ClimateGate – Climate change Hoax
Thundering over the plain, the herd rumbles on. It’s a grant, and they’re after it. Any truth that dares stumble into their path is likely to be trampled into dust before it can raise it’s innocent little head. The “scientific community” is on the browse!
The recent scandal dubbed “climategate” has made it painfully obvious that science in has gone dreadfully off the rails. But this isn’t a recent phenomena.
I remember one day in college, I was having a casual conversation with my physics advisor. He was laughing about a grant proposal by another research team (at another university) that had been approved for far more than what he felt was reasonable.
“It’s the way things are done,” he said nonchalantly. ” ‘you support me, I’ll support you, help me get on the committee and I’ll support your proposals’ and vice versa” he said.
I remember feeling like the kid that’s just been told there is no Santa Claus.
He wasn’t the only professor of mine disillusioned by his profession. I remember one professor, normally a very laid back and reserved guy who had been my Thermal Physics and Quantum Physics professor, using me as a sounding board to vent his frustrations with the academic science experience.
“If Einstein was here today, they would shove him in the basement and never let him out!” he shouted in a fit of anger after a run in with the department head.
He went on to complain about how political grant funding was, how scientists padded their publication count by having important papers routed to them for “review,” and how other scientists would publish their research in dribs and drabs rather than as a complete whole for the same purpose. I was surprised at how bitter and angry he was.
It wasn’t very inspiring for me.
I got into science from an early age, and one of the reasons was because I percieved that science was a refuge of sanity in an otherwise insane world. It was a realm of truth and honor and Big Thoughts. At least that’s what the science fiction authors told me.
But after a long sojourn through the halls of academia, I can confidently report the unfortunate fact that academic science these days has, in large part, devolved to a case of little more than meagre minds pursuing meagre agendas.
Nothing highlights this sad truth more than the “Global Warming” scam.
The global warming scam from the beginning beggared credibility. The people pushing it claimed to know things that they could not possibly know, like what would happen to the weather in 50 years time or how the complex feedback loops that powered our weather actually worked.
Rather than ask obvious questions of the hysteria mongers, our “fearless watchdog media” lapped it up. One obvious question that might have done some good 20 years ago was this:
Why should we trust the predictive power of climate models that can’t even accurately model the past?
Since the mainstream media has fallen down on the job, it has been left to the alternative media to pick up the slack. Much of the success against the Global Warming mafia has only occured in the past half decade or so as the internet media has started doing the job that The mainstream lapdog media has neglected to do.
This is the real reason the Global Warming goons are on the run.
Even before the incriminating CRU data made it’s way to the web, the climate change skeptics were gaining the upper hand; at least scientifically. From the beginning many of us pointed out that weather patterns were cyclical and that the sparse data, even from tree rings and ice cores, weren’t enough to make the kind of sweeping predictions claimed by the climate change boosters.
In any case, there was no real data that supported the notion that our climate was inordinately warm as compared to the past 1000 years, not withstanding Michael Mann‘s infamous (and discredited) “Hockey Stick.”
Computer models are not data. They are simply tools and like any tools, they can be misused.
Looking at the CRU data it is clear that is what happened.
Perusing the source code that has been used for decades to justify the hysteria, expenses and political opportunism of “Global Warming,” it is clear that these people have been bumbling around for decades and mistakingly thinking that they were doing science.
Apparently what has been happening is that you have several people over many years manually updating their databases, with different languages, and leaving behind a morass of spaghetti code and confused comments.
As Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit Mirror Site wrote:
“The code comments themselves are interesting in what they reveal. The emails are only the start of this. The zip includes data and code. Reader Neal writes as follows (SM Note: Anthony reports below that he has verified these comments in the following location /documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog
in the files maps12.pro maps15.pro maps24.pro):
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing…”
Here are a few choice comments picked out of the code that show the mentality of the CRU programmers:
“So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage! ”
“Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline”
“plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.”
“…Applies a very artificial correction for decline…”
“This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!” -HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Keep in mind, that is code comments, not the actual emails.
Some have suggested that these comments are “cherry picked” and taken out of context. Anyone that wishes to look through these comments can do so (that’s why the web is so cool) however so feel free to look.
What is clear to me and many others is that some climate researchers have been deliberately pushing the Global Warming agenda even though they knew they couldn’t justify their certitude.
Why would scientist deliberatly push a theory (while ruthlessly suppressing skeptics) when their own data showed that they were wrong?
That is something I’ll be getting to soon…