Climate change data dumped!!!!!!!!

Times Online (UK) ^ | November 29, 2009 | Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

[Pontiac]

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue.

A terabyte of disk space in the 80’s when the data was supposedly tossed would have cost (maybe hundreds of) thousands of dollars.

Back then the disk you would have been talking about for storage most likely would have been floppies.

[denydenydeny]

.... the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. not yet the basis of an enormous political agenda.

Fixed it.

[WHBates]

" How was this peer reviewed with out the peer having access to the raw data."

It can't, they're lying, plain and simple.

[hoosier hick]

I seem to remember that these clowns wanted Nuremberg-style trials for “deniers.” I think the same is justified for “pretend scientists”.....

hh

[hoosier hick]

This story was first reported last summer (to my knowledge), but the email revelations give it more context and meaning...

hh

[Pontiac]

I am not defending the guy. What I am telling you is that what you are talking about is not as cheap as you imply. If you can’t get funding to do it you can’t do it.

What would have been a lot cheaper to do is to rent warehouse space to store his files and tapes. For a hundred bucks a month he should have been able to get climate controlled storage space somewhere.

[danielmryan]

Trust me, trust me...

[joelt]

Prosecute,,make these guys sweat under the fear of a long prison sentence...one of them will break and rat out the others.

[dodger]

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OF THE FIRST ORDER.

ONE NEVER DESTROYS ORIGINAL DATA.

PURPOSEFUL MISCONDUCT ...

[savedbygrace]

Needs more exclamation marks.

[Erasmus]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill...

this dog.

[Calamari]

Time to move these people on to “cold fusion” to solve the energy crisis.</Sarc>

[Errant]

"What I am telling you is that what you are talking about is not as cheap as you imply."

Yea, I keep forgetting this is academia.

I like the suggestion above to put everything concerning GW on hold until the data can be reproduced then I bet somehow the raw data mysteriously appears.

[joelt]

I’m thinking the Brits need to do something. I think elections are on the horizon there so the Conservatives need to make it an issue. Brown is not going have any curiosity about this unless forced.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

If the primary data was thrown out, then this is not science. If you can’t verify results, and the data presented are significantly altered/filtered, then you can’t trust the data. It’s that simple. This is even more compelling when you are sitting on emails that talk about dumping data rather than releasing it.

Also, did the primary sources of all this data dump it (i.e. the specific stations at which the measurements were taken)? If not the raw data should be retrievable.

Given the economic implications of all this there should be a massive investigation.

[GQuagmire]

Manbearpig could not be reached for comment.......

[TheThinker]

But, that raw temperature data was probably shared by more than the UEA. They’re not the only ones tracking global temperatures.

[Calamari]

"SCIENTISTS

No; grifters, con men, snake oil salesmen, bunko artists, frauds, leeches, thieves, etc. Not Scientists

[Paleo Conservative]

No; grifters, con men, snake oil salesmen, bunko artists, frauds, leeches, thieves, etc. Not Scientists

Extortionists!

[ExtremeUnction]

Now past 13,000,000 hits and climbing..