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.I'm shocked. SHOCKED. So what does this mean?
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.Guess we now have the real reason why they refused to share the data. It doesn't exist. What exactly was the data and where did it go?
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.One commentator to this online story compares it to a "dog ate my homework" excuse. My take: the real reason our fraudsters weren't "able" to provide the raw data is that, like that famous Monty Python parrot, it "is no more."
Our faux scientists would, of course, have us continue to believe in the purity of the original dataset as well as the manipulations that were performed on said data to to arrive at the conclusion that we're all going to die, maybe tomorrow, if our left-leaning governing elites don't carbon-tax us into oblivion. Or as the denizens of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) put it somewhat wistfully on their website:
“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”"Value-added." That's rich. Let it never be said that the standup comics at the CRU lack a sense of humor.
Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.Pens another commentator with a jaunty, scholarly air:
"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" It is getting harder and harder to defend these clowns.Indeed. Yet another commentator observes:
One of [the stonewallers] said in the leaked emails that he'd rather delete the raw data than release it, maybe he did just that !Another tries to defend the CRU by claiming we could restore the missing data by backing the current, manipulated data back through the algorithms imposed on the initial dataset. In other words, by wiping the lipstick off the pig, we can get a better picture of what the pig actually looked like a long time ago. A lovely idea, but naive. This also presupposes that the East Anglians have a pristine record of and justification for each and every manipulation they've performed on the lost data and that we trust them to be honest about it. As if!!
What really happened here? In the end, only one of two things, I think.
- A. The East Anglians really did thoughtlessly throw out the original dataset as they stated. In this case, they are sloppy and stupid scientists which casts doubt on the quality and/or veracity of any research they've performed, whether it involves climate change or any other issues. Or,
- B. The East Anglians dumped the original data quite recently when they realized the UK Freedom of Information Act would require them to make it public, thus instantly unmasking them as absolute frauds in the eyes of the public.