ClimateGate: CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data. That They Haven’t Thrown Away

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

ClimateGate: CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data. That They Haven’t Thrown Away

Written By : William Teach

Yesterday, the “scientists” involved in ClimateGate made an important announcement

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

Today, “um, well, ya see, our Bad!”

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.

They are saying they dumped the raw data, after it had been adjusted, massaged, given a nice vacation in the Sahara Desert, during a move to a new building to save room. The originals, kept on paper and magnetic tape (it was the 80′s, after all), were deemed unimportant. Considering the real importance of the data, and the money these folks have been granted over the years, it might have been worth the investment to rent a self storage space, or build a shed, or something.

Considering the importance of the data in showing that their theories about Man induced warming, this could be one way of “hiding the decline.” Just wait till the government hearings start, and they have to explain why they dumped the data, and are raked over the coals.

Riehl World View: The very foundation of science is that it be reproducible. These unprofessional hacks have made re-production of their work to validate their conclusions impossible.

TigerHawk: So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few “scientists” whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

The fact that the Republicans aren’t screaming bloody murder about Climategate on every street corner is just more evidence that they’re colluding with the Democrats to pass the Leftist agenda before they can be stopped. If this were more widely known in this country, Obama wouldn’t dare go to that Copenhagen conference, and his signing the treaty that will end US sovereignty wouldn’t even be on the radar.
WildPointer

I sent this email to ‘press@uea.ac.uk’: Since you have no valid publishable raw station data to match to your ‘cooked’ data, no idea what stations comprise your dataset, no reproducible methods, and no records of how you arrived at your current dataset then what on earth makes you think you are ‘doing science’?
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Given their previous emails I’m confident that they’re going through and cleaning up as much as they can so that what they release will be missing large sections of data. Which won’t help any but they’ll feel like they pulled one over on their hated foes.

Its possible that the GOP isn’t touching this because they still think global warming is a political hot button issue, that it would hurt them in their precious polls if they dared take a stand for truth and science.
Toastrider

It doesn’t help when Republicans push for creationism (oh, excuse me, ‘intelligent design’) as a legitimate theory either.

But yeah, getting off topic. The media is pretty much blacking this out as much as they can, and no surprise; if the full truth were blared out the AGW crowd would collapse.
Pingback: Climategate: The 10th [day] Anniversary Special « 0DayNews.org
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

Toast: do yourself a favor and study the difference between creationism and intelligent design. So you understand the distinction.
CaptDMO

Loosely(?) related.
Kinda’ like ACORN tossing all their “old data” in the dumpster when they suddenly found that they were going to be subjected to um…peer review?
Apparently, also “not in the news so much…”.
Toastrider

Much like the difference between AGW and ‘climate change’, eh Chris?

After reviewing the data, I do not find much of any distinction, save in semantics. Both are irreparably incompatible with factual science as both call for an untestable element in the hypothesis (a ‘designer’).

I grant, as always, that the theory of evolution has some severe weaknesses; that’s why it’s still a theory (as opposed to the laws of thermodynamics or gravitation). What I want to know is, why don’t people bitch about Einstein’s theory of relativity? Hell, it’s getting holes punched in it even now.

Oh, and lose the condescension. You sound like one of those prags who thought it’d be grand to push Dede Scozzofava in NY-23. Just some advice from your friendly breakfast side dish.
CoolCzech

Republicans “push” Creationism?

Since when?

I mean, I understand some conservatives dislike Evolution, but I don’t remember a national movement of big-name Republicans pushing for it to be taught in schools.

See, here’s the Big Difference between someone believing in Creationism or “Intelligent Design” or Evolution, and someone committed to pushing “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” or whatever the preferred “Scientific” nomenclature du-jour is:

My personal beliefs regarding human origins doesn’t impact my neighbor in any way.

On the other hand, the Global Warming Religionists are on an anti-Global Warming Infidels jihad of epic proportions. Their program means to squander trillions of dollars, resources that COULD in fact be used to combat Third World Poverty. They mean to impoverish us ALL, all in the name of placating their goddess, Gaia.

So THAT, Toastrider, is the ultimate difference.
CoolCzech

What I want to know is, why don’t people bitch about Einstein’s theory of relativity? Hell, it’s getting holes punched in it even now.

Posted by Toastrider
2009-11-30 00:15:25

Because no one is out to destroy the economies of the world because of it??? Gee, you think that might be the reason????
http://networdblog.blogspot.com/ Christopher_Taylor

After reviewing the data, I do not find much of any distinction

Clearly you haven’t worked very hard at it. Try again, and this time read what actual ID supporters and scientists say, not what people who hate and disagree with them claim they say. You’d think a conservative would know better.

And if I sound condescending, its only a reflection of your tone, sir.
Toastrider

Clearly you haven’t worked very hard at it. Try again, and this time read what actual ID supporters and scientists say, not what people who hate and disagree with them claim they say. You’d think a conservative would know better.

That’s funny, you don’t look like huckupchuck.

My opinion (such as it is) is based on the Natural History report found at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html. Judging from the sidebar commentary, I do not think this is a ‘negative’ review of ID.

However, it continues to fail the basic problem: it is not testable. It is an interesting little mental exercise, but it is not science. I understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; we’ve collected data in many fields based not on direct observation but on the effects they have around them. But one might as well deem that our evolution as a species was tied to the actions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that global warming is directly linked to a lack of pirate activity.

If you want condescending, may I suggest you consult http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml for some help in how to apply the scientific method.

Until then, I remain a happy, buttered bit of bread.
Pingback: Climategate – La fraude à propos du climat s’effondre « Les 7 du Québec