EDITORIAL: No climate-change transparency

The Washington Times ^ | December 10, 2009

[R4Roger05]

There's plenty of cause to be skeptical of climate-change theology because global-warming advocates are secretive about their data. If climate-change research were all on the up-and-up, there would be no reason to hide it.

So far, the spotlight has been on Britain's University of East Anglia and its refusal to release surface temperature data, which is by far the most comprehensive long-term data available on the subject kept anywhere in the world. In an effort to pooh-pooh the cover-up, global-warming activists are trying to reassure a curious public that this isn't a concern because some other data sources purportedly show the same thing. There's no way to know because other institutions are dragging their feet on disclosure as well. NASA has been less than forthcoming about its data, as brushed off Freedom of Information Act requests have exposed.

Queen's University in Belfast is another obstacle to open academic inquiry. It has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings, which span 7,000 years and range from more than 1,500 sites around the world. How much a tree grows each season can tell us a lot about temperature trends and other climate-related variables. Under normal circumstances, one would expect the institution to be proud of this enormous data set it has diligently created and presume the university would want to share the data with anyone who is interested in the subject matter. Not so.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I don’t trust tree ring data. They’re what “hiding the decline” is all about.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

It has amassed one of the longest-running data collections on tree rings

Back in Brooklyn, we'd call the whole mess a "tree-ring circus."

[technically right]

No, that would be “tree ring soicus”

[maryz]

I don’t trust tree ring data. They’re what “hiding the decline” is all about.

I would think that, with the data freely available, real scientists could analyze the information and demonstrate the limitations of tree rings as proxies for temperature readings. With the data sequestered, the warmists can claim, "Oh, absolutely -- we have the tree ring data to prove it!"

[maryz]

The Washington Times seems to have something on this every day! Wish more would follow . . .

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I think everything has been proven by the alarmist “scientists” already. They stopped using the tree ring data in 1960(?, too many dates swimmin’ ‘round my brain), because the newer tree ring data showed the climate cooling, when the planet was actually warming until ‘98. So they dropped the tree ring data, and used the actual temperature readings instead. That throws ALL tree ring data into grave doubt. Can’t claim they’re accurate, going back forever!