[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]

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.

[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.

[WHBates]

" How was this peer reviewed with out the peer having access to the raw data."

It can't, they're lying, plain and simple.

[GEC]

You would be surprised at how little review there is from peers, especially the raw data, and with these guys they tended to cherry-pick for the journals anyway.

[Gondring]

Yes, the data would have had to go through multiple steps of archiving. Microfilm/fiche, then conversion over to digital. Everybody who wanted no budget for these things in the 1980s is now complaining that the archiving didn’t occur. Heck, we almost threw away all of our satellite data at the end of the 80s (Dan Quayle came through with the funding to save the archive) and people are wondering why these volumous original records weren’t kept.

[ConservativeMind]

BTTT

[torchthemummy]

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

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?"