A lengthy memo from Ian “Harry” Harris at the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climate Research Unit) shows that the global warming statistics used by the CRU and the United Nations are fabricated or wildly inaccurate.
The memo is part of hundreds of confidential memos from the CRU posted on the Internet several weeks ago. This memo describes Harris’s frustration in dealing with data that is faked, missing, or undocumented over the decades.
Yet, this data is what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change uses to promote drastic measures to reduce “manmade global warming” by reducing Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
In the “Harry_Read_txt” file, Harris goes into great detail about how shoddy the database is used by the CRU to predict climate change around the globe.
Here are some excerpts from Ian Harris’s lengthy memo:
In fact, on examination the US database record is a poor copy of the main database one, it has more missing data and so forth. By 1870 they have diverged, so in this case it’s probably OK.. but what about the others?
Oh GOD if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite!!
***
am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
***
Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.
But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.
You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations?
***
I don’t think I can justify spending any longer on a dataset, the previous version of which was completely wrong (misnamed) and nobody noticed for five years.
***
Not only do both databases have unnecessary duplicates, introduced for external mapping purposes by the look of it, but the ‘main’ stations (2 and 4) have different station name & country. In fact one of the country names is illegal! Dealing with things like this cannot be automated as they’re the results of non-automatic decisions.
What a bloody mess.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! Looking at the data – the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004. And wouldn’t you know it, the data for this station has missing data between 12/92 and 12/99 inclusive. So I reckon it’s the old FORREST AERO station (WMO 9464600, .au ID 11004), with the new Australian bulletin updates tacked on (hence starting in 2000) So.. do I split off the 2000-present data to a new station with the new number, or accept that whoever joined them (Dave?) looked into it and decided it would be OK? The BOM website says they’re 800m apart.
Hope that’s right..
***
OH F*** THIS. … 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.
A researcher at the CRU that provides statistics on climate change to the United Nations has admitted in a confidential memo that the database at the CRU in England is a hopeless mess – that includes faked, missing and unreliable data.
President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency director Lisa Jackson, every Senator and every U.S. Representative should be required to read this memo – and everything else in these confidential Climategate memos before rushing to destroy our economy over climate change.
American policies on the environment shouldn’t be based on fiction, yet they currently are.
Ian Harris has admitted in his memo that he faked statistics. Every statistic from the University of East Anglia is suspect now.
But Wait, There’s More!
Phil Jones, who headed the CRU at the University of East Anglia, wrote a memo describing his strategy for dealing with Freedom of Information requests in Britain. Faking FOI requests is a criminal offense. Here’s his recommendation to one colleague on how to deal with FOI requests:
Options appear to be:
-
Send them the data.
-
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
-
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.
So, here is the head of the CRU unit, telling a colleague to respond to an FOI request by supplying data with altered and/or missing information and raw data to “annoy” the requesters. He also suggested deleting data from some countries as punishment for some slight against Jones. He should be prosecuted for this.
Additional Resources:
ClimateGate Scandal May Derail Global Governance Plans
