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
