Dec 2009
Climate Fabricated Results - Evidence
16/12/09 14:59 Filed in: Personal
This CRU leaked archive makes interesting reading.
Take this email from Tom Wigley from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a man previously Director of the Climate Research Unit.
On the 4th May he emails Phil Jones (of the Climate Research Unit - University of East Anglia) with the following subject.
"[Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W "
The messages reads as follows.
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...
"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."
and
"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang's co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud."
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of ...
"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times" [THIS IS ITEM "X"]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) -- unless there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been ...
"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation" OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?
-----
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes,
Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
Take this email from Tom Wigley from the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a man previously Director of the Climate Research Unit.
On the 4th May he emails Phil Jones (of the Climate Research Unit - University of East Anglia) with the following subject.
"[Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]-FROM TOM W "
The messages reads as follows.
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are ...
"Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide
Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program."
and
"Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang's co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud."
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of ...
"... station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times" [THIS IS ITEM "X"]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) -- unless there are other "hard copy" station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn't make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist -- if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers -- so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been ...
"Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times"
Of course the real get out is the final "or". A station could be selected if either it had relatively few "changes in instrumentation" OR "changes in location" OR "changes in observation times". Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here -- it would be better to have all three -- but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start?
Perhaps it's not too late?
-----
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes,
Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples' troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
McDopey
09/12/09 12:06 Filed in: Personal
Had (and I do mean HAD) to stop at a McDonald's drive through for food yesterday. Sadly, my slightly less unhealthy meal was going to take a little while to cook, so I had to wait in the "Grill Order" bay.
Two things struck me;
Anyway, to cut a long story short the little chap from McD's came out and promptly gave my meal to the wrong car. Who duly accepted it and drove off at speed. He then delivered to me a bag of French Fries.
The conversation went as follows;
Me "What's this?"
McD "What you ordered."
Me "No, this is what I ordered." - I gave him my receipt.
McD "Oh, I just gave it to that guy."
Me "Ah. Well, that's not good. Can I have my meal please."
McD "He's got it. The bloke who drove off."
Me "Because you gave it to him."
McD "Oh, right." (long pause) "What should I do?"
Me "Get me the meal I ordered."
McD "Right." - Then he stands there at my window for about ten seconds.
Me "What?"
McD "How much was it?"
Me "My meal? A lot more than a back of fries. Why?"
McD, as if he's realised I should pay again, "Oh! Nothing. I guess I should get you another one."
Me "Please, yeah."
Five minutes he comes back and looks at another car. Which prompts me to wind the window down and say "Hi, is that for me?"
McD "Oh, yeah. Cool."
Gives me the food, I thank him (I'm polite) and then her just stands and looks at me. As though I'm meant to complete a questionaire or something.
Me "OK, I'm going to leave now. Thanks".
Which finally prompts him to move away and I can pull out.
How odd was that. Do you think he's been eating too much of their product and he's ended up burger stupid.
Two things struck me;
- People think it's perfectly OK to park behind you and block you in.
- People park in the bays and eat meals there... even when the rest of the car park is empty.
Anyway, to cut a long story short the little chap from McD's came out and promptly gave my meal to the wrong car. Who duly accepted it and drove off at speed. He then delivered to me a bag of French Fries.
The conversation went as follows;
Me "What's this?"
McD "What you ordered."
Me "No, this is what I ordered." - I gave him my receipt.
McD "Oh, I just gave it to that guy."
Me "Ah. Well, that's not good. Can I have my meal please."
McD "He's got it. The bloke who drove off."
Me "Because you gave it to him."
McD "Oh, right." (long pause) "What should I do?"
Me "Get me the meal I ordered."
McD "Right." - Then he stands there at my window for about ten seconds.
Me "What?"
McD "How much was it?"
Me "My meal? A lot more than a back of fries. Why?"
McD, as if he's realised I should pay again, "Oh! Nothing. I guess I should get you another one."
Me "Please, yeah."
Five minutes he comes back and looks at another car. Which prompts me to wind the window down and say "Hi, is that for me?"
McD "Oh, yeah. Cool."
Gives me the food, I thank him (I'm polite) and then her just stands and looks at me. As though I'm meant to complete a questionaire or something.
Me "OK, I'm going to leave now. Thanks".
Which finally prompts him to move away and I can pull out.
How odd was that. Do you think he's been eating too much of their product and he's ended up burger stupid.
BBC overheats CO2 demo
06/12/09 22:09 Filed in: Personal
I don't know if you are like me, but I'm always amused by the BBC's almost zealous attempts to push the CO2 Climate Agenda.
Todays little experiment is how the gas CO2 can increase temperatures in an atmosphere.
The link to the video is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
In the experiment a 3 litre of bottle has it's atmospheric gases replaced by CO2. The outcome, increase in temperatures. Which is all well and good. But to put this in context, CO2 levels as a percentage of Earth's atmosphere is 0.038%.
As the experiment carries on I'm guessing that a good 20-30% of the atmospheric gases in the bottle are being replaced by CO2.
In other words, that would mean our atmosphere would need to be 30%+ CO2.
And she's worried about the temperatures! How about the fact we'd likely die of Oxygen starvation! CO2 is a heavier gas, so the 30% would likely be hanging around all the LIVING areas of the planet. I'm guessing about a few thousand feet here! Everything on land that breathed oxygen would die!
If you put that into context, the temperature issue would be a minor consideration. Talk about not getting your ideas in prospective.
The fact is, this is both a divisive and stupid demo. For climate deniers (not sceptics mind) it's a red flag and to everybody with 1/2 a brain it's the most stupid example of how to con the public. The BBC should be ashamed.
Todays little experiment is how the gas CO2 can increase temperatures in an atmosphere.
The link to the video is here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm
In the experiment a 3 litre of bottle has it's atmospheric gases replaced by CO2. The outcome, increase in temperatures. Which is all well and good. But to put this in context, CO2 levels as a percentage of Earth's atmosphere is 0.038%.
As the experiment carries on I'm guessing that a good 20-30% of the atmospheric gases in the bottle are being replaced by CO2.
In other words, that would mean our atmosphere would need to be 30%+ CO2.
And she's worried about the temperatures! How about the fact we'd likely die of Oxygen starvation! CO2 is a heavier gas, so the 30% would likely be hanging around all the LIVING areas of the planet. I'm guessing about a few thousand feet here! Everything on land that breathed oxygen would die!
If you put that into context, the temperature issue would be a minor consideration. Talk about not getting your ideas in prospective.
The fact is, this is both a divisive and stupid demo. For climate deniers (not sceptics mind) it's a red flag and to everybody with 1/2 a brain it's the most stupid example of how to con the public. The BBC should be ashamed.
Commodores Basic Compiler
04/12/09 13:58 Filed in: Personal | Technology
Remember when home computers were a new thing? If you're about my age (sub 40... just) you might remember the efforts Commodore made in order to try and boost the Commodore 64 platform by making a compromise.
It created a BASIC compiler. The idea being that you could program within the simplistic BASIC language (no pun intended) and your efforts would be SUPER BOOSTED into 'machine code' by the compiler. Opening a whole new world of exciting posibilities that would otherwise only be available to people with enough time and interest to hand crank assembler (sad people, usually with no girlfriends).
Anyway, I remember it fondly for two basic reasons.
What was interesting was how the compiler basically operated by including a dirty bit library of functions (OK, probable 4-8kb or so) and then use that.
But the most interesting thing about the BASIC compiler was that fact that it appeared to be itself a BASIC application, compiled by itself. That's the sort of recursive action that could well have created a black hole back then.
I do remember, just before moving on from the (crusty) trusty Commodore 64 that there were in fact a number of funky compiler/languages available for it. Some obvious, Assemblers galore. But how about;
In the end, the machine was too old to join the later public domain, then open source community on the web. Even the Commodore Amiga arrived a little too early for that. But that's another story entirely.
*White Lightening formed part of a development suite of three variants developed by Oasis Software.
It created a BASIC compiler. The idea being that you could program within the simplistic BASIC language (no pun intended) and your efforts would be SUPER BOOSTED into 'machine code' by the compiler. Opening a whole new world of exciting posibilities that would otherwise only be available to people with enough time and interest to hand crank assembler (sad people, usually with no girlfriends).
Anyway, I remember it fondly for two basic reasons.
- It was unbelievably slow. Any program greater than about 8kb (yes, KILOBYTES) would take over an hour to compile and the results would be;
- It was terrible! The code hardly ran any faster than the bog standard BASIC intepreter. OK, so some functions did operate faster. But lets not try and encourage any nostalgia about it.
What was interesting was how the compiler basically operated by including a dirty bit library of functions (OK, probable 4-8kb or so) and then use that.
But the most interesting thing about the BASIC compiler was that fact that it appeared to be itself a BASIC application, compiled by itself. That's the sort of recursive action that could well have created a black hole back then.
I do remember, just before moving on from the (crusty) trusty Commodore 64 that there were in fact a number of funky compiler/languages available for it. Some obvious, Assemblers galore. But how about;
- White Lightening* which was a version of Forth developed by Oasis Software, with lots of additional functions for graphics, sound etc.
- C - A little C compiler that actually produced really decent executables
- Pascal - Not Borland's Turbo.. but I do seem to remember a little version (nothing too exciting)
- ADA - Yes, even the Commodore 64 managed to get a port of NATO's favourite language.
In the end, the machine was too old to join the later public domain, then open source community on the web. Even the Commodore Amiga arrived a little too early for that. But that's another story entirely.
*White Lightening formed part of a development suite of three variants developed by Oasis Software.
- Basic lightening was an enhanced version of Commodore basic with lots of extensions of graphics, sound and even structure. Applications needed to be packaged (I want to avoid saying compiled here) into a file that could run on other machines.
- White Lightening was a version of the compiled language "Forth". It included the very same libraries as Basic Lightening and provided a very unique environment for development purposes. Forth was decent enough at providing all those features missing from BASIC, but it's Reverse Polish Notation put a lot of people off and in the end White Lightening didn't turn out to be such a resiliant platform for development purposes. White Lightening included Basic Lightening in it's package.
- Machine Lightening was the premier package and included the premier assembler development studio, along with White Lightening and Basic Lightening. In Machine Lightening you had the ability to create macro code and link to the Libraries provious mentioned. It proved to be the most useful of the three and did get some work at Ocean software.