About the Commented Code Released by the Alleged Hacker
Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat has a new post out showing comments in the code that was released by the alleged hacker last week. First, he says further review of the email shows that among the datasets Phil Jones used, some concluded that ‘global warming’ ended back in 1960 and that only with edited dated to “hide the decline” did Jones produce the current global warming trend. He shares that Jones now denies manipulating the data even if the email clearly state otherwise.
Anyway, Watts says that a review of the software code released by the alleged hacker includes comments clearly documenting data manipulation.
For example, in three code files (maps12.pro, maps15.pro, maps24.pro in directories named after Tim Osborne and Michael Mann) is the following:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
Watts concludes that this is more telling that the email. I do not agree. First, these are in a subdirectory called “oldprog” and risks being taken completely out of context. The code is rather easy to read but these comments do not tell the whole story. I’ve now looked through more than a dozen code files and most look rather innocuous. What I wonder about is the data input and the weighting assigned to the data as it is processed by the code. There are some data files but I’m guessing most is missing, of course, and the latter, while in the code, is not as easy to discern and judge.
Among the data in the code directories are limited tree-ring data, temperatures, and more. Maybe summaries, sample files, or results? I do not have the time to compare this data with external datasets to see what is real and what is made up. Nor do I have time to read the code to not only spot the weighting and calculations but to interpret their impact. What I do wonder about as I read through the files is how and why specific ranges were chosen for normalization of data and averaging. Consider, too, how missing data was filled in or ignored, and, as well, the impact of solar cycles and other influences.
The bottom line is that all of this is ripe for manipulation to achieve whatever results are desired. Which gets us back to the email. These researchers were Kool-Aid drinkers for the religion of global warming. They have vested interest in producing results to support their cause. The email makes this abundantly clear and shows their willingness to modify data, ignore inconvenient data, destroy data, and actively prevent independent analysis of their data.
You need to read more of the code!
Great site! I think Watts and others are on the right track about the comments and code itself. That with the email is devastating. Copenhagen will be all about apologies. Maybe Obama can help?
[…] […]