Posted on 11/30/2009 1:41:29 AM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
they knew it was lost years ago but failed to disclose it
In what is turning out to be the most astounding farce of our generation, the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has disclosed that it "threw away" the data upon which the predictions of global warming are based.
The Times of London is reporting that the disclosure was made by the CRU in response to requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act. When pushed for it they could not produce the original data. All they have is the "adjusted" data that they have used to "prove" the earth is warming.
Not having the original data means that other scientist cannot verify the accuracy of the "adjusted" data nor the conclusions drawn from the data. Thus the models used to predict future climate cannot be proven correct.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.
What makes the "loss" of the data even more alarming is the fact that the CRU knew years ago that the data did not exist. Yet they did not disclose it but continued to insist, as recently as last week, that it was "proprietary" and thus not subject to the FIA.
Thus the simple fact of the matter is that the "science" upon which all of the hype that has been created about global warming is based on non-peer reviewed science, generally making it meaningless unless it can be replicated by other scientists. None have done so.
The "science" of global warming was on tenuous ground to begin with. That is so because we do not have accurate data points that go back thousands of years. What they did was look at secondary affect, such as ice bores, tree rings and other secondary indications to conclude which geologic periods were colder than others. Then they took the data points they "did" have for the past 150 years (the data that is now missing) and developed models projecting both backward and forward. They compared the retrospective models to the secondary observations they had to "validate" the models. Based on those assumptions they projected how much global warming there would be in the future, depending on such things as carbon dioxide levels in each period. But without the data the models are invalid and thus the predictions about future global warming have no factual basis in legitimate science.
This could well explain why the models say that with the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the average global temperature should be increasing. In reality it is decreasing. This was one of the points made in the hacked emails...that the scientists who claim the earth is warming could not account for the fact that it is actually cooling.
Now we know why.
To read more click here.
But in what could be even more ominous some blogs have published data from some of the hacked emails that show graphs that extend until last year. If these graphs indeed are correct and contained original data that CRU is now saying was destroyed years ago then we have yet another scandal on our hands. But what remains unknown at this time is whether the 2008 graphs were based on the original data or on the "altered" data. We'll leave that to you to judge: click here.
And in a related matter the Detroit News is reporting that the head "scientist" at the CRU has pulled in $22.6 million in grants since 1990.
The Sun is now reported to have a dramatic effect upon temperatures on the Earth.
Climatologists are stunned!
Yep, and WHO just announced yesterday that women and children all over Africa should be taking AIDS drugs if the women has AIDS and is breastfeeding. Guess where they want the money to come from?
It has just been reported by reliable sources that hard copies of documents can be scanned and stored in digital form. Scientists are reporting digital storage of original documents "takes up less space than bulky paper archives what with every empty warehouse in the world having been filled to the ceiling."
Scientists the world over are exclaiming, "Wow, we never even thought about that! We never saw that coming. Who would have guessed that we could save data and not have to throw it away?"
One scientist remarked, "Wow, a regular person can maybe even scan an old photo of great grandma and store it on a regular laptop computer!"
"What will smart people think of next?"
“Thus the simple fact of the matter is that the “science” upon which all of the hype that has been created about global warming is based on non-peer reviewed science, generally making it meaningless unless it can be replicated by other scientists. None have done so. “
Yeah, take that “PEER REVIEWED” screamer Ed Begley Jr.
such an organized fraud is racketeering...
“lost” my a$$.
“lost” my a$$.
“The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”
They most certainly are not.
What they are saying ...is “screw you”...
Speaking of the Weather Channel. Here’s a gem from Heidi Cullen.
IT’S GOING TO BE HOT IN 2050
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzK0S2wUMFw
Since they admit they destroyed (most of) the original data then there is no longer any doubt that they cannot scientifically prove their case.
This means any conclusions or changes in world policy can not be made, until a new study is done. One done in the ‘light of day’.
And since I’m dreaming, a spotless 69 Corvette should appear in my driveway. With a full tank of gas.
Global Alarmist liars can’t be trusted further than they can be thrown. They should be tried in a court of law - and when found guilty of fraud, they should be hung.
The Sun actually has a very stable, very even 'effect' on the Earth. It is not the powerful Sun which causes dramatic effects in temperature.
It is a mere wisp of the wind. A cloud. A thing that is almost invisible, that in intangible. Water in a gaseous form.
To make an analogy, if Darwin was alive today and said he was wrong, it would have very little impact on the religion of evolution.
No data, no problem. We will just have to recreate it. We should be done with this in another 150,000 years.
See you then.
Cheers
The observations, temperature measurements, are evidence. Ideally, any “adjustments” would be reversible, or like I said, benign, like a units conversion. They might also have done something like account for known problems with certain sensors, removing known biases, for instance.
A great number of valid scientific observations are only available second hand. For instance, Ptolemy recorded Hipparchus data, although how Hipparchus arrived at his results is not known and our knowledge of Ptolemy is indirect, from Arab sources, although in the original Greek, which Arab scholars were careful to preserve, though not without accumulating scribal errors over the centuries.
Of course, if Arab scholars could preserve the original Greek of Ptolemy for millenniua, in copied and restored hand written manuscripts, it seems odd that East Angelica University couldn't preserve the world's temperature record for even one generation.
and that can reliably predict future observations. However, they seem to fail even at that.
A prediction of the average global temperature is best done by taking the daily energy of the Sun. Not by taking local weather conditions. The local weather is influenced by Clouds, and seasons due to polar tilt.
The AGT could go up, and yet the 'local weather' could get both hotter and colder than ever before.
Climate change occurs from changes in the Jetstream and changes in ocean currents.
Neither of those items is in any way controllable by man.
I think you misread my comment. I am simply saying that science attempts to use observations, “facts”, “evidence” to make predictions about future observations. We know, for instance, that we cannot exactly predict quantum mechanically unpredictable events. Science is not a crystal ball, it is important to know what we know and know what we don’t know.
Controlling physical events is engineering, not science. Successful engineers and engineering endeavors are constrained by the “laws of physics”. Always a good place to start, anyway.
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.