We've posted before at Before It's News about the fact that the emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) demonstrated the intent to deceive (the legal definition of fraud), but now that the blogosphere is starting to go through the actual models that were built to make predictions, the extent of this scandal will be known.  As the email said,  "to hide the decline" -- what does that actually mean?  It means using hidden mathematical trickery to obfuscate the reality of what is really happening and to adjust the outcome to support your thesis.  In science, this is called fraud.  

It's one thing to talk about these results, but here is the visual result of this "trickery", courtesy of theblogprof.  Before shows what their climate model looks like before "trickery" is applied, the After, shows the result of the "trickery" which makes the climate appear much warmer than it actually was.

Emails taken out of context are one thing and people routinely explain their way out of email "foot in mouth" problems in court all the time.  This graphs shows clearly what happens when you use "trickery" to massage the data -- you get the result you want, not the historically accurate result.  

This wouldn't be much of a to do, except for the fact that the UN's IPCC and governments around the world are trying to place trillions of new taxes and turn the world's economy upside down to fight something that now obviously doesn't exist. 

As we've discussed previously on Before It's News, the comments in these models are especially damaging because they are inserted right at the point of the code that alters the model to fit the scientist's wishes, not the underlying reality of nature.  Another point is the fact that these models were cited many, many times in other supporting studies and now that they have been exposed to be the hoax that they are, all of the other study's results are now suspect.  It would be interesting to review the IPCC report for all the citations provided for scientific back up of the claims made to see how many of them are based on this fraud.

UPDATE:  Here is a better graph, source here.  Anonymous posted a valid comment -- the graphs above do not appear to use the same time scale, good catch!

This also from what appeared to be the notes of Ian "Harry" Harris, one of the programmers on the project (I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't in on the leak) - source, same as graph above, emphasis added by author Jonathan DuHamel...

I'm 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!

There's an old engineering saying that "all models are wrong, but some are useful".  This model doesn't appear to be useful.