HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

Source

Attached you will find a new document (text file) recently leaked from CRU that reveals in its 15,000 lines just how absolutely botched up the weather data is that is supposedly the basis for CRU weather analysis and the whole "proof" of man-made global warming. I have read this entire document, which is a log of notes, data and program snippets relating to the analysis of weather data collected from weather stations around the world. Being a software engineer with over 30 years experience, I found it hard to believe just how messed up the data sets are, and how pathetic the so-called "programs" for massaging and analyzing the data is.

Here are a few excerpts from the file:

7. Removed 4-line header from a couple of .glo files and loaded them into Matlab. Reshaped to 360r x 720c and plotted; looks OK for global temp (anomalies) data. Deduce that .glo files, after the header, contain data taken row-by-row starting with the Northernmost, and presented as '8E12.4'. The grid is from -180 to +180 rather than 0 to 360. This should allow us to deduce the meaning of the co-ordinate pairs used to describe each cell in a .grim file (we know the first number is the lon or column, the second the lat or row - but which way up are the latitudes? And where do the longitudes break? There is another problem: the values are anomalies, wheras the 'public' .grim files are actual values. So Tim's explanations (in _READ_ME.txt) are incorrect...
8. Had a hunt and found an identically-named temperature database file which did include normals lines at the start of every station. How handy - naming two different files with exactly the same name and relying on their location to differentiate! Aaarrgghh!! Re-ran anomdtb:

And this:

The deduction so far is that the DTR-derived CLD is waaay off. The DTR looks OK, well OK in the sense that it doesn;t have prominent bands! So it's either the factors and offsets from the regression, or the way they've been applied in dtr2cld. Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the bloody station files!! I can only assume that I was being interrupted continually when I was writing this thing. Running with those bits fixed improved matters somewhat, though now there's a problem in that one 5-degree band (10S to 5S) has no stations! This will be due to low station counts in that region, plus removal of duplicate values.

And this lovely statement... wonder how this fares in the "legality" department?

These are very promising. The vast majority in both cases are within 0.5 degrees of the published data. However, there are still plenty of values more than a degree out.

Continued...

Here is another gem:

The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all - we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

OH **** 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. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

Poor Harry! Don't you just feel for the guy? I've had the misfortune of having to work with "less than decent" software and data, and it is pure programming hell, that's for sure

This file shows us the condition of the weather data collected at weather stations around the world, and the condition of the software that is supposed to analyze it. Both are dismal to say the least, if this document is any reflection at all. With this in mind, how can anyone take seriously anything that comes out of CRU? If it weren't so pathetic and serious, it really would be quite humorous in a dark sort of way.

Finally, as a professional software engineer, I can state, after reading through the entire document, that this README file looks authentic in it's content. The technical lingo used by Mr. Ian "Harry" Harris is realistic sounding, and the various data sets interspersed throughout the document do look valid and within context of the surrounding commentary.

Cheers!

S&F. Good job and thanks for posting. As I just read this along with the rest of the info regarding the lies about global warming (man made anyways) and then hopped to another thread where a virologist said that the swine flu most definitely was manufactured in a lab and not natural and yet people carry on like our governments are not trying to enslave/kill/lie to us and it boggles my mind! Thanks again for the post and people wake up and stand up for yourselves and your families this is ridiculous!

Hmm?

As a person who understood at one time the methods of meteoromagical(Oops Meteorological) data collection. (meaning that whilst dancing around a camp-fire once, I'd looked up at a cloudy sky and predicted rain). I cannot understand your lack of understanding of these techies lack of understanding about the logs they couldn't understand. They understood that they simply needed to extrapolate from this lack of coherent understanding an understanding that they could understand. Understood?

Good show downisreallyup!

Even though proof now exists of manipulation of data to create a certain result, the global warming zombies will still deny it.

Also, I'm sure this news, like most TRUTH will not make the MSM, so most people will never even know. It's a shame.

This is one set of comments on a limited set of files on a limited set of data using a limited number of programmes. Nothing new and certainly no proof of anything.

It's always difficult to work with poorly formatted data or data arranged in specific ways without being thoroughly documented. It means that most of the time is spent on R&D instead of conversion of data.

The MSM will deny this evidence exists in order to pave the way for President Obama to sign the Copenhagen Treaty and create a new world government. TPTB have been after this moment for more then a century and they are about to slip it through without the slightest bit of protest. Even on ATS there have only been a handful of people who seem to care.

Originally posted by GroundZero
Even though proof now exists of manipulation of data to create a certain result, the global warming zombies will still deny it.

Also, I'm sure this news, like most TRUTH will not make the MSM, so most people will never even know.

True, but actually a positive! I checked CNN, NBC, and others and didn't even find a single instance of this HUGE story available worldwide and all over the internet. I actually used this fine example to show MANY people how the truth is very obviously hidden from us in America!

It's a shame.

uh... you spelled SHAM wrong



[edit on 25-11-2009 by notreallyalive]

Who is Harry?

You might wanna correct the spelling.

reply to post by downisreallyup


As another Engineer whom does some software, I concur with you. There was some heavy manipulation going on with the data points and trying really hard to make thing come out to a given answer vs letting the true data tell the tale on it's own.

reply to post by GroundZero


True

Im happy people care about the Earth all of the sudden, but come on! This global warming thing has been taken too far. Now, people will literally guilt trip you if you dont watch Planet Green in HD all damn day, and dont use all your trash to make compost!

I know its hard for people(sheeple) to deal with change, but the world has been constantly changing since its inception. It will heat up, then cool down, and so on and so on. Species come and go, some mutate/evolve and eventually dont even look like they once did. Jungles turn to deserts, and vice versa. HOW IN THE HELL DID PEOPLE GET THIS IDEA THAT WE CAN JUST STOP THE PLANETS NORMAL BEHAVIOR AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS!!??!?

[edit on 25-11-2009 by WhiteDevil013]

reply to post by downisreallyup


I believe that it's possible that guys at CRU have been somewhat liberal with their calculations but the quotes you stated do not show much of a proof, I am afraid. No, let's say it differently, I think they are guilty, but this is not the proof.

first two quotes are nothing special, IMO. When you collaborate on a large project and send data and code back and forth, no documentation as such, you get confusions as to what is where. these confusions are resolved and things go on. representing the grid -180, 180 instead of 0, 360 or vice versa is totally OK, for example, depends what's your point of reference. other stuff about file conversion and lost files... not that much of a big deal. anyone who worked on collaborative projects in open source or academia would not see an issue in the quotes you showed. as they are, not related to other parts of information, they do not proof or disproof anything.

the third quote is interesting, however, it talks about the error margins, again without the context of other information, it's hard to say.

I think the best chance finding something substantial would be looking at the raw data, and the code with specific input parameters and being able to refer this to the published paper which shows one or more aspects of GW, then analyze the input parameters, raw data, published data, rerun the code and see if it indeed produces the expected result, or find critique on that paper by other scientists. you see, the files could be in perfect condition, yet the science behind could be wrong, which makes the entire set of orderly and pretty files total crap.






[edit on 25-11-2009 by mushibrain]

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by GroundZero

 

True

Im happy people care about the Earth all of the sudden, but come on! This global warming thing has been taken too far. Now, people will literally guilt trip you if you dont watch Planet Green in HD all damn day, and dont use all your trash to make compost!

I know its hard for people(sheeple) to deal with change, but the world has been constantly changing since its inception. It will heat up, then cool down, and so on and so on. Species come and go, some mutate/evolve and eventually dont even look like they once did. Jungles turn to deserts, and vice versa. HOW IN THE HELL DID PEOPLE GET THIS IDEA THAT WE CAN JUST STOP THE PLANETS NORMAL BEHAVIOR AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS!!??!?

[edit on 25-11-2009 by WhiteDevil013]

I love quotes like this one. Its a great way to disregard any responsibility one may have for tending to the planet that gives them life.

I love hearing people with this load of nonsense that they constantly spew..."No big deal, its a part of the natural cycle." Yeah right!!! HUGE Oil spills contributed by enormous MAN MADE OIL GUZZLING MACHINES in our oceans that are killing phytoplankton and ocean life that provides life sustaining OXYGEN is just a a part of Earth's NATURAL STAGES. And yeah, carbon monoxide constantly pumped into the atmosphere by oil consuming vehicles were bound to show up one day, even if WE weren't here to make them. Oh wait...how about biological weapons that infect the atmosphere and cause mutations in human, plant, and animal life. Yeah...that's also a part of the "NATURAL EXISTENCE OF THE PLANET." But wait, lets not forget the hole in the ozone layer that just happened to accelerate while Industries and factories were on the rise in this country.

Yeah...You're the genius who has it all figured out. Its just nature doing its NATURAL THING. Even the retardation of the Bush Administration finally came forward and said that there was merit to the idea of Global Warming. And I don't care how you try to rationalize it, thousands of scientists have come forward to prove what you still seem to think is a "hoax." By the way, where's your PHD again???

reply to post by silver tongue devil


Ian "Harry" Harris... obviously "Harry" is his nickname.

reply to post by Redwookieaz


You say 'our governments' as if it's the whole government plotting against us,. My guess is if the situation even holds true, then in reality it would only be a few undisclosed inside members with the real knowledge of what's happening. Everyone else would carry on as if they weren't doing anything wrong. Remember, 'compartmentalization' is the key here.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by born2BWild]

reply to post by aaa2500


Well, over the course of my 30 years developing software, I can state absolutely that the state of this "data" is terrible, given that the world is supposed to be littered with weather collection systems, which you would think would provide some kind of reasonable data sets. What we see here is the programmer struggling with what amounts to a totally screwball situation. No serious endeavor, funded by serious scientists, would provide data in this condition. There are huge holes in his data, the data is not consistent, the structure of the data is all over the place, the data looks completely without merit in many places, and Mr. Harris is lamenting greatly at the situation. Not to mention that the suite of programs he is using seems completely inadequate for the job.

The point is this: CRU is THE major player for Europe within the climate-change science community, and huge decisions for world governance are being defended on the basis of "scientific" analysis from this organization. This CRU programmer who kept this log is showing the condition of the data that came from the weather stations around the world. He is showing us that the data is not reliable. Those weather stations around the world don't put out many sets of data for the same time period. The data for 2006 is the data for 2006, and if this programmer is seeing all kinds of mismatches, holes, and erroneous figures, that is the condition of the data. He speaks about the data from Australia and the US, for such-and-such years, etc. He is not speaking about isolated data for limited time frames. He is speaking about THE data for whole regions of the world for time frames that span years. I doubt very seriously that there are multiple sets of data from the same stations for the same period of time, some of them corrupt and useless, and others of workable quality. Come on... that is certainly grasping at straws. It's just not the way things work in the real world of software.

The way it works is this: stations are not put up all at once, nor are they made by the same manufacturer, and most importantly, there is no governing body enforcing data standards for those machines. So, over time, you have a hodge-podge of stations scattered across the globe, all of them having software from different manufacturers, and different versions of the same software over time. When changes are made to the software, nobody cares to upgrade all the existing stations, probably because historical weather data has been seen as "not that important", and just a novelty item for the curiously-inclined. Nobody anticipated the need for accurate, world-wide weather data over a long period of time.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


Well first off, This is about the Earth warming up-which has been said MANY times before as a NATURAL CYCLE-it's not about oil spills. Of course we are to blame for oil spills-we built the oil rigs, duh! Second Where is this PROOF you speak of by these scientists-I certainly have yet (as do others) to see this PROOF of us causing the Earth to warm up. Is this Mr. Gore? who would've thought that you'd be surfing on a conspiracy website, oh wait... of course you would-you must have heard someone talking about global warming being a hoax and had to become "Mr. Green" to save the day. Well done, now go do some real research and quit quoting evryone else's nonsense without real facts. Global warming itself is not a hoax, it's the crap they tell you through MSM about us causing it that is a hoax.

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
............................
HOW IN THE HELL DID PEOPLE GET THIS IDEA THAT WE CAN JUST STOP THE PLANETS NORMAL BEHAVIOR AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS!!??!?

The AGW zombies are too ignorant, too naive, and too gullible and will continue to believe in their masters no matter what.

Even after being shown that "realclimate.org" is linked to Al Gore, and the people at this website put Al Gore in a pedestal, for an obvious reason, and even knowing that this same website has Michael Mann as one of it's directors, the same Mann who rigged the Hockey Stick graph, the AGW zombies still see that website as reliable....

[edit on 25-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by DiggDugg
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Well first off, This is about the Earth warming up-which has been said MANY times before as a NATURAL CYCLE-it's not about oil spills. Of course we are to blame for oil spills-we built the oil rigs, duh! Second Where is this PROOF you speak of by these scientists-I certainly have yet (as do others) to see this PROOF of us causing the Earth to warm up. Is this Mr. Gore? who would've thought that you'd be surfing on a conspiracy website, oh wait... of course you would-you must have heard someone talking about global warming being a hoax and had to become "Mr. Green" to save the day. Well done, now go do some real research and quit quoting evryone else's nonsense without real facts. Global warming itself is not a hoax, it's the crap they tell you through MSM about us causing it that is a hoax.

Oh for God's sake. Do we really have to fall back on Gore? Yet another pathetic politician that is using Global Warming to line his own pockets? And, if you can't find any updated information supporting the idea of global warming then your head has been in the sand. I'm surprised your still able to breathe. Don't ask me to do your research for you because that B.S. gets old. That's the standard and favorite phrase here on ATS. "CAN YOU PROVIDE SAID PROOF OF SUCH A STATEMENT?" How original. You know, when I take up the "responsibility" of forging an opinion, I don't ask others to provide my information for me. I research it myself. It's called "self reliance" and objectivity. You research both sides of an argument and make the best assessment with the information that has been given. If you cannot come to the conclusion that mankind has played a role in Global Warming, then you're simply delusional.

Well, lets just say I provide you 100% indisputable proof that Global Warming exists. If your ego, or schema cannot admit that the proof that I provide is substantial enough to at least entertain, you'll simply say that its not an "adequate enough source." Then you'll fall back on the idea that its just a theory and create a war of egos just so that you can still feel as though your correct. UGHHH. That's for kiddies. I'm glad that I have the benefits of a classical education because it taught me to really do thorough research before I open my mouth in support of an opinion that I'm not educated enough to substantiate.

Use any of these "reputable sources" and you will find the same information that I have been fortunate enough to look at.

Google scholar, Factiva, EBSCO, Wall Street Journal, JSTOR, Lexis Nexis Academic, Worldcat, Web of Knowledge...and the list goes on and on.

So now, I've given you the sources...Go and play. Once you've read some real journals by scientists in the field (who provide our world leaders their info.) come back and talk with me. There's far more evidence in support of Global Warming than there is against. And many of the scientists who were formerly against this idea, have changed their opinions.

Oh, give up the idea of destroying someone else's credibility by equating them to conspiracy nut jobs. The only conspiracy here is your personal intention to stay ill-informed. That just shows the level of intellect that I'm working with.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


This response right there is a prime example that the AGW fans have no idea what they are talking about...

Another member told you, but let me remind you....

What the hell does "oil spills" have ANYTHING to do with Climate Change, and the claims that CO2 increases temperatures to "unbearable levels"?.....

STOP being ridiculous, and stop being so emotional and learn how to make a proper argument...

THINK with your head, not with your misguided feelings....

There are a lot of things that can be done about oil spills....and NONE of them have anything to do with CO2....

BTW...when there are MILLIONS of hybrids releasing tons, and tons of water vapor which is 95% to 98% WORSE than CO2 as a ghg, are you going to be screaming to the top of your lungs once again?...

What about the spent batteries from hybrids, which will cause a worse environmental impact than what is happening right now...

You do know that electric cars produce a large magnetic field? When you have MILLIONS of electric cars you are interfeering with the Earth's natural magnetic field, which is very weak right now...

You think that the birds, and insects which are dying right now is a bad environmental problem?.... Just wait when there are millions of electric cars producing large magnetic fields. Which btw ALSO cause health problems for humans....

What will you do then?....



[edit on 25-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]