RUSH: Here’s Steve in Saint Simons, Georgia. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: I’m happy to be here. I’ve been a listener since 1992.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: I wanted to talk about ClimateGate, specifically the code. I know a little something about computer programming and statistical modeling and I wanted to comment on the code that I’ve reviewed, I’ve looked at some of the stuff on the Internet. It’s widely available.
RUSH: I know. I’ve got a tab here on my web browser devoted to some of it. Somebody’s gone through it line by line. It’s devastating.
CALLER: Absolutely. You know, I mean aside from the comments, anybody can read the comments, and, you know, the programmers are writing to themselves and talking to themselves about what they’re doing, and that’s bad enough. But, you know, I can actually read some of the code that they’ve written and I just want to make a point about one of the principles that programmers —
RUSH: Hang on just a second. Why don’t you tell people what you mean by code, because some people think code is the software that makes a computer program work.
CALLER: Well, okay, in this case the code is the climate model itself.
RUSH: Right. That’s exactly right. And these models and the code, it is an utter joke, is it not?
CALLER: Well, I’m reading through it, and you can see places where they’ve bound the model to the raw data itself, and that violates one of the main rules of code writing in computer programming is you’re supposed to have your data independent from the code or the program or the software. The two are not supposed to be dependent, and in this particular case that’s what happened.
RUSH: These guys in their comments here, they’re talking about how to hide the decline in temperatures because it doesn’t work.
RUSH: Their models don’t work, they have to hide the decline. For Algore to run around today and say to Andrea Mitchell it’s settled science and there’s no dispute here, this is just unbelievable to me. But go ahead. I keep interrupting you because I’m passionate about this.
CALLER: No, no. Absolutely. Go ahead. Well, okay, you look at the code, and there will be an array of numbers that just shows up in the code itself, in the climate model itself, and, you know, where do these numbers come from? And these numbers are then used to operate on the data itself. You know, there are reasons why you might do that, but, you know, the most obvious one would be if you wanted to manipulate the data. It looks like the model won’t run without these particular numbers that are hard-coded into the climate model itself.
CALLER: That’s what it looks to me. So, in other words, you could not reproduce the results of these models without this particular piece of code. You couldn’t do it with just the raw data. You have to have the code itself.
RUSH: So they had to rig it?
CALLER: I’m sorry, what?
RUSH: They had to rig it, the whole thing.
CALLER: Yeah. Well, it’s just a huge violation of programming and statistical modeling. I mean if you’re a programmer, you’re not supposed to do that, but if you do statistical modeling, the statistics are supposed to speak for themselves.
RUSH: These are political hacks masquerading as lab coat scientists.
CALLER: It’s a pretty egregious transgression, the stuff that I’m looking at.
RUSH: Well, Steve, you know what? What is your background?
CALLER: I have a PhD in management information systems, and I do some of my own —
CALLER: — statistical modeling for my own research and I’ve been looking at this stuff that’s on the Internet because it’s widely available.
CALLER: And, you know, I just wanted to see for myself what exactly is going on here, you know, so —
RUSH: I appreciate that. I find something fascinating. I’ve gotta take a break here. Steve’s a great guy, I don’t want anybody to misunderstand this, but when you talk to scientists or in his case a PhD about this, people that know it’s a hoax, they look at it in an entirely different way because they’re scientists. And it’s fascinating to me.
RUSH: See, for me, this is very simple, because I know liberals. I know how they go about achieving their aims. I know what the purpose of their aims are, and I know that climate science, global warming, whatever, is just a cover for liberalism in action. Same thing with cap and trade, same thing with Obama’s health care and so forth. From the first moment in 1984 that I saw my first global warming scientist come out, ‘We’ve only got 20 years, can’t prove it, but we don’t have time to waste and man’s destroying the planet,’ see, I just refuse to believe we have that power. We do not have the power to destroy the planet. I’m not a scientist. I instinctively know, it’s like Shatner asked me, ‘How do you know, how do you know?’ ‘Cause I do! Just trust me, don’t doubt me. I know liberals. But when you run into scientists, who also know this is a hoax, the ideology doesn’t matter. Like when I’m talking to Steve and he’s telling us what he found in the code, and the code produced that hockey stick graph that showed temperatures skyrocketing in the last 20 years, 50 years. It’s all bogus, and these guys who understand code can go in there and see it.
There’s a piece at the American Thinker that explains it, how it’s bogus and how they rigged it and so forth. But the ideology of these so-called climate scientists does not interest these guys as much as disproving it scientifically, which is great, it’s wonderful, don’t misunderstand. I’m just thinking a lot of time and a lot of anguish and a lot of study could be prevented if you just know that liberals lie. If you just have a basic ideological understanding of who they are and what their aims are, and they’re not good, and the intentions are not good. The consequences are not good. They are anti-freedom and anti-liberty. They are pro-command-and-control government authority. And they have these programs which are just ruses to get everybody supporting them. They have to lie in order to do it. Yeah, the scientists, ‘The model, why, that was an egregious error.’ They’re liars! They went to a lot of trouble to lie really well.