Camelotdestraideale.it

Torniamo a parlare del cosiddetto Climategate. E, in attesa che qualcuno si prenda la briga di tradurle correttamente in italiano, proponiamo le mail originali scritte da alcuni degli scienziati coinvolti nello scandalo.

Fonte, The Wall Street Journal; autore della mail, Phil Jones; destinatario, un altro scienziato di nome Mike (Michael) Mann:

“Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?” (la traduzione è semplice, suvvia!). Spiega, poi, il WSJ:

“AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become”.

Ancora Phil Jones che, se non ho capito male, fa riferimento alla necessità di non fornire informazioni sui modelli che stimano l’esistenza del Climate Change, agli scienziati che ne neghino l’esistenza o che, quantomeno, siano scettici in proposito:

“[T]ry and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with”.

Ancora Phil Jones, che scrive a Gavin Schmidt, del Goddard Institute for Space Studies della NASA:

“The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we’re all using is this”, “IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on”.

Poi, Mike Mann, sempre se non ho capito male, invita i suoi colleghi a porre in essere un’attività di boicottaggio, nei confronti delle riviste che ospitano gli interventi degli scienziati che manifestano scetticismo sul Global Warming:

“I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal”, “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal”.

E’ la volta, poi, del programmatore del “codice”, che si firma “Harry” (dovrebbe trattarsi di Ian “Harry” Harris). La fonte, in questo caso, è CBSNEWS:

“I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation – apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective – since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know – time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite – the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we’ll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections – to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?…”.

Passiamo, adesso, a qualche mail tradotta in italiano. Fonte, il Foglio:

“Il fatto è che non possiamo spiegare l’assenza di riscaldamento in questo momento storico”.

Sempre Il Foglio:

“Sono abituato ad avere a che fare con tutta la faccenda del 1998, e la possibilità che si stia andando verso un periodo più lungo – 10 anni – al di là di quanto ti aspetti dalla Niña. Sarà speculazione, ma se questa possibilità la vedo io, c’è il rischio che la vedano anche altri. Ad ogni modo, penso che taglierò gli ultimi punti dalla curva prima del mio prossimo discorso, in modo che quel trend verso il basso sembri l’effetto della fine della serie, piuttosto che il risultato dei recenti anni freddi”.

Ancora il Foglio, la mail è di Phil Jones:

“Non voglio vedere nessuno di questi studi nel report dell’Ipcc. K. e io li terremo fuori in un modo o nell’altro, anche se dovessimo arrivare a ridefinire che cos’è un peer-review”.

Da leggere: Harrabin’s Notes: E-mail impact (BBC NEWS). Hiding evidence of global cooling (The Washington Times).

Leggi altre news su per il Popolo delle Libertà.