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

Safety In Numbers- How To Lie With Impunity

There used to be a time when being discovered standing over a dead body with the murder weapon in your hand was considered damning evidence, but it seems that the liberal mindset has relegated the smoking gun to mythological status, the veritable Pegasus of admissible probability. It is child's play to deny any wrong doing simply by denouncing your discoverers as liars and declaring the notion of your capacity to kill as ludicrous.

There are people who truly believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney covertly planted an intricate network of bombs throughout 220 stories of the Twin Towers with no one knowing a thing about it, or that anyone who did know has remained silent all this time. They believe it just as surely as they know the sun will rise in the East, despite the overwhelming logistical impossibility of it. Yet, these same people cannot conceive of a scientific cabal hellbent on economic and social domination even though the evidence is both abundant and mounting.

It is simply ridiculous, they will say, to think that so many people could possibly be in collusion, and the incriminating emails recently revealed prove nothing. Bragging of "tricking" temperature data or imploring colleagues to destroy potentially damaging emails has been "taken out of context", we're told. Then they will - with straight faces - accuse the deniers of being part of an oil-funded conspiracy to destroy the planet. Does anyone see the sick irony here?

While liberals are given the benefit of the doubt by their counterparts in the media, conservatives are condemned on here say alone. Tom Delay was run out of town because someone accused him of gerrymandering in Texas, yet Charles Rangel rolls on unimpeded as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after it was revealed that he failed to pay taxes. (The committee he chairs writes the tax laws). Timothy Geithner is the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury even though it was disclosed that he failed to pay his income taxes.

These are not new revelations, I know, but they must be taken in context with the grand Global Warming scheme, for just the mention of a Lord Monckton draws snickers and derision from the left, who cast him as a charlatan. It is much easier to avoid a serious discussion when the opponent is classified as unworthy of consideration rather than given a chance to be heard. The left simply cannot risk lending any form of credence to such "blasphemy". (Al Gore has been running from Monckton for quite some time now). And so they agree en masse to stifle any damaging discoveries and sneeringly scoff at accusations. And the media willingly abets.

I pray that James Inhofe and any like-thinking associates hang onto this like tenacious pit bulls and force it out into the mainstream. We have just witnessed the CRU being thoroughly embarrassed and supported to the hilt by a press that too fervently believes the lies they've been told. What's worse is that they are now less curious about the truth and more eager to perpetuate the lie, which is precisely why they are on the same page in portraying this devastating disclosure as no big deal. If they reported accurately on the news, too many people who may not have had the AGW belief firmly ingrained in their psyches may begin to doubt.

That would be unacceptable to a crowd that not only clearly subscribes to the lessons of Goebbels, but has managed to out do him. Keep lying and never stop denying. And if we can get more than half of the people to lie, then it must be the truth.

Sphere: Related Content