This is playing out exactly as one would expect.
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.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. . . .
They could have said that the dog ate the homework.
HT: John Lott
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
East Anglia scientists did not produce the data. It was borrowed from many sources. They then deleted the acquired data after they had translated it to suit their needs. The original data still exists in the hands of those who created it, and undoubtedly in many places around the world. Deleting one copy is harly earth shattering. Further, East Anglia's data set could be recreated if anyone really had the mind to do so.
Perhaps Winston Smith rewrote it.
Then perhaps they should recreate it.
That might be a challenge, Jim. As you've undoubtedly read, some of the programmers are unable to reconcile the manipulations with the datasets.
IOW, their manipulations were so convoluted that it doesn't seem to make sense.
Trust me, I'm quite familiar with working with poorly commented code. I agree that if East Anglia cannot demonstrate the validity of their data, any conclusions based upon it should be tossed.
My point is, the original data is in no way corrupt, and there are many other independent studies that arrive at similar conclusions. This is by no means a debate ender for the deniers and am puzzled why so many are suggesting why it is.
Oh, I don't have a problem with the idea that there IS global warming.
Nor did I have a problem with the idea that there was global cooling in the 1960's/'70's.
I have a REAL problem with the idea that it's all anthropogenic. In fact, I have a problem with the idea that homo sapiens can tick the numbers in ANY measurable way up or down.
I do not excuse stupidity or egregious waste on the part of man; I'm perfectly comfortable with smokestack/wastewater cleanups.
But there is a point at which the economics are no longer viable. In the USA, we're damn close to that point, if not past it.
If algae can cause massive global climatic change, why not us?
Yes, we must put a stop to cow flatulence before it's too late.
Post a Comment