The Fudge-inci Code: Behind The Global Warming Conspiracy

1) Collect Raw Data  >>  2) "Correct" the Data >> 3) Model/Share the "Corrected" Data >> 4) Trash the Raw Data

The leaked e-mails from the Global Warming Swindlers are titillating, but the tangle of manipulated data and computer code is where the real fraud takes place

It took some mighty creative human intervention to fudge out the desired results.  (Watts Up With That - Hide the Decline Codified)

Charlie Martin, a computer scientist from Colorado has written a highly entertaining piece describing the travails of one poor programmer's unsuccessful attempt to untangle the code and reconstruct the data to suit his mendacious masters.

Poor Harry is in the first circle of programmer hell: the program runs fine; the output is wrong.

To make it worse yet, Times Online reports that...

"scientists" admit they threw away "much of the raw temperature data," making independent verification impossible. 

How convenient.

Secrecy is For Mad Scientists
As  London Imperial College and MIT researcher Michael Schrage tells us, secrecy and science do not go hand in hand, unless you're a mad scientist plotting to fleece the world.  Sounds like a James Bond movie, doesn't it? (FT - Secrecy in Science)

Here are comments from two readers:

dxbecker wrote:

I am a scientist and it astonishes me that respected journals would accept submissions, much less publish works, from scientists who refused to disclose their raw data and computer codes to other scientists who want to evaluate their work. [...]

This is one of the many real scandals in this whole affair. A lot of journal editors should be fired and peer reviewers removed from their positions as neutral arbiters of the quality of scientific work.

johnbowman said:
The real fraud is that "scientists" are passing off correlation as evidence, and manipulating the data to show correlation, when it is a basic principle of science that correlation is NOT evidence of causal link.

Manipulating the data is even more important now because observed data over the past 11 years has shown no correlation between global mean temperatures and rise in CO2, and, non-correlation IS accepted as scientific evidence of NO causal link.

This is the real scandal of that "scientists" have so easily deceived a target audience apparently easily, if not wittingly, deceived.

A Shared, Flawed Premise
The fudged data is the source of all further study, so it's a flawed premise.  When warmists argue that it's all been reviewed, yeah, it has, but "it" is the "adjusted" data.  The underlying raw data is gone.  They all start from this manipulated "adjusted" data set, and then all reach the same flawed conclusion.     

Peer review means you hand over the raw data and allow other researchers to attempt to verify or refute your conclusion.  That didn't happen, so there was no peer review per accepted scientific standards.  This is a fraud of global dimensions. 

For more explanation read:  American Thinker - Marc Sheppard

Global Warming Hacked

Global Warming stands at the crossroads of scientific tomfoolery and economic ignorance.

Now, with the hacking of one of the principle citadels of this world wide fraud, the jig may be up for the global warming swindlers, according to James Delingpole. 

The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

He shares some damning evidence in his excellent article.  These are actual quotes from the "scientists":

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

The Washington Post has a short piece on this here:  WaPo - Climate Fudge Factory Hacked

Loony Left:  We shall not be moved (despite the evidence of fraud)
None of this matters to the left.  Can't let facts get in the way of a good global scam.  Self-described "Environmental Strategist" Andrew Winston is a typical fount of nonsense: 

we need a cap and price on carbon so we can compete and innovate. 

This is nonsensical, so he elaborates:

Without a cost on carbon and some restrictions on total emissions, the "externality" that is climate change won't be priced into our investment decisions.

In other words, we need to make the cost of fossil fuels artificially high so inefficient, pie-in-the-sky "green technologies" can compete.  Jack up everybody's light bill to line Al Gore's pockets.  Go ahead Dems, run on that in 2010.

"Talk to a climate change believer long enough and they will eventually get around to saying the earth has too many people.  Well then, they should go first!"
--Ann McElheinney (Anti-enviro heroine)

Not Evil, Just Wrong
Telegraph - Delingpole