The facts do speak for themselves.
From the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file of the CRU emails, in the words of the CRU's own programmer, with page numbers annotated: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
- "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
- "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
- "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)
- "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
- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations
- "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).
- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS
... and be wary of strangers who knock. Make sure your home is well-lit outside and trim away the foliage from your windows.
Oh, computer security.
...but spying on each other isn't the way to do it. If only there were an effective, compact, portable, widespread and personal means of deterring violent crime that could replace the oppressive omnipresence of the current CCTV-based system. It'd have to be small, light and easy-to-use, and also be easily concealable so the bad guys wouldn't know who's carrying the deterrence and who isn't.
Something like this might work. Too bad they're illegal in the country formerly known as Great Britain.
Whatever you think about gun control, you surely don't think they aren't dangerous.
Actually, I know for a proven, unmistakable fact that guns by and of themselves are not dangerous. I have two loaded handguns in my house right now, and two small children as well. The guns are safely locked away and my kids know about the Three Rules.
A gun is fundamentally an inanimate object and has no will and purpose of it's own. Guns by and of themselves are not dangerous: Guns in the hands of people who use them carelessly or for illegal uses are dangerous. It always amazes me that people who would recoil in horror at the thought of judging a person by their colour or appearance have no problem judging the intent of an inanimate object by it's colour and appearance.
Nobody said computers were going to be polite.