Odd Citizen
An Odd Citizen’s Search For Vanishing Freedoms

Nov

25

Source Code Proves “Climate Science” Fraud

Filed Under Uncategorized

American Thinker makes a damning case against the Global Warming Alarmist fraud led by CRU. It’s worth reading in its entirety:
CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered but here’s the conclusion.

Advocates of the global governance/financial redistribution sought by the United Nations at Copenhagen in two weeks, and also those of the expanded domestic governance/financial redistribution sought by Liberal politicians, both substantiate their drastic proposals with the pending climate emergency predicted in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Kyoto, Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, EPA regulation of the very substances of life — all bad policy concepts enabled solely by IPCC reports. And the IPCC in turn bases those reports largely on the data and charts provided by the research scientists at CRU — largely from tree ring data — who just happen to be editors and lead authors of that same U.N. panel.

Bottom line: CRU’s evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

Gotcha. We know they’ve been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It’s time to bring sanity back to this debate.

It’s time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.

I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion.

UPDATE


Still don’t believe me? Read this.

Comments

5 Responses to “Source Code Proves “Climate Science” Fraud”

  1. bkalafut on November 30th, 2009 11:21 pm

    If the AGW case depended on this paleoclimate stuff, this “American Thinker” might have an intellectual leg to stand on, but paleo work has always been a sideshow. One could do away with it all and still have essentially the same case we have now for anthropogenicity, continuing damage, and action.

    Macintyre and company have pulled off what must be history’s greatest act of misdirection, convincing a good many otherwise seemingly intelligent people that the “hockey stick” graph of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes was the keystone of AGW and that if they could discredit it or even tarnish its reputation unfairly the whole matter would go away (until my hypothetical great-grandkids become scientists and the world is a couple of degrees hotter and they ask “why didn’t your generation do anything?”). They didn’t succeed in discrediting MBH–the National Research Council report vindicated it. The best they could do is one paper pointing out a statistical bug that didn’t affect the overall conclusions, and to get Wegman to write semi-slanderous report saying “I didn’t understand this paper, but: wrong method plus right conclusion=bad science and this is bad science”.

    But let’s say that these e-mails were damning for MBH and the work that has since replaced it (it is, after all, a decade old!) What does it mean for attribution, detection, or prediction? Nothing! None of that depends on paleo results.

    This “American Thinker”–more like “American Reactionary”– says “As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.” Suppose he’s right about the paleo stuff. I can count the relevant “assumptions based on that evidence” and “policy based on those…assumptions”: zero.

  2. admin on December 1st, 2009 3:37 pm

    Am I mistaken to observe that without the flat so-called hockey stick assumption there would be no basis at all for alarmism about the current climate? Why did Mann & Briffa and others do all that work on tree rings, truncating work in 1960 when the rings contradicted their theory, trying to bury the Medieval warm period, agonizing over the warm 1930’s and 1940’s? If the climate now is within the range of historical natural variability, then the whole AGW agrument bites the dust.

    So how do you explain the odd adjustments in the source code illustrated not only in the American Thinker article, but others illustrated elsewhere? I’m a programmer and a long time user of time series data. If I based my financial models on data which was “adjusted” in this manner I’d be crazy — and broke. These guys were lying or deceiving themselves and others. No other conclusion fits such blatant finagling of the source code. Look at the notorious document called “Harry_Read_Me.txt

    “WattsUpWithThat.com” among others contains several other examples of this source code deceit. Go look at it.

    And for a little taste of their political agenda, examine “ADAM second-order draft.pdf” if you have time. As a dedicated libertarian, which I know you are, this should freeze your blood.

  3. admin on December 1st, 2009 4:10 pm

    ADDENDUM: See quote from Michael E. Mann responding to an inquiry by Joe Barton, Chairman
    House Committee on Energy and Commerce
    Ed Whitfield, Chairman
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 15, 2005.

    “The specific conclusion published
    by my colleagues and me that late 20th century Northern Hemisphere warmth is
    anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium is common to many studies.”

    So much for the contention that paleo history doesn’t make a difference. Your guy Mann says it is the basis for the panic.

    (Source: MannHouseReply.pdf)

  4. bkalafut on December 1st, 2009 8:11 pm

    The contention that natural variability doesn’t account for (late) 20th C. warming is based on accounting for by attribution studies, not looking at an out-of-date paleo graph and saying “look, the increase is beyond the noise level.” That would be just plain stupid. Likewise to assert “even though the non-anthropogenic forcings don’t account for warming, but warming is explained when they’re included, temperature is within the range of natural variability so what’s happening must not be anthropogenic” would be stupid. Junk science. A nonsequitur. Whatever the open questions, ignoring what we do know about the physics of climate and making such an assertion would be ridiculous.

    The paleo work is interesting in its own right, but with such incomplete knowledge of forcings it’s about as “academic” as study of dinosaurs. Truncations were done openly–if anything they should have been a sign to take paelo work with a grain of salt. And yes, the paleo guys have an overinflated idea of their own importance. (Can I say that they agree with Mcintyre on that one?)

    Even given that, Mann does not appear to be saying there what you think he is saying–once I dug up the context of the quote.

    Speaking of context, I’ve seen “Harry Read Me” and seen nothing damning therein, if it’s read in its proper context–a programmer getting various data in order to produce the CRU TR 2.1 and 3.0 temperature records. The homogenization techniques were no secret–they were spelled out in the (peer reviewed) papers released to explain those records. And supposing CRU TR 2.1 and 3.0 were faulty, it really isn’t that far out of line with GISS–and if you wanted to “audit” GISS or whatever they call it now, you’ve been able to do so for years. The question asks itself: how would _you_ have handled those data?

    But anyway, my remarks on Meyer’s take on feedbacks are almost done. I don’t want to post them until I’m better rested. Suffice it to say, for now, that he’s elevated what to everyone else are mere convenient descriptive numbers to the status of model. I can’t make up my mind whether that’s argument from equivocation or the mistake of an ingenue who happens to also always sound malicious. No matter, it’s a mistake and I’ll explain why later.

  5. bkalafut on December 3rd, 2009 4:30 pm

    The recent Scientific American piece agrees with my take on the importance of paleo work. I’m not saying that makes me right, but it’s something that should give pause.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.