From comments on this article:
“Truth Orator wrote:
All they have to do to re-create the original data is reverse the corrections and the corrections of corrections that they used on it. As long as they are not allowed to corrupt that process the original data should result. Since that data is so important for figuring out climate change is happening and independent body should be appointed to oversee the process. One that includes climate scientists of all persuations and scientists from other fields also.”
From what I found 2 days ago re: HARRY_READ_ME_ they can’t back out because they don’t know what adjustments were made. They bought off-the-shelf software to do the statistics and they didn’t know how it was filling in missing data points. They don’t have records of what corrections were made. They don’t have records disclosing whether or not the original input was verified.
They can’t reconstruct the original data because the original data was on paper and input (from one site) into a spreadsheet. (Excel? We spent billions of dollars for KRAP on a spreadshet? & we’re going to improverish our kids based on such incompetent information?)
The way you determine something is a fraud is if the solution posited requires a substantial loss of your wealth and liberty by the government.
“Truth Orator wrote:
All they have to do to re-create the original data is reverse the corrections and the corrections of corrections that they used on it. As long as they are not allowed to corrupt that process the original data should result.
I noticed the same dumb comment. The emails do not show honest scientists trying to find the truth, they show true believers trying to promote global warming and stifle dissent. Even if the original data was still available, if it had ever been in the sole possession of these agenda-driven zealots, we could not trust it.
The adjective "homogenized" suggests the discarding of outliers and averaging, and the reported fact that Hadley CRU used monthly averages in their models shows that this assumption is surely false: discarded outliers cannot be recovered from the "homogenized" data set any more than daily temperatures can be recovered from monthly averages.
Of course, this shows that "value-added" is a lie*, since loss of information in science is always a loss of value, leading one to wonder what other "quality control" measures besides replacing dendrochronological data with weather-station data are lurking in code folks have yet to read.
*I presume here that the University of East Anglia still has English as its official language. Perhaps in Newspeak, value is added when other scientists can't properly review the results of a Party-approved investigation. But in that case, it is still a lie, since anything said in Newspeak is, by construction, what we English speakers call a lie.