Good code analysis

John Graham Cumming is doing some excellent analysis of the CRU code, his conclusions being readily accessible to the layman because he writes well too.

He has found four bugs so far and seems less than impressed with the quality of the coding.

(H/T Tom Fuller)

Comments

[Richard]

Sloppy code is NOT the news here. What is the news is THE SMOKING GUN

John Graham Cumming: "In all the fuss around the supposed smoking gun inside one of the source code files from the CRU Hack no one seems to be pointing something out... the so called fudge factor that is in the program ISN'T used".[It was commented out]

"Update: .. It's been pointed out to me that <B>there's a later version of code in the archive in which similar correction code is NOT commented out..."</B>

So that IS a smoking gun, provided we get Briffa's raw data and see whether it was ACTUALLY USED.

The heading of that code is "APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE"

Kinda suspicious wouldnt you say?