What an interesting week. The wheels on
the AGW bus aren’t going “round and round” any more, they seem to be
coming off. Unless you listen to a good portion of the alarmists who
are in the middle of denying the significance of the CRU emails, that
is.
But I prefer to start my examination of what has been found with a couple of quotes from Eric S. Raymond (via Reboot Congress), software engineer, open source advocate and author of the book “The Cathedral & the Bazaar“. The first:
For those of you who have been stigmatizing AGW skeptics
as “deniers” and dismissing their charges that the whole enterprise is
fraudulent? Hope you like the taste of crow, because I do believe
there’s a buttload of it coming at you. Piping hot.
Pretty strong, no? So why do you suppose Raymond feels confident
enough to make such a pronouncement? Because his review has found
blatant and undeniable fraud within the programing used to “predict”
the warming supposedly taking place. Or as he says:
All you apologists weakly protesting that this is
research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for
everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn’t
just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.
Even stronger – and here’s why:
From
the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a
graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and
reconstructions.
Raymond, in reaction to this bit of code, says:
This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s
1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a
positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end
of the century.
You have to love it, in a sick sort of way – the routine is called
“a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for the decline” and the correction is
named a “fudge factor”. Blatant? Unbelievable. Again, you don’t have to
be a rocket scientist, or a scientist at all to see through this
garbage.
What does it all yield? Raymond plots it: [continue]
|