Climate change data dumped!!!!!!!!

Times Online (UK) ^ | November 29, 2009 | Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

[joinedafterattack]

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

[joinedafterattack]

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The great climate change science scandal EU figurehead says climate change a myth The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

[Eleutheria5]

Check the dumpsters.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.” ... & so we should all adopt leftist policies that these same freaks have been pushing for 40 years under different guises, & give money to the UN to sort it out & institute leftist world government immediately, Heil Obama.

[hennie pennie]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2396128/posts

[jpl]

These guys aren’t just hucksters, they’re outright criminals.

[EGPWS]

How convenient.

[Zhang Fei]

The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

This isn't much of an explanation. The Library of Congress has 20 terabytes of archived books. The entire collection fits on 20 hard drives (i.e. less than a cubic foot of physical space).

[TStro]

They trashed the data to keep it away from FOIA requests. I was wrong. I thought that the AGW was a hoax. Turns out it is an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. These guts need to be in prison.

[EGPWS]

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans.

Trust me.

[hoosier hick]

In the world of real science, if the data doesn’t exist the conclusions are invalid. Real scientists would only use readily available data, and where it doesn’t exist— everything that occurs after that is rendered useless. Especially given the recent revelations, one wonders if the data ever really existed (in which case it should exist somewhere other than CRU), or whether they manufactured it and lost the information on how they did it....

hh

[hinckley buzzard]

Yes, in a just world Jones, Mann et al would have been frogmarched into custody by now.

[kjo]

Just another part of the story the US MSM will not cover.

[theDentist]

In other words, it’s all sh**.

[Westbrook]

Imagine that!

Among the charges brought against these frauds we can now add Destruction of Evidence.

[saganite]

It just gets worse and worse for the AGW crowd.

[Errant]

What a joke. The data in question zipped could most likely easily have fit on one CD-R and certainly two.

(Number of stations x number of days in the reporting period x size of temperature data) x .20 (conservative text data compression)

So for $1.50 in CD-Rs they threw away how many dollars for cost of data collected?

Give me a break!

[LibLieSlayer]

Their leaked emails threaten to destroy ALL OF THEIR DATA before they allow it to become public and disprove ALL OF THEIR LIES... THEY MADE GOOD ON THEIR THREATS!

LLS

[InterceptPoint]

Here is a look at how CBS, NBC, ABC and Google are covering the Climategate story. Google now has 11,000,000 plus hits on a Climategate search. How are CBS, NBC and ABC doing. Judge for yourself:

[Incorrigible]

100% agree!

If they were cataloging cloud cover and had extensive imaging databases, maybe they would have needed to run out to Tesco and pick up a terabyte USB drive for a few hundred pounds.

It’s simply preposterous that that data is gone.

[sonic109]

Actually this story is HUGE..I’d like ot see someone in authority make it “public”. Most folks I know simply watch TV for their news didn’ even know about this.
Actually the USA will go along with the UN and we’re all going to be taxed to death with Cap and Trade. The facts no longer matter at all.

[ODDITHER]

When dealing with corrupt leftists you will find they all have the same thing in common, their records are kept in such a manner that the only conclusion is that they are incredibly inept at keeping the records.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

bfl

[vimto]

If they simply threw the raw data away they have no right to the status ‘scientist’.

[Col Frank Slade]

Maybe they got a call from ACORN advising them on how to properly archive documents.

[Don Corleone]

Nothing to do with science, everything to do with POLITICAL POWER!

[Col Frank Slade]

Maybe they got a call from ACORN advising them on how to properly archive documents.

[ricks_place]

So the CRU mislead the world, stating the raw climate data was protected by agreements when in actuality it was destroyed. Nice.

[SteamShovel]

These guys aren’t just hucksters, they’re outright criminals.

I've been saying this all along.

I don't believe for a minute that the raw data has been lost. If that is the case, they should be prosecuted for lying.

If they truly did destroy the data, these people should be prosecuted for destroying data paid for by federal money.

ALL AGW REDUCTION LAWS AND INTIATIVES SHOULD BE HALTED AT ONCE. IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE, THEY HAVE TO START THEIR ANALYSIS OVER, USING NEW DATA AND UNDER WATCHFUL PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

[hsalaw]

In the world of real science, if the data doesn’t exist the conclusions are invalid.

Bears repeating.

[Panzerlied]

How convenient!

[Dawggie]

The giants which have gone before must be turning over in their graves. Forget the subject, to discard raw data and let the analysis stand on it’s own is unthinkable. Observation stands as the foundation of analysis of this nature. Under any honest peer review this would be rejected on its face. Beyond the politics of global warming; this stands as an insult to the great minds which have gone before.

[Pontiac]

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

They did not have CD-Rs in the 80’s. (Assuming he is not lying)

Then there is the cost of converting print data to digital which at the time would have been expensive and time consuming.

What bothers me most is that supposedly this work was peer reviewed. How was this peer reviewed with out the peer having access to the raw data.

[Erasmus]

Just a new twist on an old excuse:

“The dumpster ate my homework.”

[cycle of discernment]

I notice this item was buried on the “environment’ tab of The UK Times online —it should be front page news. I had to search for it.

When will this astonishing global scam get the high profile boradcast it deserves?

[Terry Mross]

As I said on another thread, the “believers” (obamabots and gorebots) still believe. They’ve all had teleprompters installed in their brain and they simply say whatever pops up then have this blank stare.

[Erasmus]

Then there is the cost of converting print data to digital which at the time would have been expensive and time consuming.

Not just "at the time!"

At work, I'm having to deal with thousands of lines of hard copy binary data from the 1970s.

Formerly hundreds of pages of printed ASCII ones and zeros, It's been retrieved from microfilm into crappy PDF scans that completely flummox our OCR software. We need it in text files composed of ASCII hex characters. Wotta mess.

[F. dAnconia]

I have a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Meteorology and had to produced two published research papers to get my degrees.

I can tell you that throwing away data is something that is extremely rare. You NEVER throw away data. Especially if that data is the basis for your research.

The only time I've seen data thrown away is when one lacks the ability to convert it from some archaic medium to a new one (e.g. old computer tapes to DVD etc). In the case of East Anglia, it appears the original data was on paper. You can always hire some undergrads to transfer this to computer archives.

Something is clearly not right here...

[Mrs. Don-o]

If this counts as “science,” the “Church of Scientology” should be put in charge of the whole Climate Change Carbon Caboodle -— and Trofim Lysenko should come back from the dead and claim all those Nobel Prizes.

[Mobties]

Ooops! It's beginning to feel like the final chapters of Michael Chrighton’s “State of Fear.”

This, when coupled with all those hacked e-mails that discuss problems with the data, looks pretty damning.

Whattya bet there's a spare copy all set to be traded to a DA somewhere in return for some junk scientist's immunity? What are the odds one or more lab assistants turns up dead? It would be interesting to watch Intrade.com list a few of these questions. Gotta get more popcorn today.

[uscabjd]

We went to the USC-ucla game last night, and met several friends for a tailgate. All are very successful, busy people. Two USC JDs, one ucla JD , one Harvard JD, the the rest were from Cal , U PA (Warton), William and Mary - you get the picture. All are Reps -one dem. Most get their news from traditional sources. Three had NEVER HEARD of climate gate - the rest had heard very little. Only b/c I read FR I had even heard of it and knew the details.

So, folks , don’t assume that there is some public outcry about this in the general population. When the press refuses to cover something, the silence can be effective.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

What a bunch of BS. They can afford a new building but they can't spare a few dozen square feet to store data? Even if that's true, they couldn't scan the paper data and convert the magnetic tape data to store it on a hard drive? Hard drives cost about $150 per terabyte and are about the size of an average textbook, so it's glaringly obvious that they're full of crap.

[Pontiac]

Wow!

My curiosity is peaked.

Why are you doing that?

[driftless2]

And amazingly, but not surprisingly, my local lib rag refuses to print any mention of this scandal. We’re still getting socked with the usual warmist propaganda. Only letters to the editor from conservatives mentions the scandal.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Exactly! And since you can buy a 1 terabyte hard drive at Staples for $150, it’s not like it’s prohibitively expensive. These guys can afford to buy a new building but they supposedly can’t afford to keep their data or convert it to electronic storage media? Yeah, right!!

[ully2]

No data, no argument for global warming. Too bad, so sad.

Goodbye global warming.

Back to Drill baby drill.

[Errant]

No but they did have written notes, magnetic tape, floppy drives, and hard drives. Converting it to digital data is minuscule compared to collecting. You trying to tell me that it was never converted to digital? That would be beyond comprehension for it would be needed for calculations, running through different model applications and so forth (i.e. Peer Review).

This data was their life's work and costs millions to collect. Doesn't backing it up, upgrading storage media with time make sense. I believe they know they have been caught fudging the facts and are now grasping for anything the dumbed down public might possibly swallow.

[spokeshave]

These were HISTORIC DOCUMENTS...going back 160 years or so....collected and archived at great personal risk and cost....

The Crown Jewels of conditions during the industrial revolution....

un f'n believable....

[My Favorite Headache]

Huge news and disturbing...where are the arrests and trials?

[spokeshave]

...Historic Documents eh....I guess they sold them page by page on e-bay....

[olezip]

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

This is a serious breach of the scientific method. All results produced by the missing data set are now suspect; ZERO recommendations by the UEA and other users are acceptable; all findings are wiped out because they cannot be replicated. This is a show stopper, IMO.

...back to the drawing board, to reconstruct the original raw data. This may take years!