"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 9 Dec 2009 07:02 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article > <a6221da3-ff33-4e81-9991-d201ddbcfb5b(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> On Dec 9, 12:02?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >>> In article >> <4be1258d-34d7-46d5-aed9-39ae0b924...(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, >>> >>> Richard ?<rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has >>>> not already been thought of and dealt with decades ago. >>> >>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a >>> linear fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all >>> due to starve by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or >>> 20th centuries? >> >> I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal >> in many states of the US. > > Many states in the US are proud of their outlaws... how could any > civilised society take honor from criminal status? You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: HeyBub on 9 Dec 2009 09:30 Richard wrote: > > They moved the station up the hill. > > The clueless skeptics attempted to use the raw figures > _with_no_adjustment_at_all_ which is clearly wrong. Even you finally > understand that adjustment is needed for altitude. > Skeptics don't disagree with the concept of adjustments (what the climatologists call "inhomogeneity"). Legitimate adjustments can be made for such things as: instrumentation, environment changes where the station is located, etc. What cannot be countenanced is outright fraud - fudging the numbers to achieve a pre-determined result. I refer you to an analysis of Australian temperature data involving the "raw" data which was, erroneously NOT deleted, compared to the "homogenized" or adjusted temperatures. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ Money quotes: "YIKES! Before getting homogenized [adjusted], temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century . but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century . when those guys "adjust", they don't mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C." and "Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They've just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right . but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What's up with that?" Then the conclusion: "And with the Latin saying "Falsus in unum, falsus in omis" (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station "adjustments" are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can't trust anyone using homogenized numbers."
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Dec 2009 12:01 On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:34:55 -0800 (PST), Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a linear >> fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all due to starve >> by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or 20th centuries? > >I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal >in many states of the US. Wasn't there a Teletuby that did that? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Dec 2009 12:02 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:02:03 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-) We all tend to associate "Waltzing Matilda" with Oz though. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Richard on 9 Dec 2009 14:01
On Dec 10, 1:02 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > docdw...(a)panix.com wrote: > > In article > > <a6221da3-ff33-4e81-9991-d201ddbcf...(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > > Richard <rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 12:02?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>> In article > >> <4be1258d-34d7-46d5-aed9-39ae0b924...(a)u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> Richard ?<rip...(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: > > >>> [snip] > > >>>> Just because you can think of something does not mean that it has > >>>> not already been thought of and dealt with decades ago. > > >>> What... you mean that because land can be used agriculturally in a > >>> linear fashion and people reproduce in a geometric one we're all > >>> due to starve by... sometime around the beginning of the 19th or > >>> 20th centuries? > > >> I am sure that 'people reproducing in a geometric fashion' is illegal > >> in many states of the US. > > > Many states in the US are proud of their outlaws... how could any > > civilised society take honor from criminal status? > > You haven't been to Australia, have you, Doc... ? :-) One time Jasper Carrot was going through Aussie 'Border Control' and he was asked if he had any criminal convictions, his reply was: "Is this still a requirement ?" |