re: #329 freetoken

If I understand your effort correctly, you are looking at the code that compiles the temperature record sets into the graphs, from Hadley, of the instrumental temperature reconstruction.

If so, then I should point out that these programs are different than the large coupled climate models used to investigate the interaction of the various physical systems that compose Earth’s climate, which are then used to show projections for various scenarios of the future.

My essay touches on a number of important areas in regards to the CRU legacy program suite. I was using one example above where there may have been problems. It’s far more deeper than that one example.

And there are other models from other organizations that have been shown to be accurate.

My complaints all along has been with the validity of the process, procedure and policy that certain people and organizations display, not the over all science of AGW.

As I posted above, this is the one of the last paragraphs in my essay…

“Does this information presented here disprove AGW? Of course not. There are many other scientific organizations besides the CRU. But it does highlight provable facts that the CRU in themselves have been responsible for bad data, bad programs and as we have seen by the dust up about the ignored Freedom of Information Act requests that was issued to CRU, responsible for trying to cover up their mistakes. This is bad science and unfair to all the honest scientist the world over who are diligently working on honest climate science.”

I can’t be any clearer about my intentions and emphasis. Anyone claiming I am a AGW denier is simply lying.