Prescott: Don't let the buggers out till they've done a deal

Peter Jukes:

"Is it really so easy to hit your insult button? Given your inability to sustain an argument, the career in advocacy was clearly never on the cards. But given the attempted literary insult, the one in comedy writing doesn't look so promising either"

The irony is still hilarious. More please.

Regrettably, the moderation policy at LL does not provide for a robust exchange of fine vintage insults.

If you're up for it, why not join me over at Guidos?

I predict you wouldn't last five minutes.

Gosh. I thought from your first post that you might actually have some experience of software development, and so we could have a proper discussion about this code. But when I made a polite request for a reference to the code in question, you launch into a lengthy rant throwing in the kind of management-speak that proves to me that it is a long time since you've got near even the smallest bit of code. I only asked you to tell me the name of the file. ::Sheesh:: you come across as the sort of manager that prompted me to go full-time as a freelance software consultant, so that I would only have to put up with that sort of MBA-speak for as short a time as possible.

It's even more galling because I was basically agreeing with your original sentiment: the code looks poorly written. Well, if you don't want my agreement...

As to ISO9000 I don't believe your assertions. My experience of being brought in to fix other people's code is that very few companies have proper development processes. You dismiss ISO9000 too quickly (the fact that you do indicates to me that you've not been close to code for a long time). My point about ISO9000 is that every step of the process should be documented. But in the CRU code there appears to be no documentation about the code: no design documents, no code reviews, no formal testing. This documentation is vital in the software industry and I am surprised you are so flippant about it.

You misunderstood my point about the emails. I have the emails from the zip file and they are NOT RFC 850 compliant. If you look at the raw format of any email that you have on your computer you'll see that there will be something like 20 lines or so of headers followed by a blank line, followed by the body of the message. The emails in the zip file give just the four headers of: Subject, From, To and Date. This means that the emails are not RFC 850 compliant, it would not have been received by a mail client in that format. Any email that you pick up from a POP3 server will have a Message-ID header, and a References header, also Received which shows how it was routed (there will be lots of other, particularly X- headers). These lines have been stripped from the emails in the zip file. Someone has edited the emails. Pure and simple, now do you understand?

For those that want to follow this discussion, unlike Mike (even though I asked him politely), I will actually give you a reference to the file

documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

::sheesh:: that didn't take much effort did it?

Anyway, the file is essentially a note that someone took while testing the code. There are 15,000 lines, so please forgive me for not reading every one of them. The fact that you are taking offence really worries me. When I did my PhD I kept a lab notebook (about 30 of them, actually) and in it I wrote down *everything* that I did. It was not meant for publication, but it was invaluable years later when I wrote up my thesis because I knew exactly what I was doing when I measured the data. Your complaint is a bit like criticising a first draft of a novel because it has spelling mistakes.

I think it is pathetic that you criticise the code because it gives a humorous prompt for data. Really pathetic. You say that there are not fail-safes but it is quite clear that you have not read any of the code and so you are in no position to to make that judgement.

I'll not comment on any more of your rant because you are clearly being pedantic.

Carole Edwards said "Whatever the weather, boys & er, boys, there is another issue - Peak Oil. No matter the rights or wrongs, belief or unbelief in AGW, we do need to change to low carbon energy so that future generations can have a decent lifestyle, or so that citizens of other countries can improve their lifestyles. It can't be done/maintained through coal, oil & gas can it?"

Fair enough - we've been looking at fossil fuel exhaustion for decades. There is a simple solution - nuclear energy.

One of the reasons scientific sceptics are sceptical about he current alleged "concensus" is that way nuclear seems to have been elided from the list of solutions - leaving a nagging suspicion that the agenda has fallen out of the hands of the scientists and into those of the greens.

Peter,

Phil Mill's post - thanks! - cooly revealed the completely unscientific approach of Phil Jones to legitimate attempts to get access to the basic data sets used in published research (not unlike the well documented responses of Mann to McItrick's attempts to get at the methodology underlying the original "hockey stick" graph*). As a scientist I was appalled at Jones' response. Your response read to me like an angry rant.

Matt London

(NOT a "denier" - just a sceptical scientist, physicist by education, scientific administrator for much of my career - and member of an advisory quango which, inter alia, advises HMG on things like complex software models)

* Oh dear - I used the term "hockey stick" - does that mean that you will start ranting at me too? I'm sooo worried!

'Some admin bods might have screwed up at UEA'.

Nope, just the director, deputy director and researchers. One of them a lead author to IPCC AR4 - Chapter 6.

Hardly admin bods; these are lead players in the AGW camp.

He's been previously found out falsifying tree data research for the famous hockey stick graph; only picking the trees that showed an increase in temperature.

It took years for that person to disclose the data and countless refusals including delaying tactics to an FOIA request.

My real agenda is I don't believe man has such a huge bearing on climate change, if any at all. I do believe that research like Svensmark et al into solar and radiative forcing need a much closer look.

There is a phenonominally powerful fusion reaction 92 million miles away that provides this planet with heat. We don't understand it fully in terms of the interaction with this planet.

CO2 ppm is still rising, yet the planet is cooling and UEA, Hadley and the IPCC don't know what is causing this cooling; they sure as hell wish it wasn't happening.

I would rather be wrong and the AGW crowd be 100% if it was conducted in a manner of the most professional scientific discourse using rigourous and fair scientific method.

It is not, in my experience people wanting to behave in a non-transparent manner have something to hide. This 'hack' only confirms a pattern of behaviour from the pro-AGW camp going back years.

If you would permit me to climb down...

Mike Thomas talks about the quality of the code, I am not a Prolog or Fortran programmer (I write C++, C# and Java: all languages derived from C), but from a cursory view there are too few comments in the code, and the code is not self describing. From my experience in the software industry this code would not pass the code review process. (Not that I am saying that all companies do code reviews, but the best companies do.) The code review process is very important because it often picks up hard to find bugs. Self describing code (and comments) are also important because they make the code maintainable by others. The code from CRUm as far as I can tell, is written to be maintained by one person. But if that person gets knocked over by a bus... They really do need a proper project manager to work on their code.

The main issue I have with the code (and I may be wrong on this) is that it seems that the raw data is used as the test case. Mike calls it "chasing a theory", I would not be so harsh, but I would like to see evidence that the code routines have been unit tested against known data and results. (Note that I say "routines", the code should be factored into smaller routines that can be unit tested like this. It's probably not possible to do this on the over all process.)

As to the emails, well, I know from my time as a researcher that you do get frustrated by people who do not believe your theories, and the only solution is to publish. Once in the journals anyone can submit a letter to present disputing data. That's how the system works.

That the "skeptics" think that there is some global conspiracy, seems to me to be a plot line from the X Files.

@ Phil

Obviously not a straw man, but cutting to the heart of your argument, as your breathless, tortured response confirms.

@ Mike

If these are all true (which we wait to see) then they would be unacceptable. In the meantime, I'm hardly going to rely on the rushed judgement of a known climate change sceptic, posting (near) anonymously, on a blog.

@ Sam Francisco

Is it really so easy to hit your insult button? Given your inability to sustain an argument, the career in advocacy was clearly never on the cards. But given the attempted literary insult, the one in comedy writing doesn't look so promising either.

Peter Jukes wrote: "Spot the error?"

THE error? I think you mean errors plural:

1) The entire syllogism is a straw man.
2) This is not about "a researcher". A number of the world's leading climate "scientists" are implicated including Michael Mann.
3) As I already stated, the emails are the least of it. The most damning evidence of fraud is contained in the code.
4) Even the fraud is less serious than the poor standard of code and sheer disorganisation of data (they are unable to account for which data was collected when and where) rendering it useless.
5) When you say "the majority of the world's governments and scientific community are talking sh*te" you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, which was purely concerning the CRU's data.
6) None of the premises/conclusions implied by your syllogism are evidenced in anything I've written.
7) There are actually a number of very serious issues raised by the behaviour of these so-called scientists, whose work forms the backbone of the entire Green agenda, and you want to talk about syllogisms.

Did I miss any?

Peter - fair enough. But on the balance of what I've read so far from the CRU emails, I fear you may be waiting for "a more sober, objective judgement" from the warmist camp for quite some time.

@ Johan

Yes, I get the parallelism. That's why I started this analogy. But since it sits too simply in the 'warmist conspiracy' slot Mike and others regularly post on this blog, I'm sceptical of their objectivity.

If other scientists conclude something is very wrong with all the CRU data, then all well and good. If then, in some blinding insight, the world wakes up to the fact that we can carry on burning fossil fuels without a problem, even better as far as I'm concerned. I'll be the first the celebrate by lighting a bonfire.

Somehow the sceptic in me doubts this is the case. That's why I'll await a more sober, objective judgement.

Johan,

If only it was one email. There are hundreds of emails, almost a hundred documents and a massive load of technical data and code 'annotation'.

It's a story of systematic secrecy, lies and deceit.

The 'modelling' has not only altered data, it's diminished it and also sought to over-playing man's contribution to climate change and downplay nature's role.

It won't be so bad if it was an isolated research unit. CRU provide much of the data to the UN IPCC so the analogy is one rotten apple in the barrel. This data will have seeped into other research papers and CRU's findings are referenced in many other scientific papers.

Science works on the principles of open disclosure of data, full peer-review and a transparent process. CRU have kept data to themselves (and this is not the first time), they have subverted the peer-review process (the e-mails provide clear evidence) and they have not conducted themselves in a transparent manner (as their attitute to FOIA suggest).

Quite why Peter thinks that's perfectly acceptable is beyond me.

Mr Jukes: you seem to be an acolyte of Donald Rumsfeld:

"As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know.
We also know. There are known unknowns. That is to say
We know there are some things We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know
We don't know".

I'm not sure about "counter truth" (BTW: otherwise known as 'lies' in the English language). I do know that you bestride Mount Patronising Arrogance like a Colossus.

Whatever the weather, boys & er, boys, there is another issue - Peak Oil. No matter the rights or wrongs, belief or unbelief in AGW, we do need to change to low carbon energy so that future generations can have a decent lifestyle, or so that citizens of other countries can improve their lifestyles. It can't be done/maintained through coal, oil & gas can it?

Peter - the scientific method dictates that any data, modelling, assumptions and so on used in support of a hypothesis should be published so that other scientists can use those data, models etc... to adjudicate whether the reasoning is sound and the conclusions valid. The basic failure of almost all climate alarmist scientists to do so suggests to me that they have something to hide.

The CRU emails, similarly, indicate that alarmist scientists actively avoid attempts to force them to release their data. If the case for AGW was so overwhelmingly affirmative, why would they go so far as to advocate data *deletion* rather than acquiescing, if not to cover up either basic logical/statistical errors, missing data or completely bunk science?

Peter - the scientific method dictates that any data, modelling, assumptions and so on used in support of a hypothesis should be published so that other scientists can use those data, models etc... to adjudicate whether the reasoning is sound and the conclusions valid. the basic failure of almost all climate alarmist scientists to do so suggests to me that they have something to hide. The CRU emails, similarly, indicate that alarmist scientist actively avoid attempts to force them to release thei data. If the case was so overwhelmingly affirmative, why would they go so far as to advocate data *deletion* rather than acquiescing, if not to cover up either basic logical/statistical errors, missing data or completely bunk science?

@ Phil Mill

Newtonian physics aside, I'm not convinced you understand basic syllogistic reasoning

1. An email from the CRU shows a researcher refusing to share data with one other person.
2. No climatologists (from the CRU or contributing to the IPCC) ever share data.
3. Copenhagen, Kyoto, the majority of the world's governments and scientific community are talking sh*te.

Spot the error?

Peter I can see what you're saying, but the at the same time what you accuse Mike of is by all accounts exactly what's been happening at the CRU: They've started with the hypothesis that the world is warming, got some data that doesn't quite fit the hypothesis and so fudged the data to fit the hypothesis more closely. I specifically refer to the 'trick' performed to make the recent cooling disappear. I forget in which email it was.

“you sound remarkably credulous".

Credulous of what? I'm not spouting theories without sharing my data. The onus is on those who warn us about global warming to provide the evidence.


"Given the fact that you show no expertise in this area..."

I'm also not a rocket scientist but I can understand the Newtonian physics involved in propulsion of a space rocket, the forces required given the earth's escape velocity, the amount of fuel required versus its weight and so on. The details may be beyond me but I can understand what the hell's going on, I can understand the basic quantities involved and see that the basic science is all there.

When it comes to climate change there doesn’t seem to be anyone around who is able to quantify the effect on the environment of CO2, water vapour, clouds, sunspots etc. I don't think the warmists’ predictions have been validated (e.g. in the 1990s for the years up to now), I don't think the computer models are reliable and I don't think anything like enough care has been taken in collecting meaningful data.

The most meaningful data available to date, to which nearly all the IPCC studies refer, is the stuff collected from the CRU and it's turned out to be a load of old sh*te.

@ Mike

Wonder who's the victim of stereotypical thinking here? My point was about scepticism in regard to US oil companies funding US think tanks that deny man made climate change, not Shell and UEA (but thanks for the info).

How you got from that to George Monbiot and then Margaret Thatcher is a wonder of associate thinking. But at least she was scientifically trained, and no denier of overwhelming evidence. So thanks for that too.

Some admin bods might have screwed up at UEA. But let's not pretend that's your real agenda here. As you've said repeatedly, you think the whole scientific consensus is bunk. So you start with a prejudice which you just seek to confirm.

I'll be looking for saner counsels on this one.

You mention oil.

So you would be shocked to know that UEA and the Tyndall Centre were in talks with Shell regarding funding?

Go to the zip, uea-tyndall-shell-memo.doc...

Here's a great quote from it.

1. Shell’s interest is not in basic science. Any work they support must have a clear and immediate relevance to ‘real-world’ activities. They are particularly interested in emissions trading and CDM.

CDM - Clean Development Mechanism.

So that's CRU and Tyndall doing business with the dirty, exploiting, polluting oil business.....

Good job their interest is not in basic science, they would be screwed getting that from CRU.

Some of the e-mails speak of money, how much and also some scientists asking CRU how to avoid declaring funding. Why? You don't ask people that on the off chance.

So Oil has been involved with CRU and there is hard evidence.

Monbiot himself wants heads to roll at CRU and the data re-analysed.

First time I've ever agreed with him and I do completely agree.

Want to counter some more or do you want to throw some more lazy stereotypes around? You could always blame it on Thatcher if all else fails.

@ Sam Francisco

That's not irony, my genre-challenged friend: it's Socrates' definition of wisdom "knowing that you don't know".

So I rely on people who do...

You claim to 'know' a counter truth, and like so many so-called sceptics, just have a unshakeable belief in your own opinions.

@ Mike

I didn't say the 'consensus' was unquestionable. In fact, I welcome all serious attempts to find flaws in their conclusions, and come up with alternative evidence (it would suit my pocket and my children's future). But none of the evidence you point to is disponitive, nor has it convinced the majority of rational experts on the subject.

There are many dissenters. All to the good. I hope in some ways they're right. But while (I believe) you take scepticism to the point of cynicism when it comes to the 'official viewpoint', maybe you should also question some of the sources you have for your alternative version.

There's no surprise that the senate minority report came out with its conclusion. People point to the Al Gore bandwagon, and the lobbying of those with some interest in carbon reduction, but these interests pale to nothing in the US compared to the lobbying power of the Oil Companies (who have a long history when it comes to US politics) and their multiple attempts to discredit the idea carbon emissions (especially oil derived hydrocarbons) need to be reduced.

Under George Bush, the US was a centre of opposition to the policy of carbon reduction, and it will come as no surprise to you I'm sure (especially if you've followed the healthcare debate) that various commercially interests funded 'objective research' and numerous 'think tanks' and 'online resources' that question, and keep questioning, man made impact on climate.

Given your professed scientific scepticism and training, I wish you'd be a little more sceptical about your 'alternative sources' too.

I could provide a lot of links to the counter research done on these sources. But I'm sure interested readers can find them easily themselves, perhaps starting with the American Enterprise Institute.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf

(SARCASTIC MODE ON) Produced by Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, clearly a charlatan with no expertise in the in this area and no credibility as an individual.(SARCASTIC MODE OFF)

Peter Jukes - look away now:

"New Zealand’s contribution to the global statistics is now under a shadow, so there could be
regional or even global implications of these disgraceful “adjustments” which should be
investigated. Now we must ask: do we really need an ETS? For, if all that “nasty” carbon dioxide and methane we are “pumping” into the atmosphere has utterly failed to increase our temperature until now, why ever should it do so in the future?"

At least Mr Terry Dunleavy won't be flying to Copenhagen as will the environ-mentalists who are telling us commercial flights are threat to the Planet.

Mr Jukes attacks an opposing view stating "Given the fact that you show no expertise in this area"

The irony is breathtaking.

The conduct at CRU is scandalous and Prescott might like to lock them all in a room until they explain why there seems to have been a deliberate effort to suppress data, stop the release of scientific data for peer review and destroy any scientists who disagree.

This all stinks. And it was all funded with our money - millions upon millions have been poured into this. And until it is peer reviewed it completely undermines the integrity of the data on which potentially billions of pounds might be spent.

This is a national disgrace.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf

@ Phil Mill

What part of this didn't you understand?

"No doubt this comment will draw the usual raft of online links and hockey stick responses. I'll admit I'm not qualified to fisk all these, unpick all the data, or point to the context distortion or selective quotation. On the other hand, it's clear none of those who post here are particularly qualified either."

Given the fact that you show no expertise in this area, apart from your previous well attested willingness to believe in the 'warmist scam', your praise of process of a scientific doubt leaves something to be desired.

But to be more precise about that scientific process of disproof:

If the evidence of global warming, and human contribution to it, was so tendentious, so secretively held and tenuously analysed, why haven't hundreds of scientists and their supporting institutions devoted their (no doubt Nobel winning prize careers) to debunking these findings, establishing different hypotheses with more error proof evidence?

Could it be that, the many other scientists working in many other institutions, using different tools and data sets have come to the same conclusion?

As we can all see, you've already come to your own conclusion before these leaks were even aired. You've decided long ago that "the world's leading warmists... using the banner of science to win a propaganda war."

You find one email of a researcher reluctant to release evidence and you jump to a conclusion that this is incontrovertible evidence of what must be (given the number of adherents) part of a vast world conspiracy in the scientific community.

Fine conclusions from someone who claims to be a 'sceptic', Phil. In fact, you sound remarkably credulous.

Back to basic distinctions between induction and deduction for you my fine muppet warming friend.

Peter Jukes wrote: "the readers of these wikileaks have consistently and tenaciously held to the idea that 'man made climate change' is a scam...in defiance of all scientific procedure".

Scientific precedure???? This entire scandal is about Phil Jones and his colleagues refusing to share data and expose their theories to criticism. Scientific procedure is precisely about sharing data. Your work is not scientific because you have a degree, it's scientific if you produce a theory that in principle is falsifiable, supported by data you are prepared to share along with an explanation of how others can replicate your data.

In 2005 climate researcher Warwick Hughes asked Phil Jones for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. He replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo
… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …
Cheers Phil
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/24/the-people-vs-the-cru-freedom-of-information-my-okole%E2%80%A6/


Why should Phil Jones make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it??? Because, you complete muppet, roughly half of the scientific process is about DISPROVING theories. The scrutiny of your peers' plus their own experimental evidence is the reason science, when done properly, is such a potent tool. What the CRU -- and a number of the world's leading warmists -- have been doing is using the banner of science to win a propaganda war.

How Peter Jukes has the audacity to speak of sceptics being "in defiance of all scientific procedure" is incredible. In fact on second thoughts, it is credible. You simply haven't bothered to look at what the CRU leaks actually contain.

Peter,

I've taken the trouble to read a lot of evidence and counter-evidence; such is the scientific method.

From the IPCC through to the US Senate Minority Report.

I've never spoken of conspiracy until now.

Looking at the 'few' e-mails; there has been a systematic approach to denying the release of evidence under many excuses.

I take it you have read the CRU "Rules of the Game". Look them up. Some might call it media management. I call it lying through your teeth.

Now tell me there is no conspiracy from CRU?

Full disclosure is a key tenet of scientific research. They are not doing this.

I'm not making wild claims, I doubt man has a huge bearing on climate, certainly not so huge that we can change the climate measurably and permanently. I'm more in the camp that cyclical forces beyond our control are in play.

Certainly Svensmark's research has some serious legs to it which incidentally Hadley and CRU were quick to dismiss. Looking at CRU's modus operandi, they have zero credibility now. The Met Office too has also been playing fast and loose with FOIA requests too.

Here's what a real climatologist has to say Peter:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain sceptical. The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

She is one of many 'climatologists' who have gone on the record against the 'unquestionable' consensus.

There are many more scientists willing to speak out.

I suggest you look at the Senate Minority Report into Climate Change to realise that the argument is not settled and many eminent scientists are very unhappy with the IPCC and the science.

Thanks, Peter - I have a slightly longer reply in moderation but basically agree with a lot of that.

Richard,

I wish I could feel so flippant about it.

The world is either going to hell in a handcart or it isn't.

Your response could be better summarised as 'Not bothered'.

Look again at the e-mails, the reason the headers have been removed in correspondence is those posting them have removed them. The IP addresses, hostnames, e-mail addresses are all there in the zip file.

Have you actually looked at this file?

I have also written software commerically to ISO9000 too, ISO9000 means nothing; it is merely a means to document processes against an external benchmark. It doesn't evaluate the actual processes. You could have a complete load of rubbish documented according to ISO9000; it's still a load of rubbish.

I have written software according to best practices like iterative development, test-driven development, continuous integration, model-driven development. These are all de-facto means of writing software these days.

These are all means at the disposal of Harry, most of them have come from the world's universities. They also teach them to students.

I have advised many software development programmes in best practice too.

I have in a professional capacity been asked to review software development processes on behalf of customers, developments ranging from £250m to £2m.

In 20 years experience there should be as a bare minimum number of practices in any competent software development project; even in a one-man band.

Why do them? Because it saves time, effort and also creates the right result, fewer defects and higher quality code.

Regardless of Fortran 77 or Prolog, Fortran has long been used as a language of scientific computation. Regardless of that; these practices apply to Fortran as much as any other language.

These are:

Requirements Management
Change Management
Risk Management
Configuration Management
Software Build & Distribution
Release Management
Test Management.
Technical Authoring.

Read the bit in Harry's read me where he says they need a Data Manager because no-one can find archive files, that there is no data integrity, that there is no code documentation, that he hasn't ran any tests, that he has no idea how to create v3.0. That the programs do not trap errors and carry on processing regardless.

Read the bit where he asks the operator for input with the prompt. "Ok. CONCENTRATE"

WHY? Because the code has no fail-safes, no means to reverse out or rollback.

Read the litany of comments that the data doesn't match the expected output, that the program doesn't work, that data doesn't correlate any more, that the data doesn't match or is missing.

That he can't even use the same program to create the same result.

Why? Because someone has changed the data and not bothered to say what they have changed.

That Harry cannot identify the files with the annual temperature data and the monthly temperature date.

In one example, an entire country's worth of data gets screwed up and he has no idea if the rest of the data has been messed up too.

Harry admits that when he makes changes; he creates new bugs.

So no test scripts, no test environment, no design documentation. Certainly no version control and certainly no configuration management.

Every time he runs a test; it's with the live data!

So no release management, no development environment.

That is beyond 'bad code'.

These are the fundamentals of any software program. This code is worse than under-graduate level. The UNIX commands used are very basic, the data management is rudimentary.

Harry has also been identified, he is no research assistant or student either. In the readme, he also identifies other scientists in the code they have written; Mike's Nature Trick, for example.

As a programmer he is one-rung above a script-kiddie. As for what he is doing, it is beyond industry practice, it is beyond most teenage school projects in terms of the level of idiocy being displayed.

It's beyond even the basics of a programming for dummies book.

This is a research project with a multi-million pound budget being ran as if it is an amateur in a shed. That's an insult to the amateur in the shed.

The sentence in the comment ends with 'Meh.' What the!!!??? Meh?

The world is heading for disaster or not? Meh.

The reputations of good scientists that are concerned with the findings have their reputations trashed? Meh.

Editors of scientific journals are sacked because CRU complained by e-mail that they published a sceptical article? Meh.

Media contacts are tapped up to ensure that they always get a favourable press? Meh.

Us, the public, their paymaster are told nothing, can see nothing and are manipulated by the CRU "Rules of the game"? Meh.

Hasn't happened?

It has... all of it because it is detailed in those e-mails.

E-mails written in the "heat of the moment". Yes, that moment has lasted 15 years as we can all see.

In terms of the science and the level of transparency required due to the magnitude of the decision being made; it is a mess, the behaviour of the scientists is beyond reproach. The attitude and approach to scientific
method is sloppy and lazy.

No wonder they didn't want to reveal anything according to the FOIA - no one would take them seriously any longer.

They have no credibility now. This is not science.

They are meant to be answering the most important scientific question of our age.

More important than Microsoft.

There is an old saying in computing.

Garbage in Garbage out.

Inbetween the shoveling of garbage there is usually bad code in the middle of it. So there is bad data, rubbish code and you expect the world to swallow that the results are the very best we can expect?

I don't and I will not.

Thanks, Peter. That seems to me a measured contribution. Only two comments:

1. I don't entirely agree that the worst consequence if the science were found to have been distorted would be greater energy efficiency; I think that the environment would have been damaged (or threatened) in other ways and the economic development of poor countries (as well as rich ones) needlessly hampered.

2. Episodes like this deepen a public suspicion of science. People don't trust what scientists tell them, and this is not irrational because scientists keep getting caught acting in frankly untrustworthy ways. This is corrosive, because we need to be able to trust them when they tell us we should give our kids a particular vaccine and so forth. I feel that we do have enough information in front of us to conclude that the behaviour of some in the CRU has at the very least contributed to the trust problem, and has done so culpably, and I disagree with you to that extent. (Incidentally so, it would seem from yesterday's Guardian, does George Monbiot.)

@ Frederick James

Hard to tell from what I've read.

But what I do take with a boulder of salt is the obvious ideological slant of the usual suspects. They take a few emails from one university, and immediately try to reverse engineer many decades work, in many countries, institutions and research facilities.

There's legitimate public concern (yet to be proven IMHO) and alarmist extremism.

I have a great distrust of those who wave the shroud of an ecological apocalypse for political (usually anti-capitalist) ends. But though it is in no means in my self interest, and goes against my distrust of 'disaster scenarios', I have become pretty persuaded (like many rational people) that human activity has begun to affect the planet's climate.

Some of this may be reversible, or not catastrophic. Look at the ozone hole above Antarctica and the use of fluorocarbons. Some of it will be plainly used by those with political or commercial agendas. But dismissing all that scientific research under the presumption that its all a 'warmist conspiracy' strikes me as more tendentious than the rational alternative: there is evidence of man made impact on climate. We can do something about it by reducing carbon emissions. If, as happens in science, the empirical data has been misinterpreted, the worse thing that would have happened is that we have become more energy efficient, and may have stopped pumping so many petrol dollars into Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Unless of course we will all become slaves working on wind farms, under the whip of George Monbiot.

Somehow the balance of risk seems lead one way....

Ah yes John Prescott. the man who so wants to save the environment he has a garage full of economical small cars and drives his wife 100 metres by car to save her hairstyle.

Anyone quoting Prescott in support on climate change is choosing a perfect example of "do what I say and ignore what I do"...

@Road Hog

If you can understand Air Miles or Tesco Club Cards you can understand the unitisation of energy. It is simply the creation and sale by energy producers of Units redeemable in payment for energy.

Bob Hahl created a prototype in the US just to show it could be done - Kilo Watt Cards

The outcome is the possibility of monetising the energy value of carbon. So my proposal to the Iranian government was and is:

(a) Dispense with subsidies:

(b) Increase carbon fuel prices to the global market price; and

(c) Avoid bloody revolution by issuing to the population billions of Units redeemable in payment for energy supplied.

Iranians then have the option of continuing profligate use, or of saving energy and exchanging their intrinsically valuable Units for (say) accommodation, food or flat screen TVs from Taiwan.

This works for any producer nation, and can also work for consuming nations instead of a carbon tax. ie apply a carbon levy, and issue a carbon dividend of Units by way of compensation.

I find it ironic that the developed and lesser developed consuming nations will be fighting at Copenhagen like cripples over a crutch when producer nations waste energy in cosmic amounts: Nigeria flares as much gas as would power Brazil.

@Peter Jukes, is it your considered judgement that nothing of legitimate public concern has occurred at the CRU?

@ Mike Thomas Sam Francisco et al

How did you take this long to confirm your own prejudices?

To anyone unaware of this subject, let's be clear - the readers of these wikileaks have consistently and tenaciously held to the idea that 'man made climate change' is a scam, a conspiracy foisted upon the ignorant populations of the world by a majority of governments in order to tax them more.

There are various problems with this initial hypothesis, but there is a greater problem with their inductive method.

Basically, in defiance of all scientific procedure, they have waded through wikileaks in order to confirm their hypothesis. Their conclusions are persuasive only the online minority who have already bought into the 'climate change scam', and thus the circular feedback loop continues.

Back in the real world, increasing numbers of scientists, populations and governments see clear evidence of climate change, a correlation with C02 levels, and seek accords in order to reduce carbon outputs.

Mike Thomas and others may have valid points about the effectiveness of these measures, both economically and environmentally, but undermine their contributions with wild but appealing surmises of mass collusion, ignorance and conspiracy in the world's scientific community.

No doubt this comment will draw the usual raft of online links and hockey stick responses. I'll admit I'm not qualified to fisk all these, unpick all the data, or point to the context distortion or selective quotation. On the other hand, it's clear none of those who post here are particularly qualified either.

Shame that a real climatologist isn't available to debunk these familiar rants. On the other hand, they might just have more important things to do.

I've looked at the CRU block of e-mails and data, I've read through the comments of 'Harry'. Incidentally, I don't think hackers package up 15 years worth of correspondence and data, then zip it all up nicely and host it somewhere. They leave back doors open for others to exploit.

This is the suspect part. 15 years of emails would be hundreds of thousands (amybe millions) of emails. Where are they all? Someone has been selective and produced just a few that tell a particular story.

Why were these emails released with moist of the headers stripped? I would like to see the "References" header to put the emails in order and in context with the other emails, but someone has carefully removed that data. If someone is trying to make a point about "falsification of data" why is the first thing that they do is to edit the emails?

I've read through Harry's read me file and I am utterly appalled.

I did a search and I couldn't find anything that was so appalling. care to share what you found?

The code itself would make a teenage programmer ashamed, it is littered with errors, it is poorly written, it does not acknowledge processing errors and simply alerts the operator with messages like 'Whoops'.

Which makes me wonder if what you have got is some research student's attempt. It is all prolog and fortran which (as someone with 15 years experience in the software industry) made me go Bleh!

I used to have access to the source code for Windows (as a contractor to Microsoft) and I can tell you horror stories about the quality of their code and their documentation. I used to work for a company that wrote software to ISO9000 standards and Microsoft don't even get on the first rung of that standard.

I am afraid that there is a lot of bad code out there, get used to it.

We are consistently being warned about the Global Warming Armageddon that is near, and then we look at the actions of the Worlds Goverments propping up the very Industry that supposedly causes the most damage, the Car Industry!
We have recently learnt that just 20 Super Tankers and Cargo Ships are belching out more Co2 trhan all the cars in the world but hey, got to keep all of those cheap goods coming from China and India!
Create a Public Transport system that is now so expensive that its cheaper for us all to travel by car!and want to build more runways so we can increase Air Travel which is now the cheapest way to travel abroad?!

Politicians should be judged on thier actions not on thier words, and when this is applied we can all agree that Man Made Warming is a con.

How can the two be balanced and why do we

Richard Blogger, let's assume that your (perhaps a tiny bit de-haut-en-bas) remarks are all 100% accurate.

Do you believe that nothing of legitimate public concern has occurred at the CRU?

>i>The code reveals deliberate manipulation of data to produce results that fit with the warmist agenda.

That's not true. The comments in the code point out that tree ring data from 1960 and later is not an accurate proxy for temperature. There is a systematic error in tree ring data from that date onwards due to high levels of atmospheric pollution ("acide rain") and so the data has to be adjusted to take that into account.

See? A little bit of science explains the comments: they are innocuous and prove no "falsification". The problem is that the deniers claim that it means something more than it does. This is why I say that there is no value in "science by FoI" that seems to be the latest strategy of the deniers.

I write a lot of software, perhaps I should stop putting comments in my code for fear that someone will FoI it and then try to twist the comments to mean something that I did not intend?

I`m still wading through the emails etc posted on wikileaks. However from what I`ve read so far, there are lots of questions to be answered and heads should roll.
We as taxpayers are helping to fund these people. Maybe the plug should be pulled

I fail to see where there is any benefit in "science by FoI".

I have been a research scientist and I know that the vast majority of the raw data I took had spurious blips from someone switching on heavy machinery in another part of the building, or systematic effects from (say) mounting the sample slightly off centre. I documented all of this when I did the work. Then when I analysed the data I made the adjustments. The papers I published always gave the details of the analysis. That is science. FoI requests are basically making a political statement, that's not science.

Imagine what would happen if someone intercepted the feed for that and published selected parts on the internet. That would be political dynamite!

Nah, I don't think that any leader would want their private discussions being used like that, so it's safer to meet face to face.

Anyway, put things into perspective. The amount of carbon such meetings cause is minuscule compared to (say) the amount of CO2 being produced by Drax in a day.

Mike Thomas: superb work. Let's get you on Question Time ASAP.

And, as a staunch climate change "denier", can I just say "thank God for John Prescott".

@Mike Thomas, there is a lot of (welcome and overdue) noise about this subject at the moment, but that is the most penetrating and succinct summary of the scandal that I have read. Thank you very much indeed for it!

I hope they don't do a deal and I'll tell you why.

I've looked at the CRU block of e-mails and data, I've read through the comments of 'Harry'. Incidentally, I don't think hackers package up 15 years worth of correspondence and data, then zip it all up nicely and host it somewhere. They leave back doors open for others to exploit.

This was an internal shambles exploited by someone that got lucky. These 'scientists' were e-mailing user ids and passwords to each other.

I don't profess to be a scientist despite a science degree. However, what has alarmed me is a disregard for scientific process which should be in the very DNA of each of the 'esteemed' climatologists at UEA.

They have rubbished opposing points of views.

They have subverted science review processes.

Then there is the lack of transparency...

They have obfusicated FOI responses.

They have sought to pervert the FOI applications by condoning, encouraging and requesting the deletion of evidence.

These aren't the behaviours of people absolutely certain in their science, these are the behaviours of people with something to hide.

Next, what really, really bothers me. The 'science'.

I've read through Harry's read me file and I am utterly appalled.

That is not data analysis, that is chasing a theory and making the data fit. We call it 'Goalseeking' in data analysis. They made their claims and then made the data fit. To the point of altering temperature records to suit, to hide the 1940s blip or exaggerate the increase or hide the decline.

In other e-mail correspondence there are admissions that they can't explain the decade of cooling and more importantly they don't know when the warming will start again.

That is bad, bad science, it is faulty science, they are in the business of computer models and yet their models are built on shaky principles, using appalling computer programmes with mangled data.

This isn't a decision on the mating habits of dormice for someone's MSc, this is a decision to divert hundreds of billions of pounds of money and resources to try and stop something that no-one is absolutely certain can be stopped.

This is a decision that will curtail the economic development of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet. This is taking money (some from people that can ill afford it) and stalling economic growth on the pre-text that we face Armaggeddon otherwise.

I have 20 years experience in handling data within IT, using it, protecting it, analysing it and quite frankly I would never let 'Harry' or any of these scientists near a computer for the rest of their careers.

They have bodged the data together, ignored warnings that their manipulations have removed correlations between data sets, they have lost precious data. They have been unable even to repeat previous analysis.

Things as basic as where to plot a temperature recording, and at what time of year have been lost forever; the so-called meta-data. So they have managed to turn valuable information back into raw data. They have ignored data conflicts, ignored mis-matches and simply made data up to make up gaps.

In layman's terms they have systematically been ramming square pegs in round holes with a mallet for 15 years.

The code itself would make a teenage programmer ashamed, it is littered with errors, it is poorly written, it does not acknowledge processing errors and simply alerts the operator with messages like 'Whoops'.

CRU data has been manipulated from 'hide the decline' to writing code to incrementally adjust temperature upwards.

They have sought to hide this by destroying reputations and peer-reviews with like-minded and unquestioning colleagues. They have bullied and they have pressured, they have celebrated in the death of sceptics.

This isn't the mating habits of dormice, this is evidence used by government's the world over to make serious and long-term decisions.

CRU have lost data, they have fudged it, they have tampered with the raw sets, they have lost the integrity of it. That data is now utterly worthless, it cannot be used to prove anything other than the utter incompetence and intransigence of the research facility.

Next, this government.

If this government was serious, really serious about the climate changing. Let's face it 90% confident is certain.

It would not be expanding airports, the fastest growing means of CO2 pollution.

It would have committed to nuclear power a decade ago.

It would have committed to electric propulsion, home generation and mass transit at the same time.

It would have issued massive tax breaks to R&D to create green technologies.

It would have shifted taxation from income to consumption.

In terms of the forecasts and in terms of the science, I am deeply sceptical. The forecasts of the 1980s have not come to pass, neither have those of the 1990s nor the 2000s.

It's time to pause, demand a fully transparent and balanced public enquiry because we are paying for this shambles and we will all be paying for the decisions made from it for many years to come.

Chris, I'm still trying to get my head around your alternative (carbon) currency. I'm still having fun getting my head around fiat money and fractional reserves. Once I've finally sussed out carbon currency, I'll come back and debate it with you.

Anyway, for anyone else reading this, I care greatly about the planet (Earth) and I'm happy to cut back on things to help it, but I'm not happy with the lies that governments propagate and the fact that they use policies to extract tax from us, calling it green taxes.

@Road Hog

You do not have to make a judgement either on whether or not climate change is a reality , or even if it is, that Man's production of CO2 is causing it.

The fact is that saving carbon fuel use saves money.

The true global warming scam was Enron's creation when they dreamt up and sold to a credulous US establishment the complete bollocks that is emissions trading and carbon credits.

I said almost 5 years ago that The ETS Law is an Ass and since then I have only reinforced my view that to monetise by government fiat something completely worthless is doomed to failure. It's no surprise to find that the whole Kyoto charade is brought to us by the guys who brought us the Credit Crunch by...errr....monetising by government fiat something completely worthless.

The answer to both a new global reserve currency to replace the dollar, and to a transition to renewables is the same. We must IMHO monetise the intrinsic energy value of carbon, which we may achieve through Energy Pooling

As posted on here about a month ago,

http://www.labourlist.org/top-10-tory-bloggers-all-dismissive-of-man-made-climate-change

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673

See comment #3

Well now that two jags is banging the global warming drum so hard, based on his judgement we can now conclude that there is no such thing as man made global warming!

Because on a video link, you don't get to travel 1st class, visit another country, do a bit of shopping, stay in a nice hotel and have all your food paid for.

It's all a con, it used to be called global warming but after a decade of reducing temperatures they've had to change it to climate change, not like the climate has been changing since the day the Earth began.

I'm afraid ricki, that the mainstream parties treat you (and I) as being thick, they used 9/11 to justify taking away our civil liberties and to spy on us and now they'll use climate change to use green taxes as a way to extract more money from us.

I'd be interested to see the reports of the CRU emails that were leaked, but I won't hold my breath. I've already posted here some months ago about the CRU altering data and then refusing to supply it under the FOI act.

If the government were really interested in climate change then they'd stop building the 3rd runway at Heathrow.

Listening to this incoherent oaf is like stepping into an alternate reality.

Back in the real world yet more damning evidence hacked from the University of East Anglia seeps out with each new piece of analysis: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

It turns out the incriminating emails between Phil Jones and Michael Mann et al are only the start. The code reveals deliberate manipulation of data to produce results that fit with the warmist agenda. And these dodgy dossiers are the basis for a large part of the climate change agenda.

In other words, the integrity of the world's top climate "scientists" has been exposed for what it is: Not very scientific at all it turns out. Most of the data is flawed (no accurate record of where it came from or when it was recorded etc.). No wonder they wouldn't release the data for so long.

Needless to say, none of this will prevent "green" taxes being introduced as a result of Copenhagen.

Hi Alex

It is on freeview


ricki

You can watch most of these debates, either on the Parliament channel, which I think is free on freeview, or at the BBC's new site, which is superb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/default.stm

Hi Labourlist

If the leadership belived in global warming so much why are these meetings not conducted by video link ? The problem is the make the laws and we obey, They cant go off in there Jag or plane and swan around the world (on taxpayers money) but the hardest hit are the poor .

ricki