We've lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests

The Register ^ | 13th August 2009 14:35 GMT | Andrew Orlowski

[palmer]

...

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection - except to hand-picked academics - for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of "the science".

...

[palmer]

A pretty good summary of the problems Steve McIntyre has had getting the raw data used to demonstrate global warming. There is probably a nod and wink agreement between the providers, third world dictatorships, and the recipient, CRU in England. That agreement is that the data can only be given out to academics who are trying to prove that evil developed world is at fault for past temperature rises and must be punished.

Anyone trying to process the data in an accurate and unbiased manner will not be allowed access.

[indyhome]

“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Now why didn’t I think of that kind of response when I had to turn in term papers in college?

[KarlInOhio]

“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

The IRS doesn't have any problem if I use that logic during an audit, right?

[Go_Raiders]

“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Irrefutable proof that there is nothing scientific about any of the climate studies relying on this data. The entire point of science is to demonstrate reproducibility and allow any party to examine data and look for flaws.

[BlackVeil]

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones ... We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data ...

We made it all up!