A lot of folks are looking at the CRU Code that lays the foundation for the fraud of global warming. Bishop Hill has a growing list of findings (below). Bore Patch offers another take (above).
Here is a snapshot of the list from Bishop Hill (Visit for updates):
Francis at L’Ombré De L’Olivier says the coding language is inappropriate. Also inappropriate use of hard coding, incoherent file naming conventions, subroutines that fail without telling the user, etc etc.
AJStrata discovered a file with two runs of CRU land temp data which show no global warming per the data laid out by country, and another CRU file showing their sampling error to be +/-1°C or worse for most of the globe. Both CRU files show there has been no significant warming post 1960 era
A commenter notes the following comment in some of the code:”***** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********”
Good layman’s summary of some of the coding issues with a file called “Harry”. This appears to be the records of some poor soul trying to make sense of how the code for producing the CRU temperature records works. (rude words though, if you’re a sensitive type)
Some of annotations of the Harry code are priceless — “OH **** THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”
CRU’s data collation methods also seem, ahem, amusing: “It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately — meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!!”
Borepatch discovers that CRU has lost its metadata. That’s the bit that tells you where to put your temperature record on the map and so on.
Mark in the comments notices a file called resid-fudge.dat, which he says contains, believe it or not, fudged residuals figures!
Mark in the comments notes a program comment: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! followed by the words ‘fudge factor’ ” See briffa_sep98_d.pro.
From the programming file combined_wavelet.pro, another comment, presumably referring to the famous Briffa truncation: “Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)”.
From the file pl_decline.pro”: “Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline only where coefficient is positive!)”
From the file data4alps.pro: “IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’ records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”
My earlier post, About the Commented Code Released by the Alleged Hacker, in hindsight does not offer much.
There are several notes about 1960. Similar were in the email discussion declines after 1960. One thing is clear from both is that there is a lot of subjective tweaking of the data and worse that enabled the global warming proponents to reach any conclusion they wanted.
Picture: Bore Patch.
Great links!
It is frustrating that the media is mostly ignoring all of this. Good to see a lot of blogs and Internet media giving it some attention.
Keep up the good work!!!
I am curious about the significance of 1960. Why 1960? What happened or changed?