"How Conveeeeeenient."
Posted on 11/29/2009 7:58:10 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Thanks for keeping this story of hoax and calumny a topic caliente. In my former life I was a TV Meteorologist and in 1987 while continuing my education at the University of Utah I had a master’s level class in Climate Studies. In this seminar we gathered around to discuss our work for the semester. During the discussion in a lighthearted way I suggested that the Greenhouse Gas/CO2 cause and effect just might be nothing more than an attempt to foster grants for further study, when, infactwe already knew that CO2 levels had been astronomically higher based on ice core data already available. You should have seen the looks on the classmates faces and the stern, not so, humorous look on my professors mug.
Liberals tend not to be sypathetic to facts. But they do tend to be quite sympathetic to emotional arguments. Thus and so their support for a climate disaster in the making.
And when the so-called disaster fails to appear they’ll find another. The H1N1 flu was the latest bust; flesh eating bacteria is a golden oldie, the dearth of bees is a recent example.
That about sums it up.
I would guess if they let the problem be known to others, somebody would have assisted in storage. Maybe the military, or another university, or the national archives, etc.
I still believe they did this for nefarious reasons. They did not want their conclusions questioned for obvious reasons.
It is extraordinarily arrogant to destroy your base evidence records so that any future researcher has to accept and use your “adjusted” data.
Very good points.
You would think that it would not be terribly difficult to write software to transcribe an old digital medium to a new digital medium.
Certainly data compression algorithms work with little human interface. Algorithms ought to be able to be written to transfer data from one storage medium to another with little human interface and reduce the cost of updating archival storage.
It's a little old, but it's nice to have confirmation from across the pond.
"The purpose of science is to serve mankind. You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge… or hustle. Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist!"
How inconvenient.
Pretty damned amazing, when you think of it.
It seems I might have been in error that CRU was officially tasked with the record keeping. If someone else discovers that they were, please ping me. Right now, from what I’ve found, it seems that most countries maintained their own database.
Second, whereas it might take lots of data storage space to store data analysis, it doesn't take a ton to archive measured temperatures. If temperature was measured every hour, for 100 years, that would be only 876,000 separate data points. You could easily write those numbers down on less than 2000 pieces of paper, less than the size of the current health care bill. The only reason they may have had too much data to store is if they had massaged it so much already that there were file upon file of altered data. I just don't buy the data storage issue.
You can't have it both ways. You can't stand by the quality of your data, and then say that a lot of your assessment is based on raw data that you've never seen.
These guys really irritate me. Science is an incredibly hard profession that involves struggling for money, lots of disappointing experimental results, and for most scientists obscurity outside of a relatively small circle of peers. When arrogant butt heads like the ones involved in the released emails are exposed writing about essentially destroying the credibility of other scientists, there is no room for excuses. They need to be investigated and they need to be able to prove the credibility of their findings. Their funding should be suspended until they have sufficiently proved that they are objective truth driven members of the scientific community, not self-annointed climate rock stars.
This is not just a “scientific crime”.
Considering the intent of those that are perpetuating this fraud, it’s a crime against humanity.
They intended to use their “conclusions” to rob people and force them to change their behaviors to suit the whims and preferences of the “elite ruling class”.
Such a reduction of lifestyle would increase human suffering and death. This is a crime on the level of genocide.
BTTT
That was my first thought.
In the world of federal funding all “science” is possible!
Rush, Beck, FoxNews, Brietbart, Atlasshrugs, AND US ON FREEP all need to pound on this and as data and facts emerge, the MSM will not be able to ignore it or dispute it.
We need to just expect this blatent water-carrying and do their job.
ping 4 later
Dean Yager must be a close relative of Dean Wormer.
...............Maintaining databases of information during the last 30 years has been incredibly difficult, and often requires reformatting the data and re-saving to a different media every 5 years or so at great expense...........
Yeah I agree, but I don’t understand.
If these “scientists” are constantly revising, smoothing, and “improving the models”, that must mean that the beginning of any formula must start with the base number that they are modifying. Since they’re not using a Friden totalizer, or a slide rule, each model must contain the beginning number before it was modified, in digital format.
Thus, isn’t all the data already in digital form, useable in todays format?? Then can’t they take their model output, run the formula backwards to solve for the unmodified data??
Color me stupid!
"How Conveeeeeenient."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.