Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,206
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + Line 24:
Line 25: − [[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]+ − + + + + + + + + + +
Updates
==Climategate scandal==
==Climategate scandal==
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
Climate science was troubled by the release of a thousand email messages, as well a collection of data and data processing programs, that were from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question, and it appeared to have worsened for global warming theorists after another revelation came about on November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]]. It was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], [[Fox News]], December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. [[Michelle Malkin]] reported that the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate, also detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref>
Climate science was troubled by the release of a thousand email messages, as well a collection of data and data processing programs, that were from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref> The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question, and it appeared to have worsened for global warming theorists after another revelation came about on November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]]. It was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], [[Fox News]], December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. [[Michelle Malkin]] reported that the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate, also detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref>
===Data Manipulation===
===Data Manipulation===
Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], ''Fox News'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], [[NewsBusters]], November 25, 2009.</ref> From ''Cube Antics'', by Robert Greiner, who is a scientist and engineer "with an agnostic stand on global warming," he offered a statement about the research methods of the CRU, attempting to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. Greiner pointed out that the CRU emails alone do not provide sufficient proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. What the emails do show is that climate scientists may have committed a [[felony]] using government funded money; however, within the collection of data and data processing programs, code from the CRU does show proof that valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the "scientists" wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.<ref name=codeproof>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/ The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To], ''Cube Antics'', December 03, 2009.</ref> His review of the CRU's code revealed the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. Greiner reiterated his findings:
Climategate shows strong evidence of fraud, and may show smoking-gun proof of a cover-up by CRU scientists to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails], ''Fox News'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Marc Sheppard. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html The Evidence of Climate Fraud], ''American Thinker'', November 21, 2009.</ref><ref>Noel Sheppard. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/25/climategate-smoking-gun-american-thinker-does-medias-job ClimateGate Smoking Gun Found, American Thinker Does Media's Job], [[NewsBusters]], November 25, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|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.<ref name=codeproof/>}}
On December 05, 2009, Robert Greiner pointed out the four most frequent concerns dealing with the CRU’s source code:<ref name=codepart2>Robert Greiner. [http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/climategate-code-analysis-part-2/ Climategate Code Analysis Part 2], ''Cube Antics'', December 05, 2009.</ref>
<blockquote>
:1. The source code that actually printed the graph was commented out and, therefore, is not valid proof.
:2. No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
:3. Interpolation is a normal part of dealing with large data sets, this is no different.
:4. You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
</blockquote>
After further analysis, his first concern pointed out that the source code that printed the graph was commented out and thus is not valid proof. On the second concern, Greiner clarified that, "Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period." The third concern as pointed out by Greiner is not about the fact that the CRU researchers used [[Interpolated|interpolation]]; the issue is the weight of the "valadj" array with respect to the raw data. Greiner said, "valadj simply introduces '''too large''' of an influence to the original data to do anything productive with it." Fourthly, Greiner said that raw climate data is needed to prove that foul play has actually occurred. He said, "It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data. So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data."<ref name=codepart2/>
====Hockey Stick Graph====
====Hockey Stick Graph====