Reply To: Questions regarding DPF.

[Brian H]

mchargue wrote: Spot on, Newbie and Old Timer. Spot on.

It was depressing to read through code snippets that showed outright manipulation of the data, all in the name of ‘homogenizing’ it. Also insightful was the read of the documentation that read as a lamentation of the data set, the code base, and the manipulations that were applied to produce the desired results.

Sadly, while all of science will take a hit if it does not clean its house out, politically-safe AGW will likely trundle on. Sadly, there’s just too much money at stake to allow truth, or common sense, to win out.

Unless scientists of all stripes speak out against this, they will all be treated with the same (justified) derision.

Pat

Just thought I’d bring back this crucial posting before this thread gets capped. The suppression of data, grotesque “trimming” of data sources, from NZ to the Canadian Arctic to the Andes to Siberia, by the CRU Crew is now well documented. Considering how grossly inadequate the “grid sizing” of even the full panoply of available data collection points would be for a workable simulation of the atmosphere, cutting down sources (e.g., using 1 out of the 100 available weather stations in the Canadian Arctic north of the Arctic Circle, and that one well within the palpable “heat bubble” of a town) is gatekeeping of the most egregious sort.

To clarify the term “homogenization” above, it is used, when appropriate, to mean “rendering continuous and consistent” when there is any kind of change in the recording apparatus or location at a particular site. The laws of chance suggest that about half of such adjustments should tend to be to increase baselines/measured temperatures, and half to decrease. It is remarkable, to the point of incredibly improbable, that 100% of such “homogenizations” in the CRU-utilized data set are upwards. The same remarkable pattern of “adjustments” appears throughout the code, as well; all the “fixes” have the net effect of increasing the inputs and/or outputs of the models.
The “fix is in”, in Spades.
_______
To summarize the anti-AGW scientific case, watch the presentation by a PhD in Geology, H. Leighton Steward. As opposed to the “pal-reviewed” material so often held up by the CRU Crew as the gold standard, utilizes over 2900 actually peer-reviewed papers from the full range of real specialists within the field:
Steward Ph.D., H. Leighton 19:56 May 19, 2010 Empirical Evidence (Paleoclimates) and the Disconnect of Climate Change

(The link is to a conference with 74 presentations last month; they are listed by surname–click on Steward’s to get the above talk.)

The material presented here, contrary to the canned talking-point claim above, has been “debunked” only in classic superficial handwaving style by the Team at Real Climate and other stooges of the CRU Cabal desperate to keep the multi-billion dollar GW gravy train growing exponentially.