"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: HeyBub on 3 Dec 2009 07:27 Richard wrote: > On Dec 1, 1:46 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Richard wrote: >> >>>> Heh! There's a noticeable change in temperature between Death >>>> Valley (ele. -282 ft) and Denver (ele 5281 ft), too, but I can't >>>> just take the >>>> curren reading in Denver and add 100 F to get the current >>>> temperature in >>>> Death Valley. >> >>> As with many of your examples they show more about you than they do >>> of the world. >> >>> The Weather Bureau _does_ make forecasts for Death Valley and Denver >>> is one area that does provide data (among thousands of others) that >>> produce that forecast. > > If we look at what the shonky sceptics did, they abutted the raw sea > level data up to 1920s and the post 1920s raw unadjusted data from up > the hill (and thus cooler) to 'prove' no warming. > > In the context of your hyperbole this would be the same as taking the > death valley average temperature up to 1930 and then continuing the > graph with the Denver average temperatures to current day and using > that to 'prove' world temperatures fell. Now you bring up what the skeptics did. Until now, no one has said anything about the activities of the anti-warming crowd. We were discussing the criminal fraud perpetrated by the CRU and their co-conspirators in NZ. I'm not interested in what the skeptics say or did. Your random dart-throwing in an attempt to find a situation in which what you allege is meaningful is simply appalling. My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good science to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly different location. Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception, obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal fraud. The people involved shoud be cremated (even if it contributes to 'global warming'), and their ashes scattered. Take no chances.
From: Anonymous on 3 Dec 2009 08:46 In article <C_qdnSBrUME2M4rWnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [snip] >My contention, illustrated by exaggeration, was that it is simply not good >science to take data from one physical location, add some sort of constant >to it, and expect it to accurately portray reality from a distinctly >different location. Take: a sit-down by the seaside one pot of water heat to a full boil add one egg wait three minutes enjoy an egg of a cosistency called 'a three-minute egg'. Change the location from sea level to 10,000 feet above sea level. To get the same consistency one needs five minutes cooking. >Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception, >obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal >fraud. Anyone with sufficient formal training to be familiar with the qualifier of 'fifty-five Paris feet' might recognise that changing *only the place* where observations are made can change the results *and* be accounted for by arithmetic constants... that's been 'science' for at least a century-and-a-half. DD
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Dec 2009 10:56 On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:46:18 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >a sit-down by the seaside >one pot of water >heat to a full boil >add one egg >wait three minutes >enjoy an egg of a cosistency called 'a three-minute egg'. > >Change the location from sea level to 10,000 feet above sea level. To get >the same consistency one needs five minutes cooking. I lived a couple of years in Mexico City during the Kennedy administration. At that time, US made cake mixes were available with Spanish language instructions stuck on the box - modified for Mexico City altitude. My parents complained that the coffee wasn't hot enough for their taste. I am at work in Boulder Colorado at the moment, but haven't seen recipe modifiers - I expect the mountains are different. I do know I have to have a bigger boil to cook pasta here - the boiling water isn't quite hot enough. -- "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: Alistair on 3 Dec 2009 11:05 On Nov 26, 3:03 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Pete Dashwood wrote: > > HeyBub wrote: > > On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings (going back > to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends. Who? what data did they use and is their name Judson? > > In other words, raw temperature data for 150 years show no warming (or > cooling) trend. After processing these data through NiWA's magnificent > computer program, we're all gonna die. > Just as well that no-one has told the foraminifera about global warming.
From: Alistair on 3 Dec 2009 11:13
On Nov 27, 8:48 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. Some think it was the data that were massaged - no one has commented > on the code. The programs used for climate predition at East Anglia, > however, are seemingly a mess and cannot be deciphered. They should have used Cobol, it is self-documenting. ;-p Apparently as long > as the programs in East Anglia generated the expected graphs they were > deemed to be working okay. As long as my programs generate the correct (by my definition) result, I deem them to be working ok. |