Consensus? How could anybody consent to this temperature trend garbage

[Crick]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

 

[polarbear]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

Ah...I should have guessed it. Every time devoted AGW spammers like you are faced with inconvenient facts you crawl into your usual 97% consensus rat hole....which in turn is totally bogus
If 97% of your climate "scientists" agreed on picking computer programmers like the one who wrote that email to them outlining the problems of the programs they rely on and accept "as completely valid" then they sure as hell don`t have a clue what they are talking about...In other words they are almost right down at your level

 

[polarbear]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

B.t.w. For your information this "complainant" who according to you does not understand how the data is processed is the head of Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming at the CRU East Anglia:

Mr Ian (Harry) Harris
Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming.
I`m quite certain he is not as dumb as you are but you could send an email to see if they could use an "expert" like you

 

[Crick]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

Ah...I should have guessed it. Every time devoted AGW spammers like you are faced with inconvenient facts you crawl into your usual 97% consensus rat hole....which in turn is totally bogus
If 97% of your climate "scientists" agreed on picking computer programmers like the one who wrote that email to them outlining the problems of the programs they rely on and accept "as completely valid" then they sure as hell don`t have a clue what they are talking about...In other words they are almost right down at your level

Do you have the responses he received or not?

 

[Crick]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

B.t.w. For your information this "complainant" who according to you does not understand how the data is processed is the head of Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming at the CRU East Anglia:

Mr Ian (Harry) Harris
Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming.
I`m quite certain he is not as dumb as you are but you could send an email to see if they could use an "expert" like you

Then why does Mr Harris believe that storing a number in binary will reduce it to an integer?

 

[polarbear]

For instance, greater than 97% of the world's climate scientists accept this "temperature trend garbage" as completely valid. And I'm quite certain they understand how it is processed better than you or I and, apparently, better than your complainant.

B.t.w. For your information this "complainant" who according to you does not understand how the data is processed is the head of Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming at the CRU East Anglia:

Mr Ian (Harry) Harris
Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development, data manipulation and visualisation, programming.
I`m quite certain he is not as dumb as you are but you could send an email to see if they could use an "expert" like you

Then why does Mr Harris believe that storing a number in binary will reduce it to an integer?

Now it`s back to that again !!!
Are you such a Bozo that you can`t understand what he wrote?
Harris (Harry) even pointed out where the program does just that,
You told me earlier that you know fortran but it`s obvious that you don`t else you would not ask me again.
First you asked me why "I said " so even so it was Harris who looked up the files and they were in binary integer format...and now you asked me why he thinks that they were in that format.
Don`t you think he knows how to open a file and look at it which format has been used...daaah!
Of course he does, so do I but for you that`s obviously too much

 

[Crick]

Oooops. Lots of wild values, even for TMP and PRE - and that's compared to the previous output!! Yes, this is comparing the automated 1901-2008 files with the 1901-June2006 files, not with CRu TS 2.1.
minmax rd0 2.5 binaries: -100.000 357.327
minmax rd0 2.5 binaries: -94.2232 250.621
minmax rd0 2.5 binaries: -93.0808 512.557
minmax rd0 2.5 binaries: -100.000 623.526
minmax rd0 2.5 binaries: -95.1105 521.668

The trouble is, when written to binary, these will be rounded to integer and a degree of accuracy will be lost.
Then there's the 0.5-degree converter
(rd0_gts_anom_05_m.pro), which has indescribably awful output values:

minmax rd0 0.5 binaries: -1.00000 8.33519
minmax rd0 0.5 binaries: -0.970328 8.13772
minmax rd0 0.5 binaries: -0.951749 4.33032
minmax rd0 0.5 binaries: -1.00000 9.26219
minmax rd0 0.5 binaries: -0.960226 3.80590

minmax returns the minimum and maximum values in an array. It handles all types. IT is not going to turn floating points into integers. I see no format statement making such a conversion. So, please explain what your man Harry means by "when written to binary, these will be rounded to integer". Who or what is writing them to binary and why is that rounding them to integer?

And, if you knew FORTRAN as well as you're attempting to make it look, you wouldn't be explaining this in the manner you've been using. Now I haven't used FORTRAN since 1971. Moved on to Pascal, C and C++. If you've been using it more recently, please explain in comprehensible terms, without all the useless insults, what you believe this man is actually saying.

 

[mamooth]

I checked with the original emails, and they don't match what PolarBear has posted here. Yes, all the snippets that PolarBear quoted are in the emails somewhere, but he leaves out large amounts of discussion between the pieces he quotes, without mentioning he did so. What did he leave out? A lot of discussion on how they fixed the problems mentioned in his selective snippets.

By deliberately editing out the discussions of the solutions, PolarBear deliberately adjusted the data to change its meaning. That's the only data-adjustment scandal here.