University of East Anglia Threw Away Global Warming Raw Temperature Data

Bluegrass Pundit ^ | Sunday, November 29, 2009 | Bluegrass Pundit

[woofer]

...the University of East Anglia has been forced to admit they threw away the raw temperature data they used to make their predictions of anthropogenic global warming. They claim they only kept the 'adjusted' data.

If the data was digital, ie: in spreadsheet or csv files, then they should have notes and copies of e-mails from whence the source data came.

Release all of the e-mail, source data files and climate modelling routines held locked up at the CRU.

If there was no finaggling of the data, ie: the results are what they are, then there should be no repercussions.

If, on the other hand, there is no "data-dump" then there can be no reproducable results to confirm theirs.

The choice is simple. How's that for a catch 22?

[Let's Roll]

BTTT!

[Man from Oz]

Interesting that they can’t back calculate. It would be good if somebody legitimate would take a look see at the equations used and determine how far off in magnitude the coefficients are???

Thanks for enlightening me.

[Joan Kerrey]

It makes all their data completely worthless.

---

And it should result in completely discounting their entire work.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

..... the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added .... ..... Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

[EDINVA]

Perhaps the ‘hacker’ who got the emails has the technical skill to extract the ‘deleted’ raw data as well. I have been told that nothing is ever REALLY deleted if it is sought by a really experienced technician.

As I recall, a witness in a Congressional hearing some years ago had written and deleted an anti-Clinton email to a friend that was recovered, much to her embarrassment.

[Old Professer]

Those adjustment equations vary from site to site, but all of them adjust upward; from raw data with a +/-1 degree uncertainty factor at that.

The official data all trend toward the +1 side; if one simply uses the opposite sign there is no warming at all and some cooling.

The entire instrument set is inadequate to establish with certainty the current global average temperature and never has.

The focus of persuasion now is extreme climate events as extemporaneous proxies, such as icebergs off New Zealand; calving in Antarctica; excess Arctic ice loss in summer; forest/brush fires in Australia and the southwest of the U.S.; iconic hurricanes like Andrew and Katrina; shrinking sheep in the southern hemisphere; and successful campaigns on recent near-miss catastrophes like Ozone depletion, and deforestation through slash-and-burn, and acid rain.

None of the above scenarios can be verified to be caused by global warming, not a single one.

So how, given this list of successes by the Panic Pimps, do you think this latest failure in the science is going to matter?

It would be like stopping a stampede with a single red flag placed at the edge of the cliff.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

So how, given this list of successes by the Panic Pimps, do you think this latest failure in the science is going to matter?

Because they have been exposed as frauds and/or incompetents.

Now we can insist on legitimate peer reviews with the skeptics as key players.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !