They email about “pressure to present a nice tidy story“, namely that it is now warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. They did not set out to deceive the public, but were concerned that admitting what they called “discrepancies” (evidence of a warmer, pre-industrial earth), would be a “field day” for the skeptics. The data conflicted with their strongly held beliefs so they discounted it and covered it up. They shortcut the scientific process in favor of their Climate Stasis faith.

Reasonable sceptics, including the sites I’ve linked in my earlier comment, agree the 20th century has seen strong warming, partly due to unprecedented human burning of sequestered carbon. However, there is historical and proxy data that proves there were warmer periods 1000 years ago, evidence human CO2 is not the dominant cause of recent warming. We are entitled to consider that evidence before we spend trilions and wreck the world’s economy.

There is no decline in global temperatures and anyone, including that site, that mixes up the two ideas should not be taken seriously.

I can’t see the code, nor do I want to wade through it, but in the comments it looks like they’re trying to create software models that fit collected data to improve the models.

Throwing out noisy or inconsistent data is a normal part of the process. Models are by their nature simplifications of reality and noisy data can trip them up. Tuning two models to fit together can easily require selecting narrow windows of compatibility.

Look, if the goal was to deceive the public, then why write the software at all? Just tell us what to think without any actual evidence, as the deniers consistently do.

I’d appreciate your views, as a computer/software expert, on the computer programs used to process CRU climate data, particularly the revealing programers notes.