Most commentators in the media have been talking about the “REM” statements in the purloined e-mails and computer codes from the CRU [i]. True believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially those in the mainstream and “scientific” media, are pooh-poohing such words as “tricks” or “hide the decline” as interoffice slang that had no real impact on how the science was conducted.
But the real action (and the evidence for chicanery) is in the computer code obtained from the CRU. Our own computer guru Marc Sheppard, writing for American Thinker here
, was one of the first to offer an accurate diagnosis of this fraudulent method of computer programming. Analyzing the code, as Marc has indicated in his work, is a complex business. As he pleads in one article, “please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.”
For the layman readers of American Thinker, I want to explain in a simple manner what went on in the construction of one piece of the controversial programming.
A bit of background: The cornerstone of the evidence for global warming presented by Al Gore and the AGW crowd was a notorious graph that became known as “the hockey stick graph.” The graph is based on computer models that supposedly prove our planet has heated exponentially in the last half-century due to increasing amounts of man-made CO2 released into the atmosphere. Proponents further claim (and the computer models purport to show) that temperatures will continue to increase exponentially. The implication is that unless we drastically curtail human output of CO2, the “escalation” in temperature is going to get even worse even faster.
Turns out that these claims are absolutely false, and the computer models have been rigged.
Here is one version of the famous “hockey stick” graph:
Now that is scary
[ii]! According to the now-debunked myth, global temperatures started going through the roof about sixty years ago. They will to continue to rise and bring unimaginable disaster. Except they haven’t, and they probably won’t.
Now to the CRU code that maintains these fictional monstrosities. Pay particular attention to the black line at the far right of the “hockey stick” in Graph 1. The black line starts at about 1900. (This is the same period of time addressed by the code we will examine.) The black line looks something like this very simplified version:
The x-axis (horizontal) shows time. The y-axis (vertical) shows temperature. In the last few decades, the temperature, according to AGW enthusiasts, has been climbing off the charts.
Marc Sheppard discovered and showed us
this bit of programming taken from the CRU documents:
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]*0.75Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â ; fudge factor
The long string of bold numbers in the second set of brackets is the “fudge factor” applied (supposedly) to the raw data
[iii]. This string of numbers “adjusts” the raw data from 1904 to 1994 in five-year increments. Here is what these nineteen numbers roughly look like on a simple graph (each bar below represents a number in bold above):
I have left a space between the bars that represent each number so the reader can compare the temperature line to the numbers from the program. Time is once again indicated by the x-axis (horizontal). Temperature is portrayed on the y-axis (vertical).
The numbers in the code indicate a degree of cheating that is actually much larger
than I was able to show with the bars in Graph 3
We can now prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hockey stick is an absolute ruse. The hockey stick graph cannot possibly be based on the actual data. (…Wherever and whatever that data might have been, that is. The CRU has admitted destroying the raw data.)
Even if the numbers in the program were not added to the aggregate temperatures (of each preceding period
[v]), the numbers in the code plot like this:
Graph 4 this still looks an awful lot like the “hockey stick.” In short, no matter how you read the code, it was designed to create a phony outcome.
But don’t take my word for it. Computer experts everywhere are all over this particular con game, and many other deceptions, that came out of the CRU files.
Nice to know there are people inspecting instead of simply believing what is said. Kudos!
Thank God that there are people who can understand, and translate into laymen’s terms, what this code is saying. I knew the predicted temps were fishy, but I had no way of proving it other than comparing what was predicted to what actually transpired.
What has been done here, if it isn’t already, should be criminal.
From the “They Must Be Liberals” file:
The Pentagon is concluding that â€œglobal warming is now officially considered a threat to U.S. national security.â€ In its upcoming 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, Pentagon planners will report that climate change could result in food and water scarcity, pandemics, population displacement, and other destabilizing events that could create conflict.
â€œThe American people expect the military to plan for the worst,â€ says retired Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, a 35-year Navy veteran now serving as president of the American Security Project. â€œItâ€™s that sort of mindset, I think, that has convinced, in my view, the vast majority of military leaders that climate change is a real threat and that the military plays an important role in confronting it.â€
I now know why he is “retired.”