I updated my earlier post: Scientist’s Story From 1995 Corroborates With Hacked CRU Emails with the following info, but I decided this deserved its own post.
Commenters at Watt’s Up With That have been looking into “Mike’s nature trick”, ripping into the code and discovering how they artificially came up with the now completely debunked “hockey stick”:
There’s a file of code also in the collection of emails and documents from CRU. A commenter named Neal on climate audit writes:
People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:
Go to WUWT to see the convoluted code.
Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.
Laura Ingraham had Patrick Michaels, (who was a target of derision in the emails) on her show to talk about the “conspiracy among climate scientists to conceal inconvenient scientific truths about global warming”. Audio here.
Michaels recently said this about the emails:
“This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.
Interview: Sen. James Inhofe will call for hearings into IPCC, UN, East Anglia CRU e-mails
ClimateGate: Both sides of the pond demand probes into data manipulation scandal
Yes, let’s get to the bottom of this.