The BBC show “Newsnight” aired a show a few days ago that delves into the code the Climatic Research Unit used to dupe and scare the masses:
Newsbusters has a partial transcript:
“This is the source code from the Climatic Research Unit,” Susan Watts, science editor at the BBC explained. “John Graham-Cumming is a software engineer. He’s not a skeptic on climate change, but he is shocked by what he’s seen in the programming. He compared it with the code in the same language written by NASA.”
Graham-Cumming criticized the CRU programming for its lack of professionalism and showed faults with it.
“Well, if you look at the NASA stuff, it’s really professional,” Graham-Cumming said. “You can look at it, you can see the history. If you look at — what’s done here by these alleged CRU files – it’s not the thing you’d expect to see in certainly a commercial industry. You would not see this sort of source code because it’s not clearly documented. There’s not audit history of what’s happened to it. So it would be below the standard in any commercial software. ”
According to the author of “The Geek Atlas,” the programmer even included steps to skip over errors, which shows some of the data analyzed by the East Anglia CRU is completely neglected.
“The programming language actually has a problem,” Graham-Cumming said. “And they put in some code to deal with that error. Unfortunately, in doing so they produced another error. And the upshot of this is the error occurs – the underlying error, they will skip over data that they’re trying to plot without any warning to the end user. So in some sense there is data that is being lost.”
Then we have the British MET office. They issued this statement a few weeks back:
A statement from the Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society.
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world-class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change, now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UKâ€™s leading scientific organisations, involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.~~~
These emerging signals are consistent with what we expect from our projections, giving us confidence in the science and models that underpin them. In the absence of action to mitigate climate change, we can expect much larger changes in the coming decades than have been seen so far.
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.~~~
The Met Officeâ€™s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.~~~
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
Sounds great, if the government will let them re-examine the data. But I think they need more then just a re-examination. They need a complete scrub of the scientists responsible for this scandal. They’ve lost all credibility and I doubt anyone will have much confidence in the data they will produce….except of course those who are getting rich and/or gaining power due to AGW. How in the world can they believe that allowing the old crew of scientists who fudged the data, to re-examine that data, will restore confidence?