"Climategate" code
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Dec 2009 12:39 On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:13:18 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >Ahhhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse... when one's parents could suck down java >at temperatures not tolerated by *ten* parents, today! > >I recall my Sainted Parents - may they sleep with the angels! - being able >to consume foods at what I considered to be cauterising temperatures. >When those newfangled Mr Coffee devices came out they purchased one and >wouldn't bother with cups, just grab the carafe and pour directly into >their mouths, like some 1970s-era American version of the Spanish bota. And in the name of better tasting (and quicker) coffee, we lost the delight of watching and listening to the glass-topped coffee peculator. -- "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: Richard on 3 Dec 2009 13:00 On Dec 4, 1:27 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > 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. That is a complete lie for a start. You had referenced a discussion about them and here is one of several times I discussed them: """Those that 'graphed the raw rates' and did not take into account the change of location were clueless about how weather measurements work, picked only readings (in this case unadjusted raw ones) which supported their manifesto and ignore everything which does not support that""" > 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 Exageration does not make 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. You don't understand weather or atmosphere. You misrepresent. It is not a 'distinctly different location' (as your stupid hyperbole was) The adjustment is exactly that required by Boyle's Law. > 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. You are obviously wedded to the idea that the American Consummerism should continue without restraint and will side with the shony and clueless sceptics regardless.
From: Richard on 3 Dec 2009 14:14 On Dec 4, 1:27 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > 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. Just to be completely clear here is where _you_ brought up "what the skeptics did" a few days ago: """On the other hand, somebody graphed the raw temperature readings (going back to 1850 or so) and found NO warming trends.""" And you included this link to what they did: """http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-lie-about-temp-records-try-to- smea...""" (Note the title) > 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. The locations in Wellington are just a minute or two apart. Any wind could well pass the same air by both, but as the air has had to travel 'up the hill' or 'down the hill' the it will obey Boyle's Law and will change temperature without losing or gaining heat. If you cannot understand such basic science then you should remove yourself until you do. > Hell, it's not "science" at all; it's deception, > obfuscation, and, since they were taking money from the government, criminal > fraud. Given that this message of yours that I am replying to could be described as "deception and obfuscation" and that nothing you have said could be described as 'science' then you are entire disengenuous, amongst other failings. > The people involved shoud be cremated (even if it contributes to 'global > warming'), and their ashes scattered. Take no chances.
From: HeyBub on 3 Dec 2009 16:20 Alistair wrote: >> >> Take away from the discussion - perhaps temporarily - the >> conclusions of IPCC, the East Anglia CRU, and NIWA, you're left with >> a "consensus of the scientific community" consisting of one WWI >> pensioner living in what was once East Prussia whose arthritic knee >> is acting up. > > And one 50 year old who saw raw data 30 years ago which clearly showed > global warming in progress before anyone had invented the term. > > I haven't read all of this thread yet but isn't it time that you > started posting your nonsense to > alt.fundamentalistsbelieveingineverythingGodsays? I can't imagine at what data you were looking at 30 years ago, unless it came from the IPCC. From 1940 until 1974 the average Global temperature dropped by 2.7�F. The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice age was a Time Magazine cover story. Read the article from June of that year. http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf This entire thread started with a comment about the unintelligible code used by the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia. One experienced programmer spent a YEAR trying to make sense of the programs and his journal was part of the leaked documents.
From: Anonymous on 3 Dec 2009 17:44
In article <l8ednTwZO74mtoXWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: [snip] >The data prior to 1974 showed a dramatic COOLING. If fact, the coming ice >age was a Time Magazine cover story. Didn't another Time Magazine cover story declare everybody to be the 'Person of the Year'? (Anyone who's worked in a regularly-produced medium (nightly news show, weekly entertainment magazine, monthly science journal, et and cet) might have learnt that some issues are better, some worse... Things Of Great Importance do not always coincide with the Get It To The Printer deadline.) DD |