

East Anglia's Climate Research Unit source code - marvin
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

======
martian
This is rather blatant:

    
    
      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
    

The inevitable conclusion: "If a divergence exists between measured
temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa)
1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the
least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in
the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If
it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would
instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the
lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result."

------
marvin
Background info at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-
mail_h...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-
mail_hacking_incident). Basically, hackers stole a lot of internal e-mails
from the research institute, and some of the e-mails contain dubious code and
data from its climate research.

------
diego_moita
You can fill the stench of paranoid conspiracy theory already in the first
paragraph.

Global warming deniers are the new creationists.

~~~
Luyt
Climate skeptics are not necessarily denying that there is global warming --
the climate has always changed.

The point is that the science is not done properly. The data and methods the
IPCC based its reports on are not open to scrutiny and review. On this flawed
data climate models are based, and on these models governments base their
policies in turn.

The strawman fallacy comparing climate skeptics with creationists does not
hold. Creationists take holy scripture as a start and try to shoehorn
everthing to it; Climate skeptics have no such holy scripture.

~~~
diego_moita
Bzzt! Wrong. The IPCC based its reports in a lot of data open to scrutiny, not
only East Anglia's. And even the problems with East Anglia data have been
hugelly exagerated. The IPCC meetings were also open to a lot of dissent,
particularly from Middle East oil producing countries (guess why)?

And GW deniers do have a basic belief: "you can regulate my energy from my
cold dead hands".

