturalistic fallacy? Are you referring to the philosophical definition or another contrived term used to ramrod global warming through empirical impasses? That link seemed to direct me to political nit-picking thus I would assume the ladder.

    The fact that CO2 levels have been twice what they are today while the earth was cooling has not been explained by AWG proponents or you. 30 million years ago isn’t actually far back in geological or even evolutionary terms – in fact, during this Oligocene period, modern flora and fauna were already appearing.

    My whole point is, 700+ ppm didn’t cause problems back then – the earth was actually cooling, and its not going to cause problems today. Global temperatures are going to fluctuate – it is irrational to look at a system this massive and complex, facing both terrestrial and solar variables and expect temperatures not to fluctuate!

    You are saying that we can determine from a mere 200 years of industrialization, in which only 60 years of it has been on a semi-global scale – that we are 100% certain man is the cause of rising CO2 levels and temperature increases? That is bad science, that isn’t even sound logically.

    Plus, Climategate suggests the researchers even making these questionable assertions, were manipulating their data and doing more politicking than science.

  87. #87 Tony
    December 5, 2009

    Ok Greg, seems as if you are way too emotionally attached to your convictions to produce anything objective, reasonable, or based in logic.

    Naturalistic fallacy? Are you referring to the philosophical definition or another contrived term used to ramrod global warming through empirical impasses? That link seemed to direct me to political nit-picking thus I would assume the ladder.

    The fact that CO2 levels have been twice what they are today while the earth was cooling has not been explained by AWG proponents or you. 30 million years ago isn’t actually far back in geological or even evolutionary terms – in fact, during this Oligocene period, modern flora and fauna were already appearing.

    My whole point is, 700+ ppm didn’t cause problems back then – the earth was actually cooling, and its not going to cause problems today. Global temperatures are going to fluctuate – it is irrational to look at a system this massive and complex, facing both terrestrial and solar variables and expect temperatures not to fluctuate!

    You are saying that we can determine from a mere 200 years of industrialization, in which only 60 years of it has been on a semi-global scale – that we are 100% certain man is the cause of rising CO2 levels and temperature increases? That is bad science, that isn’t even sound logically.

    Plus, Climategate suggests the researchers even making these questionable assertions, were manipulating their data and doing more politicking than science.

  88. #88 Blair
    December 8, 2009

    These believers refuse to acknowledge that none of the data they’ve relied on to push an agenda is legit. THE DATA is admittedly tainted therefore none of it can be used to draw any conclusions-PERIOD. I miss the days when quack science theories like man made global warming would just be ignored. The science is so full of BS that they’ve changed it from global warming to climate change. Holy shikies batman, we’re even causing Jupiter to warm up. If you really want to investigate real issues take a big long long look at the spinning fireball that rises in the east and sets in the west every day. Or how about some confirmed real science that shows 1 volcanic eruption pumps the earth full of more Co2 than mankind ever. Believers are a freaking joke.

  89. #89 Perry
    December 24, 2009

    The only way to settle this is through complete transparency.
    Release ALL the ‘raw’ datasets into the public domain.
    Release the source code (the latest versions) used to generate the trend graphs upon which global policy formulations are to be based into the public domain.
    Since it is going to affect all of us, it IS everyone’s business.
    If assumptions were made when data was ‘homogenized’ and ‘value added’, we want to know exactly what these assumptions were and have their validity sustain challenge by all scientists and interested parties everywhere.
    If there are indeed real trends they will withstand the most intense scrutiny and challenge, and we may indeed arrive at a global ‘consensus’
    Talk of ‘leaks’ and correspondence which the public was not supposed to see when said public will be subject to policy formulation based upon the findings of such climate scientists is unacceptable and not in accordance with the principles of valid science.

    More to the point, the validity or otherwise of AGW is ultimately not going to matter.
    No developing country with significant and remotely accessible fossil reserves is going to leave the stuff in the ground.
    They may sign an agreement and accept the carbon offset money, but spend it on something else and drill and pump anyway.
    The immediate need for energy and economic considerations are always going to trump some or other more distant consequences.
    This is why heads of state engaged in much posturing at the Copenhagen summit, but did not actually commit to ‘binding’ agreements.
    Who is going to ‘bind’ a country which reneges on an agreement and changes its mind due to economic self interest anyway?
    Politicians have an inflated idea of what they can control, least of all the planetary climate.

  90. #90 Stephanie Z
    December 25, 2009

    Perry, you’re going to die someday. Why not just stop breathing now? After all, it doesn’t matter.

  91. #91 Eric Schuster
    January 15, 2010

    One look is worth a thousand reports. Go outside. In the Northern Hemisphere it is colder than last year and the year before that. Actually colder than it’s been in a long time.
    Before man figured out that the Earth is not the center of the universe, technically skilled people were well paid to build mechanical models that depicted crazy planetary motions to explain what people were actually seeing.
    And Galileo was ex communicated for speaking the truth.
    I’m cold…Global Warming? Really? You promise? BRING IT ON!