[SteamShovel]

The data that was tossed is apperently available from other sources

but they need to go and recompile the sets.

Two things......

.....1) This shows they were lying when they said there was no raw data. They could have pointed out which data they used and where to get it.

.....2) I doubt they will be able to recreate the "science" honestly because the previous "science" was based on cherry picked and "enhanced" data that was then nudged with math to manipulate the trends for a specific outcome.

[Kowdawg]

Statists don’t really need science to promote AGW. They know how to manipulate the emotions of self-loathing people who will accept the idea of AGW as an article of faith. Science need not apply.

[SeattleBruce]

This shows they were lying when they said there was no raw data. They could have pointed out which data they used and where to get it.
+++++++++++++++

There is a theory about lying and deception and politics. If you repeat a lie long enough and often enough and creatively enough, eventually a lot of people will believe it’s true. This is the craziness we’re dealing with here - on the largest scale imaginable.

Regarding Climategate, there are lies, lies and stinking lies.