One of the arguments seeking to minimize the disastrous email hack coming out of the CRU is that other climate databases independently arrived at the same conclusions as did those so tortuously manipulated in East Anglia. Which only serves to beg the question, really: How does it advance the cause of science if other sources reveal the same result as that predicted through ineptness or malfeasance?
Put another way, if three students in a class have submitted identical lab results and one of them has found to have manufactured them, does that mean that the other two are wholly innocent?
I suppose it might, in the mind of a Believer.
But E.M. Smith – a man who “hates error and waste” – has sorted through the code work and the “normalization” process that “added value” to the CRU data and found that there might not be any there, there.
Read the comments, too.
Good stuff Lex.
Thanks for that.
Thank you, Lex. I’m only half way down the page, but am utterly astonished at how manipulative the whole AGW movement is firming up to be. If I’m reading Smith correctly, there simply cannot be an empirical data model from which we base weather trends; far too much subjective interpretation.
We’re going to spend how much on AGW? Based on a catastrophically flawed data model that drives our industries’ futures?
Again, I am utterly astonished by this read. Back to the comments…
I liked his comment on whether Hansen believed his own coding (November 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM) So until there is evidence to the contrary, I think this is more a case of “Sucking your own exhaust” until you are heady with your own delusions of grandeur… and too little adult supervision to detect and derail that onanistic process. Guy’s got a way with words.
The data itself, were we able to retrieve it, it fine. It’s factual. The problem arises when we try to interpolate based upon that data. Interpolation is effectively guessing over an area within your known data points. Based upon what I’ve read of the data, the interpolations, and the assumptions used in the code, this would not pass muster in an undergrad statistics course.
And we have Ph.D’s telling us it’s all really good enough to base a global economy on.
Pardon me, I need to go find an umbrella — as we say in the Midwest (though not so politely) somebody is whizzing on my back and telling me it’s raining.
– Max
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not the smartest person here, but what do the AGW folks think they can gain from foisting this enormous lie on humanity?
Byron,
It’s why the term “Watermelon” came into vogue: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
Control, by the right sort of people.
I remember the same kinds of @55holes in the 70s screaming that CO2 was going to cause another ice age and we would all die. The only solution was socialism.
Funny, no matter what the problem is, the cure is always socialism.
Isn’t there a Latin expression: Cui bono? Who gains? Someone is either A) promoting a religion, or B) in the case of AlGore, promoting his bank account(s).
Except Byron, that those who promote religion honestly generally do it for free. And for those who do it for a living… your solutions reduce to B)
Way back in ‘78 I took a course in college in the Mechanical Engineering College at VA Tech having something to do with Energy. Don’t remember much about it but that the Professor spent the entire term convincing us gullible undergraduates that the world was going to run out of hyrdo-carbon based fuel sources totally in something like 20 year. Oil gone, coal kaput, etc. Had all sorts of charts and graphs, reams of data from experts commissioned by grants from recently formed Energy Department to study the problem and report back, etc. to back it all up. Frankly it all scared the hell out of me because I actually believed all that crap.
Older, some may say wiser but I say just more seasoned in the cynical ways of government funded research where the agendas are always on display even as the ever louder protests of the purity of their intentions betrays just as loudly as Lady Macbeth’s protests, I realized I’d been had. When Global Warming became the religion of choice of large swaths of the scientific community I realized, while driving my gasoline powered car to my coal-fired generated electrically lighted home, that the con was on again. But the scale of the graft is orders of magnitude larger and the consequences for the fraud being perpetrated this time are existential in nature for the west.
Fear these bastards – they aren’t cute little science nerds – they are naive apostles of nefarious con men at best; evil totalitarian thugs at worst. Either version should scare you more than that naive Professor spewing BS in Blacksburg thirty years ago scared a bunch of impressionable undergrads.
OldT6, was it on this blog that I read the saying, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t, and can’t teach, apply for federal grants to do research on global warming”, or some such?
If wisdom is the opposite of “doing the same thing again and again, expecting a different result”, I’d say you’ve gained some in your old age.
Looking at the “data?” I say : “Res Ipsa Loquitur”
Or, alternatively, ala Monty Python: “Say no more, say no more, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more…..”
“The truth is the one thing that nobody will believe.”
GEORGE BERNARD SHAW 1856-1950
Climate “science” is science only to the extent its hypotheses can be tested. The hypothesis, reflected in the climate model, failed and so is rejected.
I’m just a layperson in this climate science business; heck, reading the code isn’t even fun for me! Let me take a run at this in the spirit of the football season to see if I get it at all:
First, we’ve got the set of key players. Let’s call them the quarterback in the game. So they have to be eligible to play right, and they’re taking their exams, but two other players seem to have been copying off the quarterback’s paper because… surprise, surprise… they both come up with exactly the same answers. Far, far away though they may be, the (let’s call them the linemen, you know, the BIG UGLIES!) linemen have exactly the same work with precisely the same answers. All independently arrived at… yea, yea.
So… the game is running, for some thousands of years now, and we’re looking for “thermometers”, you know… plays. More surprises here: it seems that there just weren’t that many helpful coaches running around the world leaving thermometers (plays) hanging on trees here and there. You know what any self-respecting quarterback does when he runs out of plays from the coaches helpful play book don’t you? Sure, he drops to a knee and draws one up in the dirt!
That’s exactly what the quarterback in the Climategate Bowl has done. They ran out of plays (thermometers) at key places so they just made them up! That’s right… they dropped down on one knee and intrepreted the thermometer right there in the dirt. That’s why they don’t need any plays for northern California any longer. H3ll NO, they can just use the four (yes, 4) they have in suburban southern California to interpret what the temperature at Mt. Shasta will be.
There you have it… that’s ClimateGate all over the world. Play the game yourselves, draw-up your own plays and plug in your temperatures for the years, eons, deserts, mountains, valleys… now you know how the game is played.