This is not a discussion of science, it is a discussion of vigilantes destroying science. We have judgment on science, it is called peer review. Many do not like it because the people the do the judging are fellow experts on the subject, rather than political appointees that the 'vigilantes' would be.
This issue is one of corruption in science for political and other self-serving reasons (money, careers), and spreads out to the public when the corruption surfaces, or a portion of the public doesn't like science's findings for philosophical/political reasons (evolution, biblical archaeological finds, minimal if any climate change).
There will always be the kook fringe on both sides, but schools and churches have long been keeping the much of the populace dumbed down for millenia, especially when it comes to living using rational thought in our everyday lives, putting their blind faith in The Church or Big Brother . Everybody gives lip service to the Truth, but there's actually no academic discipline for the study of the nature of Truth--that way, everybody can be led down the myriad paths of irrational subjective Truth, the opposite of science, which is objective.
You want to see kook fringe?
Well, here it is then....among the AGWarmistas, lol, who will do ANYTHING to support their claims.
Why Hansen Had To
Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science
Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With
That?
Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for
readabilityÂ’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.
NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro
1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that
starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins
to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.
Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?
Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.
Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have
'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.
And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the
MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!
Climategate: hide the decline ? codified |
Watts Up With That?
WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments
by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME
comments are quite revealing. For those that donÂ’t understand computer programming, donÂ’t fret, the comments by the
programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....
◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents
\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot
past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
....
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions
(stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions
(stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
...
;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so
many changes that aren't documented.
....
;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was.
There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations
...
Here, the
expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close).
What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have 
...
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.
...
printf,1,Â’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).Â’
printf,1,Â’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.Â’
printf,1
printf,1,
Â’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLYÂ’
printf,1,Â’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 valuesÂ’
printf,1,Â’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,Â’
printf,1,Â’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilfulÂ’
printf,1,Â’than it actually is.
...
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,
'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
.....
;
Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
;
APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
...
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
...
applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro).
We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
**********************************************************
Of course since AGW scientists didn't find these comments in the code, etc, this cant be true, roflmao. It is all so airily dismissed as improperly gained data and so should be considered inadmissible, lololololololol
