There Are More Than Emails In The Pile

A lot more, in fact.  I turns out that the worst of the evidence for falsifying and hiding poor facts or just flat making stuff up that supports their agenda is only briefly touched on in the email correspondence.  There is a much larger body of evidence that can actually give a time line of exactly how and when one of the men manipulated, changed or flat out lied by inserting data that wasn't ever there before.

We've been telling you that the Global Warming crowd is making all of this up.  It wasn't too long ago that we were catastrophically hurtling toward the net major ice age, but there wasn't enough funding for that.  You see, you always need to follow the money.  We're not talking chicken feed either.  These guys are generally set up in very fancy labs with big, fat salaries to match.  Below is a quote from the EPA looking for a couple of people to work as a policy analyst in the Climate Change Division's Program Integration Branch (makes you wonder just how many 'branches' of this we are funding with our tax money doesn't it)?

"For these positions, the salary range is from GS-9 to GS-13 ($48,108 to $107,854), dependent upon qualifications."

Yes, that's from fifty to more than a hundred grand a year to stomp around telling people what to do.  Six figures a year - kinda hard to get that gig unless you are a professional such as a doctor or a lawyer.  The only problem is that these people contribute next to nothing as far as we can tell, but we are hiring them at a record pace.  Want to know why they scream so loud when you question their position on global warming?  Their Jaguar payments are pretty steep, and those designer clothes and plastic surgery for the wife - don't get them started.

So when you look past the emails you can find more gems like the "Harry_Read_Me" text.  It's a huge file, more than 247 pages, and outlines the efforts of one researcher to compile a huge collection of data from other scientists into one big global warming model.  The attempt took more than three years and calls into serious question the veracity of the outcome once you read the notes.

Even more perplexing is that the data sets the guy is working on are often a mess (his own words).  Someone, probably you and I payed for the creation of those data sets with tax money, and they turned out to be jsut a pile of crud that couldn't even be worked with?  How about some standards for scientific reporting or anything that at least guarantees that if you get a million dollar grant to measure polar bear farts that the data you collect can actually be used by someone once you're done?

The quotes below are taken directly from the "Harry" text as reported in an article by Lorrie Golstein in the Toronto Sun Times on Dec 4th: "Botch after Botch after Botch"  You can also go read the entire document yourself here: Harry_Read_Me.txt

• "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)
• "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)
• "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)
• "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)
• "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)
• "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)
• "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)
• "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)
• "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)
• "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)
• "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)
• "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).
• "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

The truly shocking revelations we have put in bold.  Making things up in the data sets, "cynically" manufacturing eveidence and shrugging it off by saying, in effect 'everybody does it,' and assigning 'false' codes to data that might have been made up by someone else?  It is a guarantee if the globall warming alarmists got ahold of even one instance of a scientists doing these sorts of things on the other side they would have his head on a political pike by morning.

The most disturbing part of all of this Harry text is that the government depends very heavily on this data when formulating policy (and hiring policy analysts apparently).  Declan McCullagh  from CBSNews.com says that: "In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: It claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The report ... is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it 'relies on most heavily' when concluding carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated."

Beyond that, other researchers rely heavily on CRU data since it's supposed to be the best and largest data set in the world.  One look at the Harry file tells you that if that's the best there is, there isn't much there.  Thousands of researchers over the better part of two decades have produced what amounts to "SUCH A MESS."  So, the best data set in the entire world, after more than three years of work has the operator swearing and decrying the "hopeless state" of that database?

Now, what you're going to hear in the news is that all of this changes nothing and there is still plenty of evidence for global warming, or "climate change" as the politically correct begin to correct themselves.  The sneaky part of climate change is that they can blow off cold years and say snooty things like "well, the climate is changing, you can expect that sort of fluctuation."  The climate does change all the time, it's very natural and humans have nothing to do with it.

We'll leave you with the folowing video.  More than 30,000 people a month take a look, so you can be sure you're not the only one out there who doubts if global warming is actually happening.  In fact, the earth has been much warmer before, and industrialization had nothing to do with it.