Comments on: Climategate?

By: Juan Cole’s Top Ten Questions for Copenhagen « Random Information

Juan Cole’s Top Ten Questions for Copenhagen « Random Information — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:59:16 +0000

[...] Would actually proving that some climate scientists have engaged in partisan activity change the above facts? No. Was that prove…. [...]

By: Top Ten Questions about Climate Change on the Eve of Copenhagen | Pacific Tribune

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:38:29 +0000

[...] Would actually proving that some climate scientists have engaged in partisan activity change the above facts? No. Was that prove…. [...]

By: Informed Comment: Top Ten Questions about Climate Change on the Eve of Copenhagen | Alohapolitics.com

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:24:25 +0000

[...] Would actually proving that some climate scientists have engaged in partisan activity change the above facts? No. Was that prove…. [...]

By: janine roberts

janine roberts — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:56:04 +0000

Please note -from the US National Ice and Snow data bank – the November map shows the Arctic ice lost by 2007 has now come totally back! I have put the map of current ice limits up on the above url – explanations? Janine

By: Top Ten Questions about Climate Change on the Eve of Copenhagen. By Juan Cole « Kanan48

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:59:22 +0000

[...] Would actually proving that some climate scientists have engaged in partisan activity change the above facts? No. Was that prove…. [...]

By: Arab News Blog » Top Ten Questions about Climate Change on the Eve of Copenhagen

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:22:40 +0000

[...] Would actually proving that some climate scientists have engaged in partisan activity change the above facts? No. Was that prove…. [...]

By: LibVin

LibVin — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:59:26 +0000

That’s briffa_Sep98_d.pro, right?

I didn’t look too hard at the coding of their projects so I didn’t delve into any of their stuff too much. Just pointed around and Ctrl-f’d for any watchwords.

Anyways, Anton, my gut says that that code (placed in 1998) was to test the modelling of their programs more than anything else. That gut feeling was also the reason I didn’t include it and, well, I don’t know the context of that code so I wasn’t quite sure what to make of it.

To bluntly scream out with that comment, “VERY ARTIFICAL correction”, says to me that they wanted to manipulate the data in such a way to see an obvious result. Knowing that they could be FOI’d at any time, well, to put it so bluntly out in the open seems like a rather daft thing to do so I think it’s a bit of code to test models rather than actual data…

I’m not too worried about that part of the source file, anyways.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:42:17 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by LibVince: New blog update: “Climategate?” http://bit.ly/6jyDsU...

By: Anton

Anton — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:31:32 +0000

Its amazing how people only look at a very small number of emails and say nothing to see here, all taken out of context, while ignoring things like the documents and model code, for example – their actual source code:
1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)