The real smoking gun behind ClimateGate
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Although the majority of the attention around ClimateGate has focused on emails exchanged between CRU scientists, the real smoking gun proving deception and fraud can be found in the code of climate models which prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.
Attempts on behalf of the establishment media to characterize the scandal as “rancor” amongst scientists completely obfuscates the real issue, which is the fact that man-made climate change proponents gamed their data models to make them produce the results they wanted.
Not only do we have emails where CRU Director Dr. Phil Jones talks about pulling tricks in climate models to “hide the decline” of global temperatures, but within the code of these models we also find blatant evidence of manipulation.
“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,” writes Steve Mcintyre.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Mcintyre highlights the following programmer comments (emphasis mine), which are inserted into climate models to indicate where data has been excluded.
Plots 24 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.
This shows that scientists “artificially adjusted” temperature data to hide the decline in temperatures after 1960. The graphs cited by global warming advocates to argue for continued man-made global warming in the modern era are therefore largely fraudulent. This is not about “rancor,” “debate” or “insults,” as the media spin machine would frame it, this is about hardcore evidence of deliberate deception.
As Anthony Watts writes, “You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.”
“Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.”
“Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.”
This article was posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 at 10:24 am