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.

[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.