The e-mails and programs show fudging of data and charts
On Friday came news that 200 megabytes of e-mail and other data had been hacked from the Climate Research Center of the University of East Anglia.
Plenty of people, including the Powerline guys, have been poring over those e-mail and the scientists that wrote them are not looking too “scientific”… That data seems a tool to achieve a political end.
Here a scientists wants to explain away a 1940’s warming “blip”. The task is reduce it so as to make our temperature look worse now. He is trying to find a number to reduce the data by that would get rid of the ocean “blip” and leave an smaller “explainable” land “blip”:
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.
Put another way… the data is being fudged. How do we know? Well, the e-mails admit it. But e-mails aren’t precise. You can disagree over what they mean. But code does only what you tell it – and the code found was even more damning :
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Not only is the data fudged. The charts and plots used to demonstrate the data and model results are “pliable” as well. You can’t trust any of it.
Read the Powerline link above… they also find lots of left-wing politics in the writings between the scientists, and discussions of how to keep getting grants when funding sources are becoming suspicious of their work. Also follow wattsupwiththat.com for all the latest news on the debunking of scientists perpetrating the global warming hoax. http://www.climateaudit.org/ also covers this and most climate research news very diligently.
Climatology is science. But it doesn’t seem to be staffed by scientists any longer.