I see that Arnie is out their with his maps now. SF will be under water in 100 years. Where did you get that information Mr. actor, governor, scientist? Besides, EVERYONE knows it'll happen in only 99 years! Scheeze! These guys make me sick!

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

In spite of this, obama insists upon going to Copenhagan to commit the U.S. to 3rd nation status based upon the "science".

__________
"mmm, mmm, mm. Barrack-Hussain-Øbama↓." - The liberals coolaid drinking song

Garbage in , filter through more garbage , garbage out.....no one in their right mind would put money on this crap ...in fact I wonder if Gore et al would wager their homes , boats etc on some specific benchmarks and timetables based on the "settled science".

The following article explains the data "tricks" in a reader-friendly (for program writing illiterates such as myself) format.

Bold are authors/editors --

The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

From Cube Antics, by Robert Greiner

I’m coming to you today as a scientist and engineer with an agnostic stand on global warming.

If you don’t know anything about “Climategate” (does anyone else hate that name?) Go ahead and read up on it before you check out this post, I’ll wait.

Back? Let’s get started.

First, let’s get this out of the way: Emails prove nothing. Sure, you can look like an unethical asshole who may have committed a felony using government funded money; but all email is, is talk, and talk is cheap.

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

[Commenter note -- Go here to see snippet and/or whole article]

What does this Mean? A review of the code line-by-line

Starting off Easy

Lines 1-3 are comments

Line 4

yrloc is a 20 element array containing:
1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…

yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]

findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript

F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0

Pretty straightforward, right?

Line 5

valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.

Line 6

Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.

Line 8

This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.

The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.

The main thing to realize here, is, that the interpol() function will cause the valid temperature readings (yrloc) to skew towards the valadj values.

What the heck does all of this mean?

Well, I’m glad you asked. First, let’s plot the values in the valadj array.

[Commenter note - As above - Go here to see snippet (graph) and/or whole article]

As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.

Where do we go from here?

It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.

This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.

If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.

Conclusion

I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community (I have a degree in Physics) and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.

The smoking code indeed - Will skeptics now be accused of commiting character assassination of computer codes?  Or scientific fraud apologists simply state that the questionable code was taken out of context?  As if doing either was even possible....who are the deniers now?  

I guess I am not sure if he is saying the code is poorly written, hence not reliable for the intended results, or deliberately miswritten to obscure the results they would expect to get, that is NO Global Warming. 

Either way its another nail in the coffin of the Global Warming Religion. 

if the BBC had to be dragged kicking and screaming in order for them to finally recognize the reality of Climategate, so be it-- it is significant to recognize their negligent attitude towards the situation, but it is refreshing to know that they finally show an ability to "come up out of the sand"-- there is a lot more evidence yet to be discovered about the subject-- thus, there's a lot more work to be done in the discovery process--