Free Markets, Free People

This Is “Science?”

No, this is shocking:

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.

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.

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.

The point, of course, is in the absence of the original data, other scientists have no way to reproduce CRU’s results using their methods. None.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

“Quality controlled?” Not according to the bit of code I talked about yesterday.

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Of course this has been rumored to be true for quite some time – now I suppose, it is “official”. Let me revise that first sentence above – “The CRU was the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures”.

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.

So this is how science is “settled”? This is what the “consensus” bought into. It says more about the scientific rigor of those who accepted this twaddle without checking it than it does about the skeptics, doesn’t it?

Yet, as we speak, politicians are using their findings as a basis for a worldwide treaty which will cost trillions and cripple the economies of industrialized nations. To me, what they’ve done borders on criminal. They should be absolutely shunned by the real scientists of the world. More importantly, politicians should be called upon to step back and demand a credible team of scientists look into both this scam and the underlying question of climate change in such a way that real and open scientific findings and debate are the result. As should be clear to everyone but the religionists taking all this nonsense of faith, the science is no longer considered “settled” (not that it ever was by real scientists) and there is no “consensus” concerning man’s part in climate change.

Copenhagen should be called off and no other meetings like it should be scheduled until everyone is convinced that there is some real science underlying the climate change issue.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

34 Responses to This Is “Science?”

  • 1. Gmail can provide ever expanding free data space for its users. Free of charge.
    2. What’s the current size of an average external hard drive? Gigabytes or is it much larger?
    3. Show me their grant money. I bet its astronomical. I bet they are the leading institution of their university (cuz I never heard of East Anglia before.) It wasn’t lack of resources.
    The next key question (if I were a journalist) start digging to find out how many other studies use this data in their analysis. The AGW folks assure us there are other studies, etc. I bet many, many are corrupted. Start naming names and papers…let’s see what turns up.

    • These days?  I have a 1-ish year old External Hard Drive that’s 1 TERAbyte.  I paid less than $120 for it.
       
      Back in the 80′s I don’t think there were “external drives” as we know and understand them…  But Zipdrives were around, and they held alot.  Average HD for most computers was what…  around 100 meg or so?

    • 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.

      It would be interesting to know if the new building was bigger or smaller.  I’m guessing bigger.  MUCH bigger.  As Harun says, show me the grant money.  I suspect that there was more than enough to rent a climate-controlled storage space such as attorneys and other professionals use for their file archives.

      This excuse is a SLIGHTLY more flowery version of “the dog ate my homework”.  It would be laughable if a lot of people who have vested their own plans and reputations in the work of those frauds at CRU weren’t bent on believing them.

  • Were they really dumped to save space?  There’s PLENTY of companies set up to store your hard copies/tapes/microfiche cards/microfilms etc. when you need space.

    Gimme a break.

    • I’ll give them that the data was in the late 80′s.  But yeah, there were services to archive data like this.
       
      If the data was saved and corrupted with time, that would be carelessness.   This was something else.

      • Heck, there were 9-track tapes this data could have been dumped to if they wanted to save space.  A small closet would have held all the data.

  • You know, I really wish “The Science Is Settled” Erb would crawl out from under his rock and come here to take the beating he so richly deserves.

    • I have to admit that the timing of his exit was perfect – for him.

      Actually, I think he realized, at least subliminally, that he had gotten past the “Obama gloat” era that brought him back to QandO after a partial hiatus. At some level, I think he knew he was going to be eating an endless supply of crow as the legend of Obama continued to bump up against the real world. This would have just added a few more servings.

      Besides, beating him rhetorically is no more satisfying that beating a rock with a stick. The rock doesn’t even comprehend what you’ve done; neither does Erb.

      • As a public service, I soiled my machine and cheapened my soul by going over to Erb’s blog and asking if he had the guts to comment:

        “LOL! There’s nothing there but a manufactured scandal by the machine of deniers well financed by big money. Nothing changes the data known and the overall scientific picture. I did use it in class as an example of how propagandists try to turn a story into something it isn’t. Of course, the right wing blogs whine that it’s “liberal media’s fault” (eyes rolling). The facts remain: there is irrefutable evidence that global warming has occurred in the last fifty years at the same pace CO2 has increased by parts per million in the atmosphere. That suggests a high probability that humans are part of the cause, and the predictions by climate scientists are that this could cause major changes in the global climate which could make life for our children very bad — some alternate theories are there, but I for one don’t want to make a gamble and do nothing, especially since the EU has proven they can cut emissions and not hurt the economy — in fact, they’ve taken the lead in sectors that will benefit if oil reserves start to decline.
        In short, there is nothing to comment about, except amusement that you think this is a big deal. I really think they have you fooled.”

        If nothing else I hope this coaxes Scerb out for a cameo :)

        • LOL! There’s nothing there but a manufactured scandal by the machine of deniers well financed by big money. Nothing changes the data known and the overall scientific picture. Nothing, I tell you! It’s settled science! Very smart leftist friends with degrees in post-modern, gender-neutral science have assured me of it. And I certainly trust them more than a bunch of dense righties with their grunt engineer stuff about how the computer code is flawed. Don’t you guys understand? The program writers were inspired leftists, so there can’t be any error in their work. There just can’t! And that’s not either a pseudo-religious attachment to global warming, so stop saying that!

          I did use it in class as an example of how propagandists try to turn a story into something it isn’t. Because trying to intimidate journals into not publishing skeptics’ work is completely above board, and necessary in this world where you dense righties with all your blathering about “evidence” want to question the work of wise leftists -every- -single- -day-. Why, you used to question me all the time on foreign affairs, despite the fact that I have an advanced degree that is not either just an indication that my professors were sick of me and wanted to get rid of my presence! Plus I have a book! Have I told you that? A real book right here on my shelf, and it proves how smart I am, and it’s not either from a vanity press that suckers social scientists, so stop saying that! Just stop it!

          Of course, the right wing blogs whine that it’s “liberal media’s fault” (eyes rolling). As if our liberal comrades, uh, colleagues in the media would question the wise leftists who have selflessly fought to establish a consensus on global warming for decades! That was after they fought to establish a consensus on global cooling of course, so they were completely experienced in understanding the scientific nuances of and eminently qualified to tell the rest of us what’s what on climate change. And if they have lost all the data they used to get us to consensus, well, that’s just an oversight I’m sure, and it’s certainly not evidence that they can’t back up what they say! Why, they’re good, post-modern scientists, and they understand that the holy writ of post-modernism requires that the elites tell everyone what to do for their own good, and therefore the elites are also responsible for seeing into the future and finding the things that those ignorant proles wouldn’t understand, and ensuring that everyone comprehends why we wise leftists need to go one telling everyone what to do.

          The facts remain: there is irrefutable evidence that global warming has occurred in the last fifty years at the same pace CO2 has increased by parts per million in the atmosphere. It’s irrefutable! They’ve got charts and graphs and Powerpoint slides and everything! And all those deniers who examine the same data and come away with the conclusion that it’s no warmer now than in the 30s are just vicious, power-seeking righties who want to derail the glorious leftist paradise that would come if you thick righties just put wise leftists in charge. And the whole thing about cooling in the last decade, and the fact that the hacked emails thought that was a travesty and was completely against their models is just beside the point, so I don’t even know why you bring it up. It’s irrefutable, I say! Irrefutable! I decree it!

          That suggests a high probability that humans are part of the cause, and the predictions by climate scientists are that this could cause major changes in the global climate which could make life for our children very bad. Yes, even though it was even warmer than the current forecasts in the medieval warming period, it would be a disaster now! It just would! And the increased warmth making crops grow better and stuff like that is just fanciful science fiction! The climate scientists have told us all the horrible things that will happen – dead polar bears, and cities underwater, and places turning into deserts. Yes, that stuff is completely certain when it warms, and there are no good effects from warming because the holy writ of post-modern science tells us so, so you dense righties just need to shut up about it.

          Some alternate theories are there, but I for one don’t want to make a gamble and do nothing. No, I am certainly not prepared to gamble that we would lose the best excuse ever created to let wise leftists run every aspect of the lives of you thick, mean righties. Especially the ex-military basket cases that post at QandO, who are so deluded that they are clearly in need of someone to tell them what to do every moment of every day lest they hurt themselves with a spoon or something.

          Especially since the EU has proven they can cut emissions and not hurt the economy. They’ve proven it, I tell you! And the fact that they didn’t come anywhere close to meeting those targets they promised at Kyoto is just completely beside the point because it doesn’t support my point, so just forget it! In fact, they’ve taken the lead in sectors that will benefit if oil reserves start to decline. Yes, the wise, post-modern Europeans are proving yet again how much smarter than us they truly are, and their stagnant, low-growth economies are just what is needed to keep ignorant proles from polluting the planet and getting so uppity they think of challenging their wise leftist leaders. They certain don’t have any of those stupid teabaggers over there, and there were only 50,000 in DC I don’t care what you say or how many pictures you have! Just 50,000! I decree it!

          In short, there is nothing to comment about, except amusement that you think this is a big deal. I really think they have you fooled. And I’m not the one fooled into believing in a dubious theory with fudged data and thuggish suppression of dissent! It’s you! You’re fooled by your dense rightie buddies!

          So won’t you admit that, shark, and come here to my blog and go back and forth with me about a thousand times? I have some commenters, but they’re a bit bland, and they seem to suck up to me a lot. Not that I don’t like that, of course, but my students already do that and it’s so much better when someone respectfully disagrees and puts up something they think proves me wrong, and they I can use my godlike powers of political science to hand-wave away any of their so-called facts or evidence, and prove yet again with long posts that are not either produced by a computer program that I’m the smart one. Come on shark, don’t you want to do that? Please? And I’m not asking because I desperately need someone to validate my self-worth by valiantly challenging me and always losing in the end. No! So stop saying that!

        • Heh. That’s really Erb (as quoted by shark)? He’s a good Party man, isn’t he. Too bad STASI isn’t hiring. Erb could get out of that dead end academic business and into something where he could do more than “use it in class.”

          Of course, even without the revelations of data cooking, Erb doesn’t have the facts right. Just the past decade, for instance, shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature (the models are utterly falsified), and going back 50 years there was still a slight cooling trend going on (hence the worries in the 70s about global cooling).

          So, what Erb is talking about is anyone’s guess. But I’m certain that there are indeed “eyes rolling” in his classes, unless those classes are filled to the brim with programmable bots.

  • Fake but accurate. => Faked and deleted but accurate => ??
     

  • SCIENTISTS do not operate in smoky back rooms in secrecy, POLITICIANS and GANGSTERS do!

  • Paul Krugman (on ABC this morning) leaves you wondering if all economists are as equally corrupt as these “climate scientists” appear to be.

  • “Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data…but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space …”

    BWAAHAHHAHAHA! 

    I see, they used the data one time back in the 80′s and then moved on to other things while the data sat in a closet and gathered dust. No back up of this data, which according to them was of inestimable consequence, was made. 

    BWAHHAHAHA!

  • Shark came over to my website to talk about this, so I’ll make an exception to my refusal to deal with yours and give the reaction I gave him:
    “LOL! There’s nothing there but a manufactured scandal by the machine of deniers well financed by big money. Nothing changes the data known and the overall scientific picture. I did use it in class as an example of how propagandists try to turn a story into something it isn’t. Of course, the right wing blogs whine that it’s “liberal media’s fault” (eyes rolling). The facts remain: there is irrefutable evidence that global warming has occurred in the last fifty years at the same pace CO2 has increased by parts per million in the atmosphere. That suggests a high probability that humans are part of the cause, and the predictions by climate scientists are that this could cause major changes in the global climate which could make life for our children very bad — some alternate theories are there, but I for one don’t want to make a gamble and do nothing, especially since the EU has proven they can cut emissions and not hurt the economy — in fact, they’ve taken the lead in sectors that will benefit if oil reserves start to decline.
    In short, there is nothing to comment about, except amusement that you think this is a big deal. I really think they have you fooled.”
    Frankly, you deniers are destroying the lives of the next generation (if you affect policy).  You are scum.

    • And for you, Erb – a correction:

      “Frankly, I am destroying the lives of the next generation by allowing my liberal mindset to affect my teaching.  I am scum.”

      There, fixed!

    • global warming has occurred in the last fifty years at the same pace CO2 has increased by parts per million in the atmosphere
       
      Being a man of science, I’m sure you realize as Oceans warm, their ability to hold dissolved CO2 diminishes, releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
       
      I’m not saying we aren’t adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  But the pre-historical correlation can be explained as CO2 being the effect, and global warming the cause.
       
      As for the Correlation for this century, well that’s the rub with these scandals.  Confidence in published temperature trends is fading fast.

    • Does it bother you that your undergrads are laughing their asses off after every class?

    • The facts remain: there is irrefutable evidence that global warming has occurred in the last fifty years at the same pace CO2 has increased by parts per million in the atmosphere

       
      Let’s see a link to your irrefutable evidence, chump.

    • Frankly, you deniers are destroying the lives of the next generation (if you affect policy).  You are scum.

      Using the word “denier” is a blatantly dishonest attempt to tie global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers. As if someone who is skeptical about fuzzy predictions, many of which have apparently not come true, is exactly the same as someone who denies something that it is a matter of historical fact and was one of the greatest tragedies in history.  That’s the true scum – someone who would use such a comparison to bolster their own weak case.

      This is what academia has come to in this country: a leftist, out-of-touch coterie that is intellectually dishonest to the core, unable to understand the basic philosophy of science, and reduced to name calling to defend their increasingly out of touch philosophy.

      I am very, very happy that the imbecile from Maine showed up to post this gem. It illustrates in stark terms just what he has always been, despite his attempts to don the cloak of a “reasonable, moderate” person. He has a lot of nerve dropping in on the people he supposedly engaged with for years just to call them scum.

      And whoever took six weeks in the pool on when he would come back wins. 

    • “That suggests a high probability that humans are part of the cause”

      Only if you do not know any statistics or logic.

    • Is this a joke?

    • Erb, the climate hysteria scientits did change the data. And they threw the origional data away. Are you lying, or ignorant?

    • Which “big money” ?  Do you mean the “big Oil” guys ?
      The CRU e-mails include Shell, Esso, and BP Amoco.  Yeah.  Big Oil is in there alright

  • Its hilarious but when we were ‘cooling’ due to a pollution induced winter, the solution was ironically the same.
     
    A solution in search of a justification.  Should make anyone suspicious at the outset.

  • As Erb shows, the talking point the activists have chosen in response to the emails and this revelation  is  “peer review,” as in “You should only pay attention to peer-reviewed” studies.

    Seriously, how firkin’ dense do you have to be to choose that as your talking point in response to the e-mails detailing the incestuous world of climate-change “peer review” and this information (which has actually been out for a while now, CRU is just making it official).   How can you possibly conduct meaningful peer review without access to the models and the data?  What could you possibly be reviewing?  Spelling? Punctuation?

    No, what was being reviewed, as detailed in the emails, was not the scientific validity of the papers, but the extent that they hewed to the alarmist line.

    • TerryHow can you possibly conduct meaningful peer review without access to the models and the data?  What could you possibly be reviewing?  Spelling? Punctuation? [emphasis orignal - dj505]

      An excellent point that I fear will be lost on most people, and especially in MiniTru.  “Peer review” is a sort of magic phrase that they don’t really understand, but conjures images of exactly what you suggest: teams of white-coated scientists, the various papers spread out in a lab with bubbling beakers, chattering instruments, and flickering Bunsen flames all around, carefully going through every sentence, chart, and table, comparing it to all the other applicable data.  Yes, it was “peer-reviewed”, and we can therefore take it as categorically, incontrovertably, unquestionable TRUE.  Because scientists say so.

      O’ course, as you say, one can’t truly review such work adequately without having the raw data.  Further, peer review rather breaks down when the reviewers are either cowed into rubber-stamping the work or else are handpicked because it’s known a priori that they won’t ask any embarrassing questions.  To put it in terms that even a reporter should be able to understand, consider trying to audit a person’s tax return when all they give you is the completed 1040: no W-2 forms, no bank statements, no receipts, nothing.  Just the completed 1040.  Could you really tell whether or not they filled the form out correctly or honestly?  Now, consider that the person claims that you can trust that his 1040 is complete and correct… because his wife, son, best friends, and personal attorney “reviewed” it and say that it’s A-OK.

      Would you believe that (let’s stipulate that the person is NOT a democrat politician!)?

      I recall the hoopla over the alleged scientific fraud on the part of tobacco companies with regard to manipulating data about the levels and effects of nicotine.  The same people who had no trouble believing that scientists at a tobacco company would lie (“Follow the money!”) now try to convince us that scientists are virtually incapable of dishonesty, and, anyway, the “peer review” of other scientists would identify and purge any false or even questionable data.

  • It seems as if “value-added / quality control” is the terms that they managed to scrounge up as replacements for “Mike’s trick / hide the decline.”

  • This is about an unparalleled scientific scandal and now we’re about to learn what an unparalleled push-back from the “New Science” is like. It’s going to bear a striking resemblance to a Soviet-style “push-back.”

    As usual you can see directly into the Erb fishbowl to get a glimpse of how that’s going to take form in the Party mind. (That is, facts mean nothing. Science is what we want it to be. The Party is everything.) It’s like a parody of Animal Farm.

    But stop for one moment and consider this: Before these revelations, very serious scientists argued that the status quo data (the data as cooked in East Anglia and elsewhere) did not tell the story of Warming that its proponents insisted it told. Scientists like Richard Lindzen and Bob Carter and others were saying that the status quo itself did not lead to the dire conclusions that had been laid out by IPCC insiders and policy makers.

    In fact we now have a decade that falsifies the theory as based on the cooked data. Forget for a moment that there never was a “hockey stick” (refuted twice now in its two incarnations by McIntyre). When the theory was tested against reality over the past decade it failed. Now we know that temperatures 1000 years ago were as high or higher than they are now, hence the inhabitability of Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, and that this was not a phenomenon local to Europe.

    So, in a way, the data cooking itself managed only a superficial case, unconvincing to many very serious scientists.

    But in true geological terms, human civilizations have flourished because of ten thousand years of warming.

    I think that at the end of the day that “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” are in reality an extension of eugenics, which is a desire to manage the herd, an impulse that always has mass homicide as its end sport.