Forget the emails. Anyone who writes computer programs in a high level language, such as C, puts in comments to remind themselves of what the code is dong and to allow future programmers to make changes to the code.

There are two files normally generated, a “Source Code” file (where the comments are) and the compiled file or “Object” (.obj) file or .asm file.

(I’m a 1980’s Z80 man so this may be dated but you get the point)

The file, after compiling, has the comments and other stuff removed and it is basically (no pun there) the “computer code” for the machine to run on.

So the climate change programmer has left his comments here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

Personally since they don’t include the effects of the sun I can’t take the data seriously but I’m surprised that this terrific blog, being progressive as it claims, hasn’t picked up on this.

Let’s see how long it takes to smear and lie about his character…

“Since there is no evidence to prove the case, I have studied the available scientific opinions and with the following caveats (eg the heat from the sun is not included etc) it is my belief that man made CO2 may cause global warming”. It is impossible to say any more than that with any accuracy.

In the Times this morning Nigel Lawson argues it is cruel to poor countries to enforce more expensive forms of energy on them – I dislike the Nottinghill set type of people forcing their views on me, especially when there is no evidence of (man made)CO2 causing global warming.

Worse is the CRU and these emails that show how the data is being faked to show rising temperatures (they have to be faked since the planet keeps getting colder), no access to the raw data allowed(?), refusing FOI requests and preventing scientists who disagree with them getting papers published.

This whole thing stinks of censorship which is why this site will fail to feature the CRU thing in an article because to me being “progressive” means stamping on dissent even in the face of actual evidence rather than opinion.

Anon you deliberately misunderstood me. I never said that I was a climate scientist nor ever done any climate science (but I know a man who does…). I like to do experiments in a laboratory, where it is nice and warm. The climate scientists just like standing in the rain. ::grin:: I was explaining to you how science works, and then pointing out that Helmer’s little knees up is not science, it is essentially a support group.

Anyway, if you want a chuckle have a look at Delingpole’s blog. He’s now straying into delusional territory here, but who knows, maybe there really is a huge conspiracy. As I said upthread, I work on evidence, so I am waiting to see how this pans out.

I “want” to believe that man made CO2 causes Global Warming so I can bang on at the government about the Heathrow Runway and stuff but I find nothing compelling so far.

Irrespective of Global Warming we should reduce our use of non renewable fuels big time. I live in Wales so let’s have the Severn barrage to give the locals jobs and generate free electricity. The views on the river (one of the local objections) are surely destroyed by the two bridges anyway.

Tidal energy as well – we are an island for goodness sake and the technology is submerged!

Crazy days Ian. Have a good weekend man.

El Nino and La Nina are ignored by these “climate-change-experts”. If you email them they say that doesn’t affect the overall climate. What kind of answer is that?

My point about Richard Blogger is that as an engineer/physicist/scientist – whatever, he should have proof before giving a definitive answer.

He doesn’t know – no one does for certain and therefore he should say:

“Since there is no evidence to prove the case, I have studied the available scientific opinions and with the following caveats (eg the heat from the sun is not included etc) it is my belief that man made CO2 may cause global warming”.

Anything else cannot be stated and with a discipline employed by a engineer/physicist/scientist he is being disingenuous if he claims otherwise.