Wild About HARRY

There has been much ado about the leaked - or hacked, depending on the point of view - emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia in the U.K., not that the alleged "mainstream" media has paid much heed. But while the argument against their significance has been child's play for the likes of Al Gore, there is a much deeper problem with the "settled science" of which Gore proudly speaks, and it is revealed in the .txt file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt.

Just who is Harry? According to Pajamas Media, he is a researcher at the CRU named Ian “Harry” Harris. I have pored over the entire text file and, if critiqued as a novel, I could best sum it up as a poignant tale of relentless and bitter frustration as a man, tasked with the impossible and given faulty tools, tries frantically to meet an equally impossible deadline.

As we're constantly reminded in print accounts of the email scandal, the CRU of East Anglia is nearly always preceded by the word "prestigious". It should be, since most of the IPCC's findings are based on that institution's research. But reading the notes of "Harry" gives one pause when asked for explicit trust. Just a few examples of "Harry's" tribulations:

So, uhhhh.. what in tarnation is going on? Just how off-beam are these datasets?!!

Unbelievable – even here the conventions have not been followed. It’s botch after botch after botch.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites – let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project..

How handy – naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!!

If the latest precipitation database file contained a fatal data error… then surely it has been altered since Tim last used it to produce the precipitation grids? But if that’s the case, why is it dated so early?

So what’s going on? I don’t see how the ‘final’ precip file can have been produced from the ‘final’ precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04.

There is no way of knowing which Tim used to produce the current public files. The scripts differ internally but – you guessed it! – the descriptions at the start are identical. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Where is the documentation to explain all this?!

So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.

It’s halfway through April and I’m still working on it. This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.

Oh bugger. What the HELL is going on?!

Considering the draconian impact the actions currently being proposed in Copenhagen would have on the world's economy and personal liberties, it stands to reason that they must be viewed as more than drastic given the tortured route of the diagnosis. And it may not be "Harry's" fault at all but, rather, the fault of those who placed the burden of time on him.

Imagine taking your new car for service because the "check engine" light is constantly lit. Not being a mechanic, you naturally take it to the experts. After an hour of watching the technician curse and scratch his head in confounded exasperation, you become suspicious that perhaps he is not so expert after all. Then, to make matters worse, the station manager comes to you and says that your best bet is to just buy another car.

Reading the "Harry" file is like watching the same, tortured process with an even more horrendous outcome. Cap and trade, and a global governance on carbon emissions based on the uncertain findings of a frazzled process is madness.

Sphere: Related Content