| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
ClimateGate fallout continues: CRU admits original data deleted
The UK Times Online reports an explosive admission coming forth from the CRU in the aftermath of the ClimateGate revelations (via Memeorandum):
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.
The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Show of hands how many doubt that the data dumping was only “in order to save space”?
I didn’t think so.
In no other line of work would data dumping and suppression be tolerated (that is, unless you work for the Obama administration); in fact, in most places where this sort of data manipulation is discovered, your a** is grass – meaning that not only are you out of a job, but that you’ve been thoroughly discredited. Leading global warming skeptic Christopher Booker writes:
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
No, they shouldn’t, but the whole “man-made” global warming issue has been “owned” for decades by Democrat AGW elites here at home – including the Goracle – and AGW elites abroad, like the UEA CRU. Governments, political parties, AGW alarmists, “green” industries, celebrities, mainstream media news outlets, TV networks like NBC, special interest groups – all of these close-knit groups have both personal and professional vested interests in keeping the myth of “man-made” global warming alive, and suffice it to say that they will work hard to “contain” this scandal. But every once in a while, a scandal comes along that is too big for even the most powerful to keep under the lid. And this scandal may very well be one of them.
Stay tuned.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
15 Responses to “ClimateGate fallout continues: CRU admits original data deleted”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I’m at a lost to explain the surprise many seem to feel in this information. Anyone with a head on his shoulders must know that they so-called objective scientists depend on government grants for their work and in fact their livelyhood and will not bite the hand that feeds them. They will juggle all the facts to get the outcome their masters desire. Their masters being those who pay their bills—-politicians with agendas.
Why am I not so surprised? If they can destroy raw data collected over 150 years and substitute their manipulated data, why should we trust anything that comes out of that agency.
The handwriting is on the wall…this is better than the DaVinci Code and Demons and Angel’s stories. A scientific consortium in cahoots to place an artificial systems of cap and trade for pure profit in the guise of environmentalism.
This would make a great book/movie…but, don’t try to shop it around Hollywood, they would tear their hair out trying to cover it up. And I agree with Ron…the government grant programs are at fault here….this is not pure science, this is science with an objective political target. Another interesting angle for a book/movie. Sorry I don’t have the time to research all the various twists and turns, but I am sure there is a writer somewhere getting a terrific page turner ready!
It was amusing a while back that the goracle couldn’t make it to a speech because of inclement weather, but take this to its logical conclusion: some day he won’t be able to go to a speech because there won’t be any audience to go to the speech – they’re all trying to stay warm under the glaciers.
A more optimistic soul than I would say, “Well, that’s the end of that. No dumped data, no credibility.” But we are dealing with a bunch of left-wing nut case liberals hell-bent on destroying the American way of life with exorbitant taxes, drastic changes in energy production and sources, etc. so we’ll just sit back and watch the continued lies, cover-ups and fabrications. After all, it is an Obamanation we are now living under.
I’d like to say that not all scientists in Britain are like this. I think. I hope.
Any data that is collected as part of a scientific study is always kept as part of the “peer review” process so that it can be studied by other scientists. In the science world, data is never destroyed. The fact that this data has been destroyed is not an accident. It was obviously done in an attempt to hide the fact that they were manipulating the data to give the results they needed for their political aims…not the results that the data showed. Considering the global impact on this “Global Warming” event, this deletion of raw data should be considered the “crime of the century” and all those involved should be tried, convicted, and imprisoned.
I see this whole man-made climate change hoax as a crisis in faith; not in the proponents and profiteers, but in the followers. To believe that humans can melt polar ice caps and submerge islands is to deny the supremacy of the creator who turned on the light to begin with.
Agreed: I’ve mentioned elsewhere as examples that accountants and aircraft maintainance personnel who destroyed original data while keeping only altered data, even if the altered data was correct, would quite likely face jail, never mind being drummed out of their lines of work.
Helen, I’m sure that not all scientists in England are like this. I’m just as sure not all scientists in the United States are like this, either.
But what does this have to do with the story? I haven’t read one thing about a real scientist being involved in the cover-up, and precious few real scientists involved in the research. Lots and lots of charlatans, lots and lots of pseudo-scientists, lots and lots of people who’d like for the world to think they are scientists, but like I say, precious few real scientists.
And they brought this all on themselves. If they weren’t liars, cheats and thieves it would probably be easier for them to regain some amount of respect, but people who lie, steal and cheat like that just don’t have it in themselves to be ethical or moral.