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 ...
Unless they've been stored properly, 9-track tapes degrade over time and it becomes nearly impossible to read the data. I've been through this, trying to retrieve data from 20 year old 9-tracks and finding that as I FSF'd into the volume, the tape was stuck together and I could only read the very beginning of the tape.
I doubt the secretaries this group have are capable of pulling data from field notes and converting it to electrons. There is always subcontractor to do the work I guess.
So since the '80's scientists have not had the original data to share but the "homogenized" output. Thus they are admitting that all "scientific" projects since then did not get based on raw data but manipulated data and thus have no standing. Also apparently peer review of this data was done in house (if at all) since the data destroyed (if it was) was purportedly never copied for other institutions.
This admission throws everything asunder and is even more damaging than the emails since words can be parsed/spun but raw data can not be recreated once destroyed and thus any supposed results could not be replicated.
Note that this took a week to come out - this is the Big Kahuna of their problems and they waited as long as they could.
So the question for Jones is - "When did you know this data was destroyed?"
Tape sticking is a common malady in old audio recording reel tapes also. There are ways to restore these completely blocked up and unplayable tapes.
Exactly one of my first thoughts when I read about this. They make a claim that the data is destroyed and see if the powers that be will press them legally or or on a funding level. If not then they are in the clear. If they are forced into a corner and "discover" copies given to a peer scientist then the data will then get reviewed to see if there was absolute fudging or incompetence.
bump
I respect your playing Devil's Advocate. Cost or not there can not be any credible rationale to destroy the only raw data one has that took millions of dollars to collect. The real question is how was the data peer reviewed if scientists were not on site? How could any concurrent data study be done when the raw data the other scientists were given was in fact slightly to heavily cooked?
This whole event raises thousands of questions and demands review of all scientists that did the supposed scientific peer review.
Fireplace? What about all those greenhouse gases?
Data roasting on an open fire
Judicial Watch nipping at your heels
Although it’s been said many times many ways
Give us grant bucks...
“
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.”
“
Lies, d-mned lies and Glorbal-Warming Scientists.
If these fraudsters really believed in their “peer-reviewed” publications...
they’d still have the data at hand...or at least stored in a warehouse.
Just so it would be available to confront any “Deniers”.
When Phil Jones wouldn’t turn over raw data to a French government
official/researchers about four years ago...
that’s when the “B.S.” alarms should have been ringing day and night.
But of course, the MSM runs interference for jerks like Phil Jones
and other future carbon-credits-trading tycoons.
excellent post
Furthermore a new CRU building comes out of the university’s capital expenditures budget
Proper archiving and maintenance and data comes out of each years budget. In 1998 I got a 10gb hard drive for $300. CRU could have archived their data onto a bunch of these and done it all twice. Also burned onto CDs. Yeah I know conversion from old tapes to HD is a pain. It’s a lie anyhow tapes can’t take up that much space
It’s not like CRU trashed their data decades ago. They prolly moved to a new building and trashed it within the last 15 years or so. I’m just going along with their excuses a bit
Of course NBC isn’t going to report on Climategate.
GE, the parent company of NBC, has been positioning itself to make billions from the GW hoax. GE is behind the ban on incandescent lightbulbs in the US, and is the lone manufacturer for CFL lightbulbs in the US market. The leftwing shift MSNBC took several years back has from the beginning been for the purpose of promoting GE’s financial interests.
Disposing of original data...especially when the “transaction cost”
of archiving data really started to drop in the 1980s.....
THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN.
The EnviroFraudster Academicians dumped the data that would have shown
they reacheed their conclusions...
Then cherry-picked data to fit the conclusions of their “peer-reviewed”
publications.
This is just about a Gawd-Awful you can get in terms of scientific misconduct.
H-ll, it’s not scientific.
It’s just a bald-faced fraud engineered to keep the grant money flowing
in and getting homoraria for giving speeches at all “The World
Is Melting” conferences.
These “scientists” should be cast into the outer darkness.
I think you made many great and valid points. While it easy to mention the cost of current storage possibilities (and the ability now to have items like automatic scanners) these were not available at the time period in question, even though we don't have an exact date of when this happened, under whose authority, etc.
I highlighted your words above because it seems to me to be of humongous importance. Beyond the general question of scientific replication is the question of why this fact that the original data was destroyed was not publicly disclosed. In essence East Anglia CDU has admitted that what they claimed was raw data subject to peer review was in fact "homogenized" data meaning all subsequent studies based on this "raw data" are built on manipulated data. Thus EA CDU has committed fraud to the tune of the number of studies based on their compilation of data.
LOL. I didn’t know Mel Torme was a Freeper.
Anybody FOIA it?
Oh that's in the league with "jobs created or saved."
Between you and I though, I think your husband is right on.
So there is hope for my favorite Dooby Brothers cassette? ;-)
A few years back, I was asked to see if I could get data off of some old 9-track tapes and hooked up an old Cyber SCSI 9-track tape drive to my Sun workstation. I was able to read only the beginning of the tapes and didn't have the equipment to recover the data from those tapes that were in the damaged portions of the tapes.
Finding hardware that's in working order that can read these old tapes and hard drives can be a challenge as well. Most places opt out of keeping that old equipment around to save on service contract costs.
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.