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 dumped it to save space? Perhaps. But I'll bet most of us can think of other less charitable reasons the data might have been dumped. Yesterday they claimed they'd release the data in full. They didn't really mean that, though.
Because all we now have is the "adjusted data," with no record of either the raw data or the actual adjustments (and the logic behind them), scientists wishing to double and triple check the work of known liars and system manipulators would need to start with the "adjusted" data to begin their work, which is akin to taking over a train that has already been headed down a particular track to its destination. But the group at CRU would like everyone to take their word on the adjusted data, and move along. Right.
Other AGW climate change proponents, like MP George Monbiot, would have us believe that a couple of corrupt scientists should be dumped unceremoniously, but that the train should be allowed to continue because the evidence is still solid.
But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.
A wider conspiracy ... like, for example, destroying the source data? We are left, at this point, with starting over from scratch. The methods, the data, and the ideologically driven actions of the "scientists" at the East Anglia University CRU, and of those like Dr. Mann who were intimately involved in the ruses, are all so questionable that to soldier on as if nothing has changed shows only the religious fervor with which the proponents hold their beliefs. If the data has been destroyed, then you'll need new data, the raw form of which would need to be released as soon as it has been obtained, prior to any analysis or manipulation, for open source analysis. Otherwise the "truth" about AGW will continue to be solely a political argument over world governance and the tax burden and oppressiveness of government on people simply trying to live.
11/29/09 1235: More, from Christopher Booker in the Times of London: "the worst scientific scandal of our generation."
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.