Thanks for the Hat tip Charles!

Like we're supposed to trust this? Let see some cherry picked comments from 10 years worth of emails, illegally obtained from an anonymous source and then we'll have something to talk about.

///

Trust is not a word that should come into the scientific lexicon. Results, repeatability, exact. those are the words. When scientists and politicians ask for 'trust', the game is afoot Watson! This science ain't 'settled'.

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Like we're supposed to trust this? Let see some cherry picked comments from 10 years worth of emails, illegally obtained from an anonymous source and then we'll have something to talk about.

///

Or maybe we could look at some sloppy code used to do the modeling, with hard-coded array's, internally dependent forced variables, coding techniques that doesn't even check the integrity of the data being read in from a file, and other silly stuff like that.
///

re: #3 soccerdad

Trust is not a word that should come into the scientific lexicon. Results, repeatability, exact. those are the words. When scientists and politicians ask for 'trust', the game is afoot Watson! This science ain't 'settled'.

Yes, it is.

Slightly off topic, but related...22 million Bush emails were just discovered. Any guesses as to how long before someone claims this was a crime that needs to be investigated? Or that emails made public are just 'cherry picked'? Or that, because of "National Security" these emails should all be classified?(paging Mr. Rove...clean up on aisle 5)

Totally OT, but I think people should listen to this interview:

[Link: www.pointofinquiry.org...]

It's about a man who helped his father create the right-wing religious crazies that we know today, and who renounced it publicly. He talks about his latest book "Crazy for God" with Point of Inquiry.

Interesting ad on the LFG sidebar for Energy Citizens. Surprisingly they end up being an oil company front group: Oil Lobby's 'Energy Citizens' Astroturf Campaign Exposed

Charles, I think you might especially be interested in this interview. I was going to email it to you but since you just put this thread up, I figured you might notice the link. =)

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Like we're supposed to trust this? Let see some cherry picked comments from 10 years worth of emails, illegally obtained from an anonymous source and then we'll have something to talk about.

///

I never understood the cherry picked part, it seems irrvelevent to me... illegally obtained, that part I get.

Monster Iceberg off the coast of Australia

It's about 1,000 miles southwest, and double the size of Sydney Harbor...and no, it didn't just pop up in the South Pacific because it's cold there.

re: #10 brookly red

I never understood the cherry picked part, it seems irrvelevent to me... illegally obtained, that part I get.

It's not irrelevant at all - in fact, it's vital to understand that the small selection of 13 years' worth of CRU emails that were released by the thieves were deliberately chosen to find the ones that would create the worst possible impression, and to obscure the context of the discussions.

re: #6 darthstar

Slightly off topic, but related...22 million Bush emails were just discovered. Any guesses as to how long before someone claims this was a crime that needs to be investigated? Or that emails made public are just 'cherry picked'? Or that, because of "National Security" these emails should all be classified?(paging Mr. Rove...clean up on aisle 5)

gee, how long would it take one person to write 22 million e-mails?

re: #10 brookly red

I never understood the cherry picked part, it seems irrvelevent to me... illegally obtained, that part I get.

Think of every sentence you say over the course of a week. Now imagine if someone were to take one or two sentences, with no explanation of context, and base an entire arguement of why you are a lying bastard no one can ever trust, and people bought off on it. Now stake your professional reputation on it. Its not fun and its not right.

re: #13 brookly red

gee, how long would it take one person to write 22 million e-mails?

seeeriously...guess he was smarter than anyone thought! and could time-travel!

"Cherry picked" is important in the sense of the classic "How to Lie with Statistics." Pick a few data points that sort of make your point, and act as if that is all the data (or that all of the rest of the data agrees). Completely ignore any data that doesn't support the point you're trying to make. :p

--m

re: #3 soccerdad

Trust is not a word that should come into the scientific lexicon. Results, repeatability, exact. those are the words. When scientists and politicians ask for 'trust', the game is afoot Watson! This science ain't 'settled'.

By the way, you really should read the article before weighing in with an opinion. It shows very clearly that many of the so-called "skeptics" are lying to you, deliberately. And yes, this should demonstrate to any reasonable person which side of the debate is really worthy of being trusted.

re: #6 darthstar

They weren't just discovered - they were there all along but mislabeled. A couple of groups had sued to get them released and thought that they had been deleted and lost. Those groups are now settling the lawsuit.

re: #13 brookly red

gee, how long would it take one person to write 22 million e-mails?

Well, President Bush's automatic "out of the office/vacation" replies probably make up a good chunk of them. The rest are probably just him replying to Nigerian princes trying to get money into the US and sending them the account numbers for the US treasury so they can transfer the funds.
/

Some sort of record for OT posts in the first 5 minutes?

re: #16 meh99

"Cherry picked" is important in the sense of the classic "How to Lie with Statistics." Pick a few data points that sort of make your point, and act as if that is all the data (or that all of the rest of the data agrees). Completely ignore any data that doesn't support the point you're trying to make. :p

--m

Data doesn't lie. Interpretations of the data on the other hand...

re: #16 meh99

"Cherry picked" is important in the sense of the classic "How to Lie with Statistics." Pick a few data points that sort of make your point, and act as if that is all the data (or that all of the rest of the data agrees). Completely ignore any data that doesn't support the point you're trying to make. :p

--m

So, cherry picking could be used to prove all sorts of stuff, real or imagined? Is that what you are trying to say?

re: #19 darthstar

Well, President Bush's automatic "out of the office/vacation" replies probably make up a good chunk of them. The rest are probably just him replying to Nigerian princes trying to get money into the US and sending them the account numbers for the US treasury so they can transfer the funds.
/

I got a piece of spam yesterday that purported to be from the FBI. Isn't that, like, more illegal than some other illegal things?

re: #12 Charles

It's not irrelevant at all - in fact, it's vital to understand that the small selection of 13 years' worth of CRU emails that were released by the thieves were deliberately chosen to find the ones that would create the worst possible impression, and to obscure the context of the discussions.

We don't know that yet. It's just as possible the CRU had those e-mails set aside as part of their FOI responsibilities. Until someone tells us the investigations is completed any statements as to how these emails got out are a guess.

re: #18 lawhawk

They weren't just discovered - they were there all along but mislabeled. A couple of groups had sued to get them released and thought that they had been deleted and lost. Those groups are now settling the lawsuit.

"mislabeled"...gee. That's convenient. It's easy to see how something can get mislabled once or twice or a few million times. Totally understandable.

re: #19 darthstar

I used to get emails from Bush all the time. So far Obama hasn't responded at all.

:-(

re: #25 darthstar

If you had a mislabeled directory or archive folder at the root - it would be real simple.

re: #1 HoosierHoops

Thanks for the Hat tip Charles!

Lucky sod!

re: #26 Racer X

I used to get emails from Bush all the time. So far Obama hasn't responded at all.

:-(

It probably just means he doesn't like you. /

re: #26 Racer X

Funny, but I used to write President Clinton quite frequently on the Middle East; got a couple of letters back from him. Tried doing the same with President Bush, and never once got a response. Always nice to get a letter with the White House letterhead on it. Even if the signature is stamped.

re: #25 darthstar

"mislabeled"...gee. That's convenient. It's easy to see how something can get mislabled once or twice or a few million times. Totally understandable.

I suspect that they mean a mislabeled archive, not each single email mislabeled. The header of the email itself sort of "labels" the email, but if 22 million emails were archived and the archive in total was given a obscure name or mislabeled, it is possible not to have know what was what? Or it was possible that someone was hiding them, but you don't know for sure, do you?

re: #11 darthstar

Monster Iceberg off the coast of Australia

It's about 1,000 miles southwest, and double the size of Sydney Harbor...and no, it didn't just pop up in the South Pacific because it's cold there.

Why did it pop up there, then?

re: #24 RogueOne

We don't know that yet. It's just as possible the CRU had those e-mails set aside as part of their FOI responsibilities. Until someone tells us the investigations is completed any statements as to how these emails got out are a guess.

That's not true. We DO know that. It's been confirmed from multiple sources that these emails were stolen, and no, they were not "set aside" for FOIA requests. Where do you come up with this stuff?

re: #32 Aceofwhat?

It broke off of an antarctic ice sheet

re: #3 soccerdad

When scientists and politicians ask for 'trust', the game is afoot Watson!

So I suppose everything you know is because you painstakingly, personally verified it through well-controlled experimentation.

Oh, that's not the case at all? Well then trust is very much an issue. Which sources are reliable and which aren't?

re: #32 Aceofwhat?

Why did it pop up there, then?

Apparently it's been floating around for 10 years...it's just hitting warmer water and calving bergs that are several kilometers in length, so is now posing a hazard to shipping.

re: #33 Charles

I'm not denying they were "stolen". My contention is that we do not know that someone went through the CRU server picking and choosing what to take.

re: #27 lawhawk

If you had a mislabeled directory or archive folder at the root - it would be real simple.

Very simple, and 22 million emails isn't that many when you think about the amount of traffic a government office has the potential to generate. Just based on routine traffic and replies, I generate about 1000 emails a week. Now spread that across and organization of several thousand peoples and it adds up.

re: #22 Walter L. Newton

So, cherry picking could be used to prove all sorts of stuff, real or imagined? Is that what you are trying to say?

The thieves who did this didn't need to "prove" anything. It was sufficient to create an impression that something was being hidden, and then they could just step back and let the right wing blogs and politicians run with it -- which they did.

re: #34 Killgore Trout

It broke off of an antarctic ice sheet

And did so a decade ago:

The iceberg, which calved from the eastern end of the Ross Ice Shelf nearly 10 years ago, is expected to continue tracking in a more easterly direction.

re: #27 lawhawk

If you had a mislabeled directory or archive folder at the root - it would be real simple.

Of course...I was just being snarky. Given that Iraq was mislabeled an "imminent danger" to the US, this is completely understandable.

re: #33 Charles

That's not true. We DO know that. It's been confirmed from multiple sources that these emails were stolen, and no, they were not "set aside" for FOIA requests. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Charles is probably 100 percent correct. These emails were not set aside to comply with any FOIA requests. Depending if you believe certain sources, some have claimed that CRU was trying their best NOT to comply with FOIA requests.

re: #37 RogueOne

I'm not denying they were "stolen". My contention is that we do not know that someone went through the CRU server picking and choosing what to take.

More likely, they stole entire archive files and then went thru them at their leisure once they had them on their own system.

re: #37 RogueOne

I'm not denying they were "stolen". My contention is that we do not know that someone went through the CRU server picking and choosing what to take.

Yes, we do. There are less than 3,000 emails in the archive, and they cover a span of 13 years. It's obvious that whoever stole them picked through them and decided which ones they would use for their smear job.

re: #34 Killgore Trout

It broke off of an antarctic ice sheet

Ah, that's where the ross ice shelf calf went. Although imho, this one was more of a cow...

re: #44 Charles

Yes, we do. There are less than 3,000 emails in the archive, and they cover a span of 13 years. It's obvious that whoever stole them picked through them and decided which ones they would use for their smear job.

By the way, is still suspected that Russia was involved in the e-mail thefts?

re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

More likely, they stole entire archive files and then went thru them at their leisure once they had them on their own system.

Yep. Apparently the break-in happened more than a month before they were released, which is plenty of time to cherry-pick out the ones that looked the worst.

re: #44 Charles

Yes, we do. There are less than 3,000 emails in the archive, and they cover a span of 13 years. It's obvious that whoever stole them picked through them and decided which ones they would use for their smear job.

I missed those stats (3000 emails in the archives). Do you have a link to an article or something on that?

re: #44 Charles

Yes, we do. There are less than 3,000 emails in the archive, and they cover a span of 13 years. It's obvious that whoever stole them picked through them and decided which ones they would use for their smear job.

Surprisingly well done, too, if you believe the part about russian hacker involvement. Lately my russian spam has been unimaginative.

re: #48 Walter L. Newton

I missed those stats (3000 emails in the archives). Do you have a link to an article or something on that?

Never mind, I just found an article that said there was over 3000 emails stolen all together, so it is evident that the ones released were one that someone wanted us to see, and not the other ones.

I have a question, and please don't go crazy on me, this is just so I can read up and be educated. There is a lot of guff going around about Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph and that tree ring data was left off after 1961. Is there a credible source that explains why this was done?

re: #49 Aceofwhat?

Surprisingly well done, too, if you believe the part about russian hacker involvement. Lately my russian spam has been unimaginative.

Where did you read/hear anything about a Russian hacker? Unless I missed something, the only Russian "involvement" was the fact that the stolen material ended up on a Russian server. From most of what I have read, the "hacker" was probably an insider at CRU.

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

re: #50 Walter L. Newton

Never mind, I just found an article that said there was over 3000 emails stolen all together, so it is evident that the ones released were one that someone wanted us to see, and not the other ones.

I should correct what I said. If there was 3000 or so stolen, then it is evident that there was at least 3000 or so in the archives. I don't know why all 3000 were not released.

Thank God, people are finally waking up to the realities of the need to fight fire with fire.

In the court of public perception, the one who talks about long winded boring science is always at a disadvantage against the one who says the same pithy sounding thing over and over, because the average person just simply will not look at the facts.

However, the average person knows to be wary of a snake oil salesman.

Now of course, you don't just hit them with their own misdeeds and charlatanism, you have to have the facts straight and ready to back yourself up with. But honestly, we loose largely because the typical person is too lazy to think for themselves. They would rather let others think for them and choose who they believe more.

How many times have we seen even here... look there is a debate going on, there are two sides, how do I choose?

Did reading all the carefully laid out evidence not sway you? Is it that hard to learn the basics?

The basics really are all you need to realize that there must be a problem.

Yet, too many try to argue that it is not kosher to call lying scumbags lying scumbags. Really? How about they are lying scumbags and say it clearly.

I would love it, if when Barton was doing his nonsense about oil getting to Alaska, Steve Chu had just flat out told him that he was an ignoramus for not knowing 7th grade Earth science. Little home schooled creationists have not heard of plate tectonics because the notion of continental drift over millions of years is anathema to their dogma, but think about the headline of "Nobel Laureate calls senator ignorant for not knowing 7th grade science." How could Fox spin that? Would they claim that Chu was lying about basic geology? Would they take the angle that it was mean of him to say that people, especially those in positions of leadership, ought to know 7th grade science?

Now think about the response from the educated. Think about how everyone who was not a home schooled creationist would make jokes about Barton and and say you go Steve! Think about the average American, who may not have heard about all the ins and outs of climate change, but did hear that plat tectonics is real realizing that he knows more science than one batch of so-called experts.

No, we should nail these cretins to the wall.

re: #47 Charles

Yep. Apparently the break-in happened more than a month before they were released, which is plenty of time to cherry-pick out the ones that looked the worst.

And if they were just copying archives at the time, it would be significantly harder to detect as they were not performing any malicious activity (crashing servers, using significant system resources, etc) and not affecting any systems users were actively looking at, so no one would report anything for the IT dept to look into.

re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

More likely, they stole entire archive files and then went thru them at their leisure once they had them on their own system.

I find that hard to believe, but I could end up being wrong. In order to get all those emails from all those sources the hackers would have had to have been very, very good plus think of all the time it would take to go through every machine & every server. That isn't including the time to go through each piece to be released and remove information they didn't want out, like actual email addresses and phone numbers, etc. Personally, I don't think it's possible someone on the outside managed to do all of this, to me it makes more sense that it was part of a folder already put together on the system.

My only point though is that as of now we don't have any idea how these got out into the public only that the CRU didn't authorize the release and they aren't saying yet what exactly happened.

re: #33 Charles

That's not true. We DO know that. It's been confirmed from multiple sources that these emails were stolen, and no, they were not "set aside" for FOIA requests. Where do you come up with this stuff?

He gets it from the same fantasy mill that thinks that Monkton is an esteemed scientist.

Didn't mean to start a thread jack. I have to be getting home anyway. You folks have a good nite.

re: #53 Charles

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

I think it's very uncomfortable to learn that you've been lied to-- and that you've bought into it. It's a difficult thing to do. I think it's natural for people to have to spend time readjusting.

However, time is really not something we can afford, so I wish people would hurry their asses up and get to solution-ing.

re: #51 Big Steve

Here:

Hockey stick graph reconstructed from different sources

That site, skepticalscience, will answer nearly every claim you've heard the deniers offer. I highly recommend it.

re: #37 RogueOne

I'm not denying they were "stolen". My contention is that we do not know that someone went through the CRU server picking and choosing what to take.

Of course they did. The very fact that there was any report on any one specific mail at all is proof that someone picked that mail to show over the many others that were about when people were meeting, or whose niece is getting married or that so and so had crushing new evidence that AGW is real.

Another straw man.

If it needs doing, by all means do it, but do it right. Get the physics right. Get the proxies as right as humanly possible. Build a model that can make decent predictions (and with something approaching a change management system). And get the political economy right, including all the reasonably-predictable unintended consequences.

But instead we get legions of poseurs on both sides, with ad hominum arguments and worse. It's like listening to complaints about what other kids' mothers let them do.

And Charles, you aren't helping. If you really wanted to do something useful, you would be trying to get the right questions asked.

re: #61 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course they did. The very fact that there was any report on any one specific mail at all is proof that someone picked that mail to show over the many others that were about when people were meeting, or whose niece is getting married or that so and so had crushing new evidence that AGW is real.

I think you lost me somewhere unless you are trying to make my point for me. I think these emails were cherry picked, only I think they were picked by someone on the inside. My belief isn't based on any evidence, just a gut feeling based on how these emails were presented.

re: #53 Charles

Over the year i've followed so many helpful links posted by you and others that i've bumped into almost all of these facts in one form or another.

So for me it's a great summary of information i've already come across (hat tip: everyone) but not surprising.

re: #60 Obdicut

re: #51 Big Steve

Here:

Hockey stick graph reconstructed from different sources

That site, skepticalscience, will answer nearly every claim you've heard the deniers offer. I highly recommend it.

I probably worded my question wrong. I have read up on all the other temperature proxies and understand them. I am just trying to get a rational understanding on why the tree-ring data was stopped in 1961. I would have understood it either being left off completely or being run out to present even though it is counter to the other indicators. I just don't understand running it out partially and stopping. I believe there is a good reason, I have not been able to find it yet though.

re: #61 LudwigVanQuixote

Your gut is telling you the same thing mine is telling me, we just disagree on the source. But, neither of us can actually prove anything until the CRU finishes its investigation.

re: #63 RogueOne

I think you lost me somewhere unless you are trying to make my point for me. I think these emails were cherry picked, only I think they were picked by someone on the inside. My belief isn't based on any evidence, just a gut feeling based on how these emails were presented.

Why is it so important for you to try to spread the idea that this was an "insider?"

Are you aware that the University of East Anglia has issued a statement that says unequivocally that the theft was a criminal breach of their computer systems? Do you think they're lying about that too?

OK, now I really have to get going. I'll bbl. Cya,

re: #57 RogueOne

I find that hard to believe, but I could end up being wrong. In order to get all those emails from all those sources the hackers would have had to have been very, very good plus think of all the time it would take to go through every machine & every server. That isn't including the time to go through each piece to be released and remove information they didn't want out, like actual email addresses and phone numbers, etc. Personally, I don't think it's possible someone on the outside managed to do all of this, to me it makes more sense that it was part of a folder already put together on the system.

My only point though is that as of now we don't have any idea how these got out into the public only that the CRU didn't authorize the release and they aren't saying yet what exactly happened.

I can say, speaking from 12+ years of computer security experience and email server admin with both the USMC and the DOD, that you are wrong. Considering these emails were considered archived, its highly probable that these files were located on a single file on a single server as a backup and would have been relatively easy and portable, so the admins would have been able to restore them for legitamate reasons if necessary, plus they were probably available as well via system backup either via tape (which would be secure) or a SAN backup, which also could have been hacked.

re: #62 LizardAbroad

Wow. With 40 or so comments since 2004, way to make a splash. Never heard any of that before. Your originality is as refreshing as it is insighful.

i am totally not being sarcastic, either. nooothing to see here.

really, good to see you again.

re: #65 Big Steve

I would ask why you're asking that question. Why is it important to you to know? Do you not trust the scientists who are using the data, and think they're attempting to lie to you and/or trick you?

Ask who put it into your head that that was an important question to ask? And then look at the top of the thread.

re: #53 Charles

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

We knew that.

re: #67 Charles

Why is it so important for you to try to spread the idea that this was an "insider?"

Are you aware that the University of East Anglia has issued a statement that says unequivocally that the theft was a criminal breach of their computer systems? Do you think they're lying about that too?

I'm not saying they're lying and it isn't important to me that this was an inside job. Maybe that's where we are having the disagreement. I'm not saying it was someone on the inside that leaked them, I'm saying it was someone on the inside that put them all together. That make more sense?

re: #53 Charles

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

I have no problem with the article, there is a lot of skeptics that are outright lying. I have a problem with the sloppy data processing procedures that went on at CRU. And I am not denying AGW or the science, that's not my interest in the case of this stolen material. My problem is simply with bad programming, the improper coding techniques used, internally dependent variables in the code, data reading routines (reading data from flat files) that did no integrity checking of the data being read and so on.

Does this change the over all science of AGW, I don't think so. But I would think twice about letting some of the IT people at CRU touch my data.

Talk about peer-review, the code and modeling software at CRU would never pass a peer-review at any place I ever worked, not in my opinion.

Yes, I've seen the fortran and IDL code, and the data sets, I know what I am talking about when it comes to the code itself. Like I say, very sloppy.

re: #74 Walter L. Newton

I have no problem with the article, there is a lot of skeptics that are outright lying. I have a problem with the sloppy data processing procedures that went on at CRU. And I am not denying AGW or the science, that's not my interest in the case of this stolen material. My problem is simply with bad programming, the improper coding techniques used, internally dependent variables in the code, data reading routines (reading data from flat files) that did no integrity checking of the data being read and so on.

Does this change the over all science of AGW, I don't think so. But I would think twice about letting some of the IT people at CRU touch my data.

Talk about peer-review, the code and modeling software at CRU would never pass a peer-review at any place I ever worked, not in my opinion.

Yes, I've seen the fortran and IDL code, and the data sets, I know what I am talking about when it comes to the code itself. Like I say, very sloppy.

Sloppy code != non-working code.

re: #63 RogueOne

I think you lost me somewhere unless you are trying to make my point for me. I think these emails were cherry picked, only I think they were picked by someone on the inside. My belief isn't based on any evidence, just a gut feeling based on how these emails were presented.

I talked to our email backup admin about this...First off no one archives emails to a server...They all go to tape...You could access the tapes through a server but not on a server..So I asked could an outside person hack our server and access tape archives? He said why bother..Each tape backup system uses encryption and specific software..You just can't read them on tape unless you use the specific software.. He thinks it was an inside job...That seems to be why they can't find an IP address penetrating the firewall... Good chance a thumb drive walked out of the datacenter...Cherry picked then posted on a Russian server.

re: #71 Obdicut

I would ask why you're asking that question. Why is it important to you to know? Do you not trust the scientists who are using the data, and think they're attempting to lie to you and/or trick you?

Ask who put it into your head that that was an important question to ask? And then look at the top of the thread.

I would ask you to quit being an ass. "Who put it into your head"...what kind of comment is that. I am a grown adult quite capable of independent, sentient thought. I have read Mann's actual articles. I have not seen his explanation for truncation of the tree ring data. I am sure there is one and I would like to read it. If someone had the link it would save me the time looking myself.

Your response is the exact thing that AWG support does not need.

Oh look, guess I haven't slinked away after all.

re: #53 Charles

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

Just keep saying it. Eventually, some will look into it. The proof is all there.

You do a service by hammering at the truth. Keep shouting it.

In my experience, it took me a year to get completely disgusted with the same crap, willful blindness and distortions over and over. It get's really oppressive.

Respectfully, when you reach the point that you feel the need to pull out your own hair, you will able to look back and at least know that some hundreds or even thousands saw the truth from you first.

re: #75 Charles

Sloppy code != non-working code.

Sloppy code = difficult to verify code

Don't really care however, it's a moot point.

re: #75 Charles

Sloppy code != non-working code.

Really, no, sloppy code equals spaghetti code, sloppy code is code that you go into and hard code data, sloppy code is lack of or no documentation, and bottom line is, the actual coders of this modeling software did make comment, tons of comments in this case, and they even admit to the sloppiness of the coding techniques. Sloppy code is redundant functions, functions that have hard coded variables being passed to the function. Also, sloppy code can equal sloppy output.

I've seen all the examples above in the CRU modeling software code.

re: #10 brookly red

I never understood the cherry picked part, it seems irrvelevent to me... illegally obtained, that part I get.

Cherry picked just means, at least in this case, without context. Trying to interpret not only the meaning of the quote but the intention of the author with no context is virtually impossible and leads to an 'interpretation of the day'.

re: #76 HoosierHoops

I talked to our email backup admin about this...First off no one archives emails to a server...They all go to tape...

But if they are using a centralized tape backup system, then it would connected to the network, and the archives off the backup system would also be accessible thru the network.

re: #82 b_sharp

Cherry picked just means, at least in this case, without context. Trying to interpret not only the meaning of the quote but the intention of the author with no context is virtually impossible and leads to an 'interpretation of the day'.

I know what it means I just don't feel it helps.

re: #81 Walter L. Newton

Why pass hard coded variables into a function? wouldn't those be #defined Constants in the headers?

re: #76 HoosierHoops

I talked to our email backup admin about this...First off no one archives emails to a server...They all go to tape...

[snip]

Are you saying that CRU is still archiving to 9inch tape? Or arer you saying in general, business are still archiving to 9inch tapes? I find that hard to believe accept in the most legacy situations?

re: #69 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I can say, speaking from 12+ years of computer security experience and email server admin with both the USMC and the DOD, that you are wrong. Considering these emails were considered archived, its highly probable that these files were located on a single file on a single server as a backup and would have been relatively easy and portable, so the admins would have been able to restore them for legitamate reasons if necessary, plus they were probably available as well via system backup either via tape (which would be secure) or a SAN backup, which also could have been hacked.

There are only a couple of problems with your hypothesis. 1. Not all of these emails were old enough to be archived and 2. Not all of the items that were released were emails, some were documents that would have had to come from an individuals workstation.

That's why I think these were compiled and in one location. I know hackers are clever, especially russian hackers. I just don't think they're this skilled.

re: #86 Walter L. Newton

Are you saying that CRU is still archiving to 9inch tape? Or arer you saying in general, business are still archiving to 9inch tapes? I find that hard to believe accept in the most legacy situations?

I think you might be surprise at how many might be using 9" tape- but primarily it'll be tape cartridges of one kind or another.

re: #86 Walter L. Newton

Are you saying that CRU is still archiving to 9inch tape? Or arer you saying in general, business are still archiving to 9inch tapes? I find that hard to believe accept in the most legacy situations?

We use a super modern robot tape system..They could have had an older easier to hack system...You make a good point.

re: #85 HoosierHoops

Why pass hard coded variables into a function? wouldn't those be #defined Constants in the headers?

Maybe, if it wasn't sloppy code. There were functions, example getthis(1,2,3,4) where 1-2-3-4 were hard coded variables. I'm just reproting what I saw, not what I would or wouldn't do.

re: #77 Big Steve

What are you talking about? How am I being an ass? Here's the explanation of the tree ring stuff in detail on skepticalscience-- the search function there works very well.

re: #77 Big Steve

I would ask you to quit being an ass. "Who put it into your head"...what kind of comment is that. I am a grown adult quite capable of independent, sentient thought. I have read Mann's actual articles. I have not seen his explanation for truncation of the tree ring data. I am sure there is one and I would like to read it. If someone had the link it would save me the time looking myself.

Your response is the exact thing that AWG support does not need.

His response, i think, is borne of the frustration of what seems like a naive question. In 1999, i thought Mann was an ass too. Since then, i've learned things like you might learn here...

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

which really wasn't that hard to find, and which you'd have found if you spent five seconds before asking the question.

throw out the tree ring data, call Mann a poser...still leaves us in the same place.

go read. return with better questions, s'il vous plait.

re: #87 RogueOne

There are only a couple of problems with your hypothesis. 1. Not all of these emails were old enough to be archived and 2. Not all of the items that were released were emails, some were documents that would have had to come from an individuals workstation.

That's why I think these were compiled and in one location. I know hackers are clever, especially russian hackers. I just don't think they're this skilled.

I'm guessing thats why there is an ongoing criminal investigation in the matter. Now, if the data were taken from a backup server, that could explain why newer emails are there as well, and the documents could have been attachments to emails which were not released.

re: #91 Obdicut

beat me by thaaat much. don't say i don't look out for you when you're right!

re: #89 HoosierHoops

We use a super modern robot tape system..They could have had an older easier to hack system...You make a good point.

You mean like this?

[Link: www.sun.com...]

re: #89 HoosierHoops

We use a super modern robot tape system..They could have had an older easier to hack system...You make a good point.

Although from my reading of a lot of "Harry" the programmers notes from CRU, heavens know what kind legacy they were dealing with. Everything about the IT stuff was piece meal and messy.

re: #95 cliffster

You mean like this?

[Link: www.sun.com...]

Good call!

re: #94 Aceofwhat?

beat me by thaaat much. don't say i don't look out for you when you're right!

I wouldn't have thought otherwise. But really, I wasn't frustrated, just trying to echo Charles. There's a reason why people even know about the divergence-- it's because the deniers are dishonestly pushing people to ask about it.

Please note, Big Steve, I am not saying you are a denier who is being dishonest, but rather, as a result of being lied to, a lot of people with the best of intentions are serving the interests of the deniers. It's only natural for you to want to have answers, but there are literally an infinite number of "why?" questions you could ask about climate science.

re: #96 Walter L. Newton

Although from my reading of a lot of "Harry" the programmers notes from CRU, heavens know what kind legacy they were dealing with. Everything about the IT stuff was piece meal and messy.

Seems more likely to me then that they would centralize as much of their systems as possible, less to maintain and easier to access quickly for daily operations.

re: #90 Walter L. Newton

Maybe, if it wasn't sloppy code. There were functions, example getthis(1,2,3,4) where 1-2-3-4 were hard coded variables. I'm just reproting what I saw, not what I would or wouldn't do.

You are right about that.. Also a getthis (a$,b$,c$,d4) would require you to define those variables local to a function and destructed upon exit or Global variables.

re: #98 Obdicut

It's also natural not to want to believe it. I wake up every day not wanting to believe in AGW - it means more work for my lazy a$$.

But i got tired of the taste of sand.

re: #99 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Seems more likely to me then that they would centralize as much of their systems as possible, less to maintain and easier to access quickly for daily operations.

Well, that's not the case. But I can only give you my opinion on a high level about their IT stuff, since Charles rightfully doesn't want any of the stolen information posted or linked to on LGF. But I have all of the stolen stuff on my computer, including the publicly available stuff that you can download from CRU, plus some of the recent "new" public offerings of data, and all I can suggest is that you look into it yourself.

I'll say it again, I am not making any personal statement against AGW, I'm just approaching a single issue about CRU, and that's their sloppy data processing, programming and IT procedures, at least sloppy as evident from what I have available to look at.

Am I the final say in the IT stuff, of course not, it's just my opinion from what I have been looking at. I could be totally wrong.

re: #101 Aceofwhat?

It's also natural not to want to believe it. I wake up every day not wanting to believe in AGW - it means more work for my lazy a$$.

But i got tired of the taste of sand.

Seriously. It makes the decision to have children a harder one, if nothing else.

But I prefer reality. It's a nifty place. It's got cool shit going on. Besides, some of the tech that we'll get out of fighting AGW will be goddamn awesome.

re: #74 Walter L. Newton

I'm sure you would have just as many problems with the code I use to look at my own data, but if the code functions properly, then how can you expect scientists, primarily trained to test hypotheses in particular field, to spend extra time to make their code look pretty for outsiders. It costs additional funds to hire computer scientists solely to ensure the best procedures are used for writing code. Perhaps for climate change research, there is enough general interest, that it would be money well spent--that still requires obtaining the resources for it. I don't have the resources to hire a computer science or engineer to write my code for me, and I don't have the 100s of extra hours required to follow the best code-writing and documentation procedures.

The trouble is, the deniers have a multi-layered obfuscation strategy.

As long as we're occupying 100% of the public discourse debating whether or not AGW even exists, there's no bandwidth left to figure out what we're going to do about it or how much of an impact it really will have on the economy.

...so the deniers can then say "we don't know how much of an impact it really will have on the economy" as part of their fallback argument.

It's maddening.

re: #100 HoosierHoops

You are right about that.. Also a getthis (a$,b$,c$,d4) would require you to define those variables local to a function and destructed upon exit or Global variables.

And what I am getting at, these "variables" that I have seen hard-coded in function are variable that should be coming from a data source, not hard coded. And it looks like at one time they did come from a data source, until it was discovered that the data source did no give the results they expected, and then they started to hard code the data elements in the program, as an "adjustment" to the data.

What does this prove. It proves someone, sometime did this. Does it mean that the output from this was ever used in a paper or some official document or what ever? I don't know. Like I said above, I'm just looking into the programming. I don't know where anything went from there, how it was used, or if it was used.

But it makes one wonder?

re: #98 Obdicut

I wouldn't have thought otherwise. But really, I wasn't frustrated, just trying to echo Charles. There's a reason why people even know about the divergence-- it's because the deniers are dishonestly pushing people to ask about it.

Please note, Big Steve, I am not saying you are a denier who is being dishonest, but rather, as a result of being lied to, a lot of people with the best of intentions are serving the interests of the deniers. It's only natural for you to want to have answers, but there are literally an infinite number of "why?" questions you could ask about climate science.

Look...like most of you I work and I peek around at LGF during the day between meetings and such. My question, was exactly as I said, a question. Doing google searches is pointless because you get crap. I trust LGF readers to give me good leads. Your responding post was fine and it was a good article and I just read it so thanks. However responding by intimating that I am brainwashed by deniers was annoying.

re: #104 Sam N

I'm sure you would have just as many problems with the code I use to look at my own data, but if the code functions properly, then how can you expect scientists, primarily trained to test hypotheses in particular field, to spend extra time to make their code look pretty for outsiders. It costs additional funds to hire computer scientists solely to ensure the best procedures are used for writing code. Perhaps for climate change research, there is enough general interest, that it would be money well spent--that still requires obtaining the resources for it. I don't have the resources to hire a computer science or engineer to write my code for me, and I don't have the 100s of extra hours required to follow the best code-writing and documentation procedures.

I'll just repeat to you something I just posted...

What does this prove. It proves someone, at sometime did this. Does it mean that the output from this was ever used in a paper or some official document or what ever? I don't know. Like I said above, I'm just looking into the programming. I don't know where anything went from there, how it was used, or if it was used.

I never said it ALL would function properly, did I?

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

then they started to hard code the data elements in the program, as an "adjustment" to the data. Does it mean that the output from this was ever used in a paper or some official document or what ever? I don't know.

And even if it was used in a paper, does it mean that the adjustment was incorrect? No. Maybe it simply saved time to copy and paste some data from a properly made adjustment. This code probably wasn't written with you taking a look at it and making judgments about it in mind. It was probably written to answer a question the experimenter had in mind.

re: #53 Charles

I guess nobody really seems to care much about the article at the top of this thread? You know, the one that shows indisputable evidence that many of the "skeptics" are outright liars?

Old news, Charles. Reported here many, many times in the past.

Public reaction will be even less pointed. Although New Scientist has been one of my favorite science magazines for...30 years?...maybe more...it's market penetration is, shall we say, specialized. And small. Even less so here in the US. Those it does reach are very unlikely to be among those needing convincing of these facts, and outside that audience it is virtually unknown.

re: #103 Obdicut

Seriously. It makes the decision to have children a harder one, if nothing else.

But I prefer reality. It's a nifty place. It's got cool shit going on. Besides, some of the tech that we'll get out of fighting AGW will be goddamn awesome.

No you should definitely have kids.

From a purely Darwinistic point of view, consider that the Americans best situated right now to survive the effects of AGW are neo nazi militia types living in bunkers in Minnesota.

Do you really want them to be the future of America?

This is all a distraction - GW is real. The question is can we realistically do anything about it?

re: #105 Jaerik

The trouble is, the deniers have a multi-layered obfuscation strategy.

As long as we're occupying 100% of the public discourse debating whether or not AGW even exists, there's no bandwidth left to figure out what we're going to do about it or how much of an impact it really will have on the economy.

...so the deniers can then say "we don't know how much of an impact it really will have on the economy" as part of their fallback argument.

It's maddening.

That is their whole strategy.

re: #109 Sam N

And even if it was used in a paper, does it mean that the adjustment was incorrect? No. Maybe it simply saved time to copy and paste some data from a properly made adjustment. This code probably wasn't written with you taking a look at it and making judgments about it in mind. It was probably written to answer a question the experimenter had in mind.

We don't know for sure, do we, but we do have to consider all possibilities, don't we?

re: #107 Big Steve

I don't think you're brainwashed. I think that you're influenced, because that's what they do; they try hard to influence you. It doesn't mean I think anything about you other than you're human.

I'm pointing out that that is the kind of question that the deniers want you to be asking. Then they want you to ask another one, and another, and another. They want you to spend your time talking about the coding in the stolen CRU emails and not talking about the problem, or solutions.

The problem with AGW is it is not an academic exercise-- as that dude in the video the other day said, we only get to run this experiment once. The scientists are very confident that the current outcome of the experiment is going to be devastatingly bad for all of us. I do not think there is time for you to become fully conversant in climatology before we need to take action.

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

And what I am getting at, these "variables" that I have seen hard-coded in function are variable that should be coming from a data source, not hard coded. And it looks like at one time they did come from a data source, until it was discovered that the data source did no give the results they expected, and then they started to hard code the data elements in the program, as an "adjustment" to the data.

What does this prove. It proves someone, sometime did this. Does it mean that the output from this was ever used in a paper or some official document or what ever? I don't know. Like I said above, I'm just looking into the programming. I don't know where anything went from there, how it was used, or if it was used.

But it makes one wonder?

Walter...I have been following your posts on this. I like the fact that you are doing original work on this. Do you have something, sort of a white paper, on what you have done so far.

re: #111 LudwigVanQuixote

From a purely Darwinistic point of view, consider that the Americans best situated right now to survive the effects of AGW are neo nazi militia types living in bunkers in Minnesota.

Do you really want them to be the future of America?

Harshing my buzz again.

re: #107 Big Steve

I probably speak for many when I say that there are many here who are happy to throw out links for those who ask. But i don't memorize these sites, so i googled 'mann tree ring' and i sent you the 14th result because it was a site i'd seen before. took me two minutes.

So be welcome to ask questions and play along...but play it straight. googling worked just fine in this case.

re: #111 LudwigVanQuixote

Screw it, I'm having twenty. I'll tell my fiancee to brace herself.

re: #118 Aceofwhat?

And searching on [Link: www.skepticalscience.com...] works really well, from what I've found, Big Steve, so you can use that in place of google for AGW matters, if that helps.

re: #116 Big Steve

Walter...I have been following your posts on this. I like the fact that you are doing original work on this. Do you have something, sort of a white paper, on what you have done so far.

No I don't. Don't take this the wrong way, should I? I can't link to it here, since it would contain parts of the stolen code and Charles doesn't want that. The best I could suggest is people look around the web, there is a WHOLE lot of coders (even better than me) that are taking the CRU modeling software apart and commenting on it.

re: #118 Aceofwhat?

I probably speak for many when I say that there are many here who are happy to throw out links for those who ask. But i don't memorize these sites, so i googled 'mann tree ring' and i sent you the 14th result because it was a site i'd seen before. took me two minutes.

So be welcome to ask questions and play along...but play it straight. googling worked just fine in this case.

LOL...so you just proved my point...you slogged through 14 sites until you found one you trusted!!

re: #114 Walter L. Newton

I would be careful in how you weight how these possibilities should be considered. For example, when looking at a typical molecular biology paper, I can consider the possibility that the scientist fraudulently photo-shopped the gel image on his paper, but that isn't very productive.

Given the information you have, I would frame your research into this as clarifying what the modeling codes does so people understand it, rather than placing on equal-footing the possibility of fraudulent representation of results. If that is not what you are implying, then please clarify that, but it's what I take away from:

"we do have to consider all possibilities"

re: #23 SanFranciscoZionist

I got a piece of spam yesterday that purported to be from the FBI. Isn't that, like, more illegal than some other illegal things?

I got one recently as well, titled "URGENT", directing me to open the attached text file. Of course I did no such thing.

I had to laugh, though. The email came from an AOL account. Like the FBI is gonna use an AOL account for urgent communications.

re: #119 Obdicut

Screw it, I'm having twenty. I'll tell my fiancee to brace herself.

In bed.

re: #112 Racer X

This is all a distraction - GW is real. The question is can we realistically do anything about it?

Yes, if we act in time. If we wait too long though we pass a tipping point and commit to a very bad future.

In terms of what is physically possible, the United States, China and India could reach an agreement tonight, to help each other build some thousand fission plants and mandate a switchover electric vehicles to be phased in in the next decade. Yes of course it would cost a lot and some very wealthy and powerful feathers would get ruffled. But hey, in principle, we could mandate that we must do this in the national interest. While we are dreaming, we can imagine that the congress critters most likely to be dicks are sent each given 20 minutes in a small room with leading scientists wielding lead pipes. Lol, I suppose we could waterboard them too, a great deal of them don't think that is torture anyway :)

But seriously,

The US, Europe China and India could seriously vow to work together along with the rest of the world to update their grids and deploy solar cells where practical. private homes and malls are two great examples. They could work together to deploy electric cars and safe fission plants.

People talk about science saving us and not to worry - even as they refuse to look at the science that says we should worry. We actually have the technology to do it. It is here right now.

What we lack is the clarity of vision to do it. What we lack are honest leaders who care about the future more than their own pocketbooks.

re: #115 Obdicut

I don't think you're brainwashed. I think that you're influenced, because that's what they do; they try hard to influence you. It doesn't mean I think anything about you other than you're human.

I'm pointing out that that is the kind of question that the deniers want you to be asking. Then they want you to ask another one, and another, and another. They want you to spend your time talking about the coding in the stolen CRU emails and not talking about the problem, or solutions.

The problem with AGW is it is not an academic exercise-- as that dude in the video the other day said, we only get to run this experiment once. The scientists are very confident that the current outcome of the experiment is going to be devastatingly bad for all of us. I do not think there is time for you to become fully conversant in climatology before we need to take action.

Sigh...where to start? First you are implying that both I and Walter L. Newton (they want you to spend your time talking about the coding in the stolen CRU emails and not talking about the problem) are wasting time...

Second, are you saying that there isn't even a few hours for me to get educated before the sky falls.

Finally, I actually have a job where I can make a difference regarding this particular topic...I can guarantee you that I WILL spend the time to get FULLY educated before acting.

re: #116 Big Steve

Walter...I have been following your posts on this. I like the fact that you are doing original work on this. Do you have something, sort of a white paper, on what you have done so far.

And there is a problem with the hadcrut3 dataset. I'm not sure if the problem "changes" the outcome of the modeling they have been doing with the data, but I can tell you this, they have been using terrible database creation techniques over the years to compile the data elements in that file.

I can't say more than that without referring to the CRU material that is not public.re: #123 Sam N

I would be careful in how you weight how these possibilities should be considered. For example, when looking at a typical molecular biology paper, I can consider the possibility that the scientist fraudulently photo-shopped the gel image on his paper, but that isn't very productive.

Given the information you have, I would frame your research into this as clarifying what the modeling codes does so people understand it, rather than placing on equal-footing the possibility of fraudulent representation of results. If that is not what you are implying, then please clarify that, but it's what I take away from:

"we do have to consider all possibilities"

You can go back through all my comments and you will never see where I even suggest that anything was "fraudulent" nor did I ever use that word, did I.

I said the code was sloppy and some of the code could produce different results depending on a number of things.

I even have said that I don't take issue with AGW, at least that's not my issue here.

So, I'm sorry, I know what I am looking at, I have been a database designer and programmer for over 25 years, and this stuff is sloppy and would never pass an IT peer-review.

You can't change that any more than I can make AGW disappear, so sorry, I am not going to run away from my opinion.

OK?

re: #127 Big Steve

I do think you and Walter are wasting your time with the CRU emails. There's five major climate models out there. One of them is fully open-source. Unless you guys are planning on helping CRU rewrite their code, I'm not sure what the point actually is.

Second, if it'll only take you a few hours: Read [Link: www.skepticalscience.com...] . It covers pretty much everything.

Finally, if you have a job that intersects this topic, then please, please do educate yourself as much as possible. Charles has posted pretty much every good site and link here by this point-- the archives here on LGF for the past couple weeks should serve you well.

re: #123 Sam N

I would be careful in how you weight how these possibilities should be considered. For example, when looking at a typical molecular biology paper, I can consider the possibility that the scientist fraudulently photo-shopped the gel image on his paper, but that isn't very productive.

Given the information you have, I would frame your research into this as clarifying what the modeling codes does so people understand it, rather than placing on equal-footing the possibility of fraudulent representation of results. If that is not what you are implying, then please clarify that, but it's what I take away from:

"we do have to consider all possibilities"

And, have you gone over any of the material that I am referencing? If you haven't you have gone far beyond opinon here, and you cannot make the claims you have made.

Have you analyzed the code and data sets and programmers notes?

Journeyman Pictures video of the melting Himalayan glaciers:

re: #121 Walter L. Newton

No I don't. Don't take this the wrong way, should I? I can't link to it here, since it would contain parts of the stolen code and Charles doesn't want that. The best I could suggest is people look around the web, there is a WHOLE lot of coders (even better than me) that are taking the CRU modeling software apart and commenting on it.

Yes, linking to the stolen data does present a problem. Does the grand lizard strike if you even link to other sites that are doing this analysis?

re: #129 Obdicut

I do think you and Walter are wasting your time with the CRU emails. There's five major climate models out there. One of them is fully open-source. Unless you guys are planning on helping CRU rewrite their code, I'm not sure what the point actually is.

Second, if it'll only take you a few hours: Read [Link: www.skepticalscience.com...] . It covers pretty much everything.

Finally, if you have a job that intersects this topic, then please, please do educate yourself as much as possible. Charles has posted pretty much every good site and link here by this point-- the archives here on LGF for the past couple weeks should serve you well.

Funny, I'm not talking about any of the emails, have you even read my comments?

Major fail.

re: #93 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

True. If my guess turns out to be correct then that would make the CRU look good not bad. I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy, it just seems to make much more sense to me that these were compiled by someone on the inside as part of their FOI responsibilities rather than a hacker going through all their info and only coming up with this.

re: #132 Big Steve

Yes, linking to the stolen data does present a problem. Does the grand lizard strike if you even link to other sites that are doing this analysis?

Ok, strike is a bit hyperbole in my opinion, but yes, Charles does not care to have links to any site that displays the stolen material.

re: #104 Sam N

I'm sure you would have just as many problems with the code I use to look at my own data, but if the code functions properly, then how can you expect scientists, primarily trained to test hypotheses in particular field, to spend extra time to make their code look pretty for outsiders. It costs additional funds to hire computer scientists solely to ensure the best procedures are used for writing code. Perhaps for climate change research, there is enough general interest, that it would be money well spent--that still requires obtaining the resources for it. I don't have the resources to hire a computer science or engineer to write my code for me, and I don't have the 100s of extra hours required to follow the best code-writing and documentation procedures.

In general, I agree with your assessment. I see code every day written by scientists that absolutely sucks from a software engineering point of view. Yet it does what they need it to do, so they're content with it.

But as for expectations, it ought to be apparent by now that there is a problem involved with such sloppy coding practices, just from the reaction this code snippet has generated.

In our company, code like this would never be allowed in a production environment where there was the slightest chance that a customer might ever see the source. And even if it was strictly for internal consumption, the glib, offhand remarks found in the comments (which are also what's causing most of the trouble) are unprofessional and would be frowned upon even in the most casual of settings. As can be seen, they are not without problems.

My own feeling - unsubstantiated by anything other than the tiny code sample I've bothered to look at and my experience with such things - is that the infamous "fudge factor" refers to the value of 0.75 which a vector is multiplied by. And I think what the author is doing is scaling a plot so it will fit within a plotting window, a cheap trick lots of people use when they're too lazy to do the "right" thing and scan through the array to find it's range - instead, you plot the thing once, note that it slops off the edges of the graph, "eyeball" it to figure out how much smaller it needs to be, then apply that reduction hard-coded. Note, too, that what immediately follows these manipulations are obviously plotting functions, and I think I see all the explanation required.

As Walter rightly points out, however, this can never be anything more than guesswork when based on an isolated snippet of code. I could easily come up with a dozen additional explanations of the code's purpose, backed by internal evidence, in just a few minutes. And still be no closer to the truth. Walter has spent far more time looking at far more of the code than I have, and I do agree with his assessment that it is sloppy as hell, almost inexcusably so given the importance of the topic. What it actually does, and whether or not it does it correctly, however, seems unknowable without having access to the entire library it's a part of.

re: #133 Walter L. Newton

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand? Your knowledge of the code is not from the emails?

re: #129 Obdicut

-- the archives here on LGF for the past couple weeks should serve you well.

Gee why didn't I think of that?
/

re: #136 SixDegrees

Snippet... I have reams of code, it's available if you search around. I have a good part, if not all of the modeling software they were using, including libraries. I can't run it since it's in Fortran and IDL.

But it's not just a few snippets, I can tell you that.

re: #137 Obdicut

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand? Your knowledge of the code is not from the emails?

There is no code in the emails that I'm aware of. There was a whole bundle of material stolen and released, some code, some emails, some papers, some presentations. The code is in text files, as source code normally is.

re: #137 Obdicut

I'm sorry, did I misunderstand? Your knowledge of the code is not from the emails?

No, it's from the actual modeling software, reams of code, Fortran, from CRU. A lot more than emails were hacked from CRU.

That's the problem here, the "right" is simply talking about the emails which really can be taken in many ways.

They should be talking about the sloppy programming and IT procedures that CRU has been using.

But coding and programming is beyond the popular public, so they stick to snarky comments in emails.

If anything comes out of all this in the future, it won't be from the emails but from the modeling software, that's the story of the future, if there will be any story.

We'll see.

I have a question I'd like to toss out. Please don't beat me up for asking it.

Could the "stolen" files be files that were removed from the main files and placed into a separate file and subsequently hidden to avoid being subject to a FOI request? If so, it would be very easy to steal just the one file.

re: #139 Walter L. Newton

Snippet... I have reams of code, it's available if you search around. I have a good part, if not all of the modeling software they were using, including libraries. I can't run it since it's in Fortran and IDL.

But it's not just a few snippets, I can tell you that.

You've been busy, I know. Sorry if I misrepresented your investigations. I'm aware that you've spent a lot more time on this than I have.

re: #140 SixDegrees

There is no code in the emails that I'm aware of. There was a whole bundle of material stolen and released, some code, some emails, some papers, some presentations. The code is in text files, as source code normally is.

As I said, reams of it, not just a few snippets.

re: #143 SixDegrees

You've been busy, I know. Sorry if I misrepresented your investigations. I'm aware that you've spent a lot more time on this than I have.

That's ok, I was just clarifying.

re: #130 Walter L. Newton

And, have you gone over any of the material that I am referencing? If you haven't you have gone far beyond opinon here, and you cannot make the claims you have made.

Have you analyzed the code and data sets and programmers notes?

OK, I obviously misunderstood what "all possibilities" are. What are they?

That the code is sloppy as hell? I haven't look at it directly, but based on your observations I completely, 100%, agree with you.

What are the possibilities you are referring to?

re: #141 Walter L. Newton

Why should they be talking about the programming, Walter?

Given that there are five major climate models, and one of them is fully open source, there really isn't any doubt about the robustness of the models used for AGW.

So why is it important to talk about? Especially at the same time that the AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out?

re: #142 Cheechako

I have a question I'd like to toss out. Please don't beat me up for asking it.

Could the "stolen" files be files that were removed from the main files and placed into a separate file and subsequently hidden to avoid being subject to a FOI request? If so, it would be very easy to steal just the one file.

I can't think of any reason why someone would do that. If you're going to destroy damning evidence, you destroy it - you don't gather it all into one handy, incriminating package and leave it on the server.

And the emails, even the ones claimed to be damning, were readily acknowledged as genuine by their authors, who also provided explanations for their off the cuff remarks. Again, not the sort of reaction of someone trying to bury something.

re: #146 Sam N

OK, I obviously misunderstood what "all possibilities" are. What are they?

That the code is sloppy as hell? I haven't look at it directly, but based on your observations I completely, 100%, agree with you.

What are the possibilities you are referring to?

Possibilities that they hard coded data in the code when they found that variable data from sources were not giving them the results they expected.

Another possibilities that they hard coded data in the code when they found that variable data from sources WERE giving them the results they expected, needed and that the hard coding was not in an effort to skew anything.

But some of the programmers comments in the Fortran code makes one wonder... see!

That's the possibilities. Like I keep saying, I can only report on what I see, I can't say that it is for sure one way or the other. I can say for sure this modeling software would not pass any IT peer-review. Peer-review, that's science.

re: #147 Obdicut

Why should they be talking about the programming, Walter?

Given that there are five major climate models, and one of them is fully open source, there really isn't any doubt about the robustness of the models used for AGW.

So why is it important to talk about? Especially at the same time that the AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out?

Go back and read my comments and you will have your answers. Start with my recent one. re: #149 Walter L. Newton

re: #148 SixDegrees

I can't think of any reason why someone would do that. If you're going to destroy damning evidence, you destroy it - you don't gather it all into one handy, incriminating package and leave it on the server.

And the emails, even the ones claimed to be damning, were readily acknowledged as genuine by their authors, who also provided explanations for their off the cuff remarks. Again, not the sort of reaction of someone trying to bury something.

I don't think they were trying to bury it that's why I don't think they were concerned about having it in one location. If they were trying to comply with FOI requests it makes sense that someone was working on getting everything compiled in one location.

BB in about 30 minutes. I will check further comments on this thread in a bit.

re: #150 Walter L. Newton

That's not an answer.

Why is it important, to you, to discern how good the code practices were at CRU?

If you want to examine modeling code, why not use the model that's open source?

re: #149 Walter L. Newton

If that's all, then I completely agree with your assessment.

Charles,

I'd love to see you take on the more nuanced critiques of climate science that are out there, Richard Lindzen and Steve McIntyre for a couple. I've taken your challenge and have been reading through as much of the data as I can to educate myself, however this isn't as easy as you let on. Its one thing to look at lots of graphs showing temps increasing, its quite another to get into the statistical methods and assumptions that were used to create those graphs. Then there is the integrity and accuracy of the very data the statistics and assumptions are based on. This is extremely complicated, even for my mechanical engineering mind. However, from what I've gathered so far there is an alarming amount of uncertainty built in to the graphs and data being used to claim confidence intervals of tenths of a degree C.

re: #147 Obdicut

Why should they be talking about the programming, Walter?

Given that there are five major climate models, and one of them is fully open source, there really isn't any doubt about the robustness of the models used for AGW.

So why is it important to talk about? Especially at the same time that the AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out?

Here's one reason why they ought to be talking about programming over at CRU: because, due to their sloppy programming practices, AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out about it.

As I've pointed out before, I've gone as far as writing up programmers who insert sloppy, unprofessional comments in their code because it has the potential to create a bad impression of the code for anyone who reads it, particularly those outside the development group who may easily misinterpret even the most casual remark. It doesn't take much to communicate and enforce good coding practices, and I would hope that CRU learns a lesson from this episode and does just that to avoid any future problems. In fact, I hope that a lot of research groups do the same; as noted, scientists produce this sort of thing all the time, and here it is biting them squarely in the ass, despite whatever intentions they may have had. I've already used this event as a teaching moment at work; it's too early to tell what impact it will have, but it certainly got people's attention.

re: #155 cgrow

He's smacked the shit out of Lindzen and McIntyre on a regular basis. Go through the discussions over the past few weeks.

re: #147 Obdicut

Why should they be talking about the programming, Walter?

Given that there are five major climate models, and one of them is fully open source, there really isn't any doubt about the robustness of the models used for AGW.

So why is it important to talk about? Especially at the same time that the AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out?

Actually, I had to re-comment on this. WHy is it important? Well, if you put faith in science like I do, I would certainly want to know if CRU and others were being as scientific as they could with the datasets and the modeling software and construction software that was ironclad and bullet-proof.

I've spent 25 years writing software applications. You know, my bosses and companies, they like it when I write software that works, works the same, over and over, the same way, every time, with accurate results.

They like software that they can have audited and peer-reviewed and my peers say "yep, that software is bullet-proof and the results that it spits out is correct."

If you don't see why it is important that the software that they use to model the climate science is software that is written correctly, then I can't help you.

I hope the software that is running your bank and keeping track of you finances an money is written correctly, don't you? Or would you not like to talk about that?

re: #156 SixDegrees

Blaming the victim is fun, but where does it get us? This is simply something used by the deniers to attack AGW. If it wasn't this, it'd be something else.

It'd be great if everyone on the 'good' side was a perfect human, a brilliant coder and project manager as well as a scientist. In reality, it doesn't work out that way; there will always be ways to attack good people and good groups.

The reason the emails were stolen and released was to muddy the debate right before Copenhagen. I do not understand why so many people are willing to participate in that agenda.

re: #158 Walter L. Newton

Again: There's an open source climate model available. Why not check out the code on that?

re: #156 SixDegrees

Here's one reason why they ought to be talking about programming over at CRU: because, due to their sloppy programming practices, AGW-deniers are pumping shitloads of disinformation out about it.

As I've pointed out before, I've gone as far as writing up programmers who insert sloppy, unprofessional comments in their code because it has the potential to create a bad impression of the code for anyone who reads it, particularly those outside the development group who may easily misinterpret even the most casual remark. It doesn't take much to communicate and enforce good coding practices, and I would hope that CRU learns a lesson from this episode and does just that to avoid any future problems. In fact, I hope that a lot of research groups do the same; as noted, scientists produce this sort of thing all the time, and here it is biting them squarely in the ass, despite whatever intentions they may have had. I've already used this event as a teaching moment at work; it's too early to tell what impact it will have, but it certainly got people's attention.

You know why this software issue ruffles so many feathers? Because programming is science, computer science, and it should follow the same techniques for verification that other science does, and at most companies, it does. There are peer-reviews and audit of software and we make sure we are getting the correct results.

So, having this Fortran code floating around makes it available to peer-review all around the world.

And that bothers some people. I wonder why? Science, peer-review, verification, audits, skeptics, I thought that was all part of the scientific process, and good for the science?

One wonders?

re: #160 Obdicut

Again: There's an open source climate model available. Why not check out the code on that?

Why not check out the modeling software that CRU has been using for years? LOL.

Anyone know what noted climatologist Sarah Palin thinks about the New Scientist article?

re: #159 Obdicut

The reason the emails were stolen and released was to muddy the debate right before Copenhagen. I do not understand why so many people are willing to participate in that agenda.

Yes, and they've had whatever success they've enjoyed at achieving that goal in part because of sloppy coding practices at CRU, something that could have been easily avoided and hopefully will be avoided in the future.

I have no idea why people would want to participate in the agenda you outlined. Walter has never done so, as far as I'm aware, and I'm certain I haven't. You'd have to ask someone actually involved for answers.

re: #162 Walter L. Newton

Because you don't have access to the source, for one thing. And again: What is the point in doing so?

It seems you'd rather talk about the CRU code than the deniers propaganda, even in a thread about the deniers propaganda. I'm really not sure why you think this is a good use of time.

re: #160 Obdicut

Again: There's an open source climate model available. Why not check out the code on that?

Uh - because the code that's in question is the code that's under discussion. Not some other code.

re: #165 Obdicut

Because you don't have access to the source, for one thing. And again: What is the point in doing so?

It seems you'd rather talk about the CRU code than the deniers propaganda, even in a thread about the deniers propaganda. I'm really not sure why you think this is a good use of time.

You really don't read my comments do you. I certainly do have access to the source, and I have it all on my computer right now.

I have your email address, you want that I send you a link to the source on the web. Remember it's stolen, so you may not want to dirty your hands?

Really BBIAB...

re: #167 Walter L. Newton

Okay. You trust that that stolen source is the full source code? Why do you trust thieves who released information cherry-picked to show things in the worst possible light?

You sent me a link to a climate denial site, yes. You also sent me links to data from CRU, but I didn't see any links to a full source code from CRU. Admittedly, I didn't read the climate denial site you linked too that carefully.

re: #165 Obdicut

Because you don't have access to the source, for one thing. And again: What is the point in doing so?

It seems you'd rather talk about the CRU code than the deniers propaganda, even in a thread about the deniers propaganda. I'm really not sure why you think this is a good use of time.

I'll be happy to give you my answer on that: it's a good use of time because it's a real-world example of one of the pitfalls of sloppy coding practices. Had CRU insisted that code comments be kept clear, concise and professional, containing a statement of what the code was supposed to do and why the approach taken was deemed appropriate, a very large chunk of the current discussion would simply have never taken place.

As noted above, I've already used this event at work as an example of why I enforce such standards and insist that others do, as well.

Ah, sorry Walter, I didn't see that you were saying you could send me a link to the full source.

Again, then, I'd ask why you trust thieves who engaged in an obvious, clumsy political ploy to be honestly representing the source code.

re: #170 SixDegrees

I work at a company that makes software. We use inhouse vintage code from the 1990s, because it works. We could make better versions and clean it up-- and we'll have to, when we move to 64, probably, but for now, it works.

Sure, if CRU had been angels, then they'd be impossible to smear. That is completely besides the point:

What is there to be gained, about the subject of coding and AGW, from examining CRU, that could not be better gained from examining the open-source model?

re: #169 Obdicut

Okay. You trust that that stolen source is the full source code? Why do you trust thieves who released information cherry-picked to show things in the worst possible light?

You sent me a link to a climate denial site, yes. You also sent me links to data from CRU, but I didn't see any links to a full source code from CRU. Admittedly, I didn't read the climate denial site you linked too that carefully.

The links I sent you was to the CRU public datasets, like hadcrut3, of course there are no links at CRU for the modeling source code, I told you it was hacked.

Yes, I trust the code that was hacked. It's your job to prove it wrong, not mine. I know what I am looking at. I would know code that was modified, reading code is like reading a certain author, there is style, technique (in this case, real sloppy). It would have talken a number of years to "rewrite" this code to make it so sloppy and consistantly sloppy.

You're starting to sound desperate.

re: #136 SixDegrees

With regards to the coding issue in general, I think it may be unfair to slam CRU depending on what the code Walter is currently looking at was used for.

I write a lot of code, the vast majority of that code is to test out different methods of analysis, and this code often looks atrocious. However, I take extra effort for efficiency, and do much better documentation on the code that is used to generate my final results that are published. Those are the only results I wish to submit to the standard of peer review, because those are the only things I actually end up claiming are true.

If you're saying that the final code needs to be well-documented and better reviewed, fine. If you're saying that my pilot code needs to be better-documented then you are just going to waste my time doing programming grunt work when I was hired to develop and perform experiments.

re: #171 Obdicut

Ah, sorry Walter, I didn't see that you were saying you could send me a link to the full source.

Again, then, I'd ask why you trust thieves who engaged in an obvious, clumsy political ploy to be honestly representing the source code.

I work at a company that makes software. We use inhouse vintage code from the 1990s, because it works. We could make better versions and clean it up-- and we'll have to, when we move to 64, probably, but for now, it works.

Sure, if CRU had been angels, then they'd be impossible to smear. That is completely besides the point:

What is there to be gained, about the subject of coding and AGW, from examining CRU, that could not be better gained from examining the open-source model?

As usual, you are attempting to change the topic. The topic at hand is the CRU source code - not anyone else's source code. If you want to talk about something else, start another post. Don't try to hijack the existing discussion, and in particular don't pretend that what you want to talk about is what others have actually been discussing all along when they haven't.

re: #171 Obdicut

Ah, sorry Walter, I didn't see that you were saying you could send me a link to the full source.

Again, then, I'd ask why you trust thieves who engaged in an obvious, clumsy political ploy to be honestly representing the source code.

I work at a company that makes software. We use inhouse vintage code from the 1990s, because it works. We could make better versions and clean it up-- and we'll have to, when we move to 64, probably, but for now, it works.

Sure, if CRU had been angels, then they'd be impossible to smear. That is completely besides the point:

What is there to be gained, about the subject of coding and AGW, from examining CRU, that could not be better gained from examining the open-source model?

Cause maybe they have been spitting out bad data, maybe they haven't, maybe the bad data has influenced other scientist, maybe it hasn't...

Do you even know how the dataset were collected, how many different organizations shared this data back and forth, over an over, amending, correcting the data, what do you know about the actual compliation of the data over the years.

Let's start with a simple test... what's in hadcrut3 and what does this file represent and how was the data collected?

re: #173 Sam N

With regards to the coding issue in general, I think it may be unfair to slam CRU depending on what the code Walter is currently looking at was used for.

I write a lot of code, the vast majority of that code is to test out different methods of analysis, and this code often looks atrocious. However, I take extra effort for efficiency, and do much better documentation on the code that is used to generate my final results that are published. Those are the only results I wish to submit to the standard of peer review, because those are the only things I actually end up claiming are true.

If you're saying that the final code needs to be well-documented and better reviewed, fine. If you're saying that my pilot code needs to be better-documented then you are just going to waste my time doing programming grunt work when I was hired to develop and perform experiments.

The code I have (unless the hackers wrote reams and reams of make believe fortran code) is the code that CRU has been using for years to run data through, such as the hadcrut3 dataset.

I really think that a lot of people questioning what source, what data and what I am talking about really have no grasp on any of the IT stuff that I am talking about.

Honestly, if you can't even answer this question, then we are not anywhere near on the same page...

Let's start with a simple test... what's in hadcrut3 and what does this file represent and how was the data collected?

re: #175 Walter L. Newton

Let's start with a much simpler test:

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

re: #174 SixDegrees

As usual, you are attempting to change the topic. The topic at hand is the CRU source code - not anyone else's source code. If you want to talk about something else, start another post. Don't try to hijack the existing discussion, and in particular don't pretend that what you want to talk about is what others have actually been discussing all along when they haven't.

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

re: #177 Obdicut

Let's start with a much simpler test:

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

re: #174 SixDegrees

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

Like a thread never takes multiple directions, hell this thread started with 4-5 off topic comments, totally off topic.

Stop whining, it makes you look silly.

And if you can't answer the questions, just say so or go on to another thread.

re: #55 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank God, people are finally waking up to the realities of the need to fight fire with fire.

In the court of public perception, the one who talks about long winded boring science is always at a disadvantage against the one who says the same pithy sounding thing over and over, because the average person just simply will not look at the facts.

However, the average person knows to be wary of a snake oil salesman.

Now of course, you don't just hit them with their own misdeeds and charlatanism, you have to have the facts straight and ready to back yourself up with. But honestly, we loose largely because the typical person is too lazy to think for themselves. They would rather let others think for them and choose who they believe more.

How many times have we seen even here... look there is a debate going on, there are two sides, how do I choose?

Did reading all the carefully laid out evidence not sway you? Is it that hard to learn the basics?

The basics really are all you need to realize that there must be a problem.

Yet, too many try to argue that it is not kosher to call lying scumbags lying scumbags. Really? How about they are lying scumbags and say it clearly.

I would love it, if when Barton was doing his nonsense about oil getting to Alaska, Steve Chu had just flat out told him that he was an ignoramus for not knowing 7th grade Earth science. Little home schooled creationists have not heard of plate tectonics because the notion of continental drift over millions of years is anathema to their dogma, but think about the headline of "Nobel Laureate calls senator ignorant for not knowing 7th grade science." How could Fox spin that? Would they claim that Chu was lying about basic geology? Would they take the angle that it was mean of him to say that people, especially those in positions of leadership, ought to know 7th grade science?

Now think about the response from the educated. Think about how everyone who was not a home schooled creationist would make jokes about Barton and and say you go Steve! Think about the average American, who may not have heard about all the ins and outs of climate change, but did hear that plat tectonics is real realizing that he knows more science than one batch of so-called experts.

No, we should nail these cretins to the wall.

Nail them, yes. But it should be kept in mind that most home-schooled children are not home-schooled creationists, and that as a group, home-schooled children outperform their school-schooled peers on standardized tests, and are more likely to go to college and more likely to graduate.

Watch the spelling bees and science fair results for evidence of this.

re: #174 SixDegrees

I'm sorry, please, why? Why? Why?

It's really, really, really important that you spend your time doing really, really important and helpful things like learning how to help the polar bears. There's shed-loads of information out there, shed loads! We must stay on message at all costs and not listen to any of those bad, evil, mean, naughty deniers.

Here's a link I've posted 100 times, confine all your reading there and it will help you eliminate bad thoughts that the evil, bad, devil is making you think.

/obdicut

re: #178 Walter L. Newton

The thread went to the CRU data because you started talking about it.

re: #181 Obdicut

The thread went to the CRU data because you started talking about it.

Report me.

re: #176 Walter L. Newton

I don't know that much, I thought it was a data set of global temperatures over time. Aside from being obtained across the globe from presumably discretely place stations I don't know much about methodology of measurements.

I keep promising BBIAB... really now.

Obdicut... stop whining.

re: #173 Sam N

With regards to the coding issue in general, I think it may be unfair to slam CRU depending on what the code Walter is currently looking at was used for.

I write a lot of code, the vast majority of that code is to test out different methods of analysis, and this code often looks atrocious. However, I take extra effort for efficiency, and do much better documentation on the code that is used to generate my final results that are published. Those are the only results I wish to submit to the standard of peer review, because those are the only things I actually end up claiming are true.

If you're saying that the final code needs to be well-documented and better reviewed, fine. If you're saying that my pilot code needs to be better-documented then you are just going to waste my time doing programming grunt work when I was hired to develop and perform experiments.

I work in an environment where scientists and engineers often produce the sort of code you're describing, and it's the job of the software engineers to produce production-quality code that gets shipped to customers. On the production side, I'm very insistent that good coding practices be followed, and as noted I have written people up for inserting flip comments in their code (after a series of warning, if it persists). But I also admonish the scientists to make their code clear, especially their comments, which are often the only clue we have as to what the author intended when the author has moved on or is unavailable. I also admonish them to keep their comments, output statements and other products professional, because even though it's unlikely a customer will ever see it, it isn't impossible, and it's a lot easier to prevent a misunderstanding up front than it is to dig yourself out from one after the fact.

And as evidence that this is a problem, I can now point a finger directly at this incident, which illustrates precisely what I've been saying all along. Not that we haven't had our own problems in the past. But sometimes it's easier to get my point across when someone else manages to illustrate the point under the glare of international attention.

There are other problems with CRU's data handling; I'm not sure if Walter has gone into detail on these or not, and frankly you can go dig those discussions out of the archives of the last couple of weeks if you're interested since I don't care to repeat myself. The short version is that once again, CRU could have saved themselves a whole lot of trouble if they had followed simple, common data management practices and had been in a position to say, when asked for their original data, "Sure, it's right here" instead of "We don't have it anymore, but we'll tell you how to reconstruct it."

Both actions and a lack of action can have unpleasant consequences. The only thing I can hope for our of all this is that it leads to better software and data management practices in the scientific world.

re: #177 Obdicut

Let's start with a much simpler test:

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

re: #174 SixDegrees

What's the headline of this thread? What did Charles post about?

Bite me. The topic under discussion is the CRU source code. That's what we're talking about. If you don't like it, fuck off.

Walter? Are you there? Has the radio show left your brain intact, or will you be a jibbering lunatic until after the new year?

/jk, I hope.

Nope. Walter L. Newton has left the house. I'll try again later.

re: #185 SixDegrees

You just hit the nail on the head when it comes to the actual data set itself. Evidently you have been doing some research. I haven't really gotten into the data set here on LGF, I've had enough back and forth on just the code.

But you are right. They never saved legacy copies of the data set as it became amended and added to, so, they have no idea as to where the temperature data came from in many of those some of those 5x5 degree grids of the planet.

They have a temperature there, but they can't say it was a reporting station (or the actual location), it it was tree ring data, a newspaper temperature report for that day in that month and so on.

Why, because they didn't save legacy data, just kept modifying Hadcrut3 over and over.

Big no no.

re: #186 SixDegrees

You are a really weird person, man.

Why is your hijack of the conversation to the CRU code appropriate, but my attempt to talk about looking at the source code of the other models not?

I'm pointing out that the whole foofarah about the CRU is part of the climate denialists tactics. That's what the thread is about. And for that, you have the temerity to tell me to fuck off.

I don't get you.

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

Correct. And although I doubt that their inability to accurately reproduce the precise data set used would affect their overall results significantly, it makes reproducibility and traceability issues that can be raised to bolster doubt, rightly or wrongly. And it provides a grain of truth to the story that they "destroyed" data; while not true in any meaningful way, it isn't exactly false, either, and provides a hook to hang criticisms on.

Given the contentious environment in which this data and results are ultimately going to be viewed, one would have hoped for a bit more care. As it is, they're going to have to pay a price for not having exercised it.

re: #190 Obdicut

Turn me in to Charles if you don't like what I'm talking about and want to confine other's discussions to the topics you feel are appropriate. And in the future, don't join conversations and then whine about them being off topic when you can't hold up your end any longer.

re: #192 SixDegrees

I don't want to confine your discussion. I want to, actually, address your discussion. Which is what I was doing. When you told me to fuck off.

The climate deniers are pleased as punch that you're highly concerned about the code from the CRU. They would love for you to talk about it as much as possible. You would have never heard of the CRU code, or had any inkling to dive into it, if criminals hadn't stolen emails, cherry-picked through them, and released them before Copenhagen.

I'm asking you why, in a thread about the lies, smears, and propaganda spread by those denying AGW, you are focusing on CRU-- a topic that clearly, the deniers want you to focus on.

I don't feel that telling me I'm hijacking the discussion by doing so after you hijacked the discussion to talk about CRU is fair, or reasonable, or sensible.

re: #193 Obdicut

Toss my salad.

re: #194 SixDegrees

So no answer, then, on why you'd rather focus on the CRU code than the topic of the thread-- that climate deniers are pushing lies and distortion at a fast, furious pace, and that when disproved, they just back off to yet another question and claim?

Sorry man, that article was weak. Alot of the "debunking" is basically placing one persons opinion over another, because one is more preferable. It's like religious people who say that something in the bible is truth because it is in the bible.

re: #194 SixDegrees

Toss my salad.

Except the issue is in the course of your little rants about code, you neglect:

1. Data was published multiple times with the full error analysis in multiple journals along the way, but don't let that get in the way of the huffy little smear you are trying to make.

2. You wouldn't have a clue how to analyze the raw data in the first place, but yet you feel you can pontificate about it. But don't let that get in teh way of your huffy little smear.

3. At no point does your huffy smear indicate that they ever did anything wrong with their data. The best you can argue is that you are pissed that you can't follow their code. But don't let that get in the way of your bullshit little rant.

4. Of course they know where their data came from. But don't let that get in the way. I mean they only would have reported it up and down in any journal article they published - but go ahead smear away.

5. There is a lot more data and it is publicly available even in raw form... but shh... that would get in the way of your huffy little smear.

6. You are a computer geek and not a scientist, but don't let that stop you from presenting yourself as someone in a position to judge jack or shit - as if you would be objective?

7. Once again you are getting pissy... tossing salads kiddo? Are you going to whine now about how unreasonable I am calling you on your bullshit?

re: #196 balljar

Sorry man, that article was weak. Alot of the "debunking" is basically placing one persons opinion over another, because one is more preferable. It's like religious people who say that something in the bible is truth because it is in the bible.

How about you look at the actual cross linked references that were provided? How about you look at the actual science enough to realize the lies? It is only weak to you because you don't care to believe what is being presented to you.

re: #196 balljar

A year and a half since your last comment. Where have you been -- sleeping under a tree somewhere?

We all know that climate-change is real, but that there is an evil conspiracy denying this. This conspiracy controls not only the media and politicians, but has the power of billions of dollars (from the even more evil oil-industry).

But some brave climate-activists (from Greenpeace) in Copenhagen were now exposing this conspiracy, see photos here and here.

Nice, isn't it? Just the hooknose could be more pointed out.