Weird science: East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data

posted at 11:00 am on November 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

When would scientists expecting the world to take them seriously throw out the raw data on which their conclusions are based?  Probably at the same time that they e-mail each other to launch professional vendettas against skeptics and conspire to hide contradictory data.  The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — already in a deep scandal over the e-mails released by either a hacker or a whistleblower that shows highly unscientific behavior behind the scenes — now admits they threw out the raw data on which much of their theories on anthropogenic global warming are based (via Fausta):

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.

So now the only data that other scientists can check are those that have been, er, adjusted by UEA-CRU.  Were those “adjustments” proper?  Did they have a scientific basis for making those adjustments?  Were there any gaps in the data?

We’ll never know now, will we?  And after the release of the e-mails that show UEA-CRU deliberately kneecapping other scientists who dared venture from the heterodoxy and discuss methods of hiding contradictory data and findings, it’s hard to believe that this wasn’t by design rather than carelessness.  After all, without that raw data, the world would have to just take UEA-CRU’s word for it — and until those e-mails got released, it seems that most people would have done so.

Now, though, even some AGW scientists say that the scientists involved in the UEA-CRU scandal have to go.  One of the contributors to the UN IPCC effort, Dr. Eduardo Zorita, says that several of the people involved in the IPCC should be banned, the result of their credibility deficit.  Climate Depot has Zorita’s statement:

CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.

Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.

To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later. I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.

I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As it distills from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.

Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

Zorita’s point is well taken.  The bullying atmosphere in Academia on AGW has ruined the credibility of the effort — and not just at the University of East Anglia.  Any PhD student in the field would have known on which side the bread would be buttered, and would be unlikely to commit career suicide by producing contradictory data.  The actions of the IPCC authors created an atmosphere of groupthink, paranoia, and toadyism, not science or truth.  Any results coming from this arena have to be entirely suspect.

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Trust me.

ignorantapathy on November 29, 2009 at 11:02 AM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

Ed, respectively (and I do mean it) that’s an absurd statement.

You just smeared thousands and thousands of honest, professional researchers, scientists, editors and others who had nothing to do with this unbelievable behavior and probably find it appalling.

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?

Now that is guilt by association.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW. So does Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Now there is no way to scientifically verify their assertions.

CWforFreedom on November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Scientists are hardly idols of perfection. They did build the atomic bombs, perform ghastly experiments on human beings during the Holocaust, created poison gas, and right now help Iran build its nuclear arsenal. While these represent a few in the scientific community, they are enough to undermine any idealism.

In any case, the science could be perfect but the wealth transfer solution is an absolute scam that must be opposed until the bitter end.

KillerKane on November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

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…The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss CRIME following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

There. That’s better.

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

The raw data could have been recovered if the “adjustments” had been recorded carefully. But we have now also seen how undocumented and buggy the programming is.

aikidoka on November 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM

SteveMG guess Mr. Lomborg may too be wrong. At least he is sensible. From his Website:

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world’s temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity’s problems, not just global warming. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

CWforFreedom on November 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?
Now that is guilt by association.
SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM
++++++++++++++++++++++
Yeah. So what’s your point?

fabrexe on November 29, 2009 at 11:12 AM

THE DOG ATE IT.

reliapundit on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

How about:

“Some of the key individuals in the AGW movement….”?

Not only better but more accurate.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Of course they threw out the raw data – it didn’t match the consensus.

Vashta.Nerada on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Scientists are hardly idols of perfection. They did build the atomic bombs,
KillerKane on November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM

The atomic bomb has likely saved far more lives than it has destroyed.

CWforFreedom on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Or dupes.

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM

YOU LIE!!!!

ladyingray on November 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Ed, did you really watch the movie Weird Science or did you just happen to run across a screen capture for the post?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM

whatever they cannot prove now must be thrown out.

and then there’s this:

they lied to other scientists and told them their data didn’t include urban weather stations, but now the release proves it did.

reliapundit on November 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM

I’d also suggest checking out Ron Bailey, a libertarian, and his views on this. He writes for Reason magazine.

He’s a strong supporter of free market solutions to the problem (as he sees it).

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Ed, did you really watch the movie Weird Science or did you just happen to run across a screen capture for the post?

Tom

marinetbryant on November 29, 2009 at 11:14 AM

One of my favorite comedies of the 1980s!

Ed Morrissey on November 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM

East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data

Well, ain’t that convenient?

Ed, respectively (and I do mean it) that’s an absurd statement.

You just smeared thousands and thousands of honest, professional researchers, scientists, editors and others who had nothing to do with this unbelievable behavior and probably find it appalling.

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?

Now that is guilt by association.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Sorry, but they drank the kool-aid. Are they guilty of anything? Probably not, other than hitching their wagons to a failed fraud. But how many of those “faithful” have stated “The debate is over, the science is complete” to shout down skeptics. As well as called them every name in the book for not being “believers” in their new religion.

conservnut on November 29, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I see a future where some equally zealous “scientists” collect new raw data — and come to the exact same conclusions that these frauds did. And fake but accurate becomes just…accurate. People, these con men are not going to let this baby go that easily.

Rational Thought on November 29, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Only one word comes to mind to describe this whole affair:

Flubber.

World leaders must re-evaluate their positions regarding AGW and the attendant costs to society proposed to “fix” it with the knowledge that the base data has been thrown out. Imagine spending trillions of dollars on a plea of “trust me”.

Start over.

BobMbx on November 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

This needs to be on the front page everywhere on earth.

royzer on November 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Trust me, I know what I’m doing.

backwoods conservative on November 29, 2009 at 11:18 AM

I know: I’ll just tell the IRS that I lost my original files — but that’s okay because I have a bunch of adjusted figures for them.

I smell desperation in the CO2.

Aardvark on November 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Why does it have to be a “movement”? Either the earth is warming or not. Either humans are primarily responsible and thus need to revert to the stone age, or we aren’t. It’s a black and white, either/or, kind of question.

We have all just found out that the entire theory of Man-responsible global warming is based on incomplete or even fraudulant data. We basically need to start from scratch with open and non-political measurements to regain any kind of credibility if we are going to restructure our entire living standard over this.

Mord on November 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

what a bunch of bastards.

rob verdi on November 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

THE DOG ATE IT.

reliapundit on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I wonder if that sounds any more convincing in a British accent? Probably not.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 11:20 AM

A statement that someone “believes” in AGW underscores its religious aspect. Perhaps a clearer formulation is, AGW is a theory for which the supporting evidence is speculative and the predictive power is nonexistent.

osogrande on November 29, 2009 at 11:21 AM

The scientist in our household absolutely guarantees me that the original data still exists, however it will not appear unless there is a subpoena. Then a miracle will happen and it will be discovered that the records were misplaced, not destroyed. Something like Hillary’s law firm files suddenly appearing on a table in her personal quarters.

obladioblada on November 29, 2009 at 11:22 AM

How could this have happened on Obama’s watch? How did sheriff Joe miss this one?

obleo on November 29, 2009 at 11:22 AM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

Charles Johnson and the echo chamber known as LGF disagree. Charles was recently spotted at his local pharmacy purchasing copious amounts of dramimine to counter the effects of his spin machine.

Knucklehead on November 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I bet they took the Ws off their keypads, too. : ))

Angry Dumbo on November 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I’d also suggest checking out Ron Bailey, a libertarian, and his views on this. He writes for Reason magazine.

He’s a strong supporter of free market solutions to the problem (as he sees it).

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM

So that makes him an expert on AGW? Really the entire AGW premise defies reason.

docdave on November 29, 2009 at 11:29 AM

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.

Does this qualify them for a Darwin award? :)

Shy Guy on November 29, 2009 at 11:29 AM

No matter the final outcome. No matter who did what and when. The bottom line for me is:

AGW is NOT settled science!

Not even close.

GoldenEagle4444 on November 29, 2009 at 11:29 AM

“very troubling professional behavior” doesn’t quite cut it.

It’s pretty apparent that a consortium of Green zealots including the likes of Gore, GE, and their minions at IPCC collaborated in a gigantic fraud to enrich themselves at everyone elses expense. And the dim bulbs in the MSM were and are too stupid to figure out they’re being conned.

Well screw them and screw their CFLs and LED Lamps. Oh and Ed Begley Jr., to you and your prius driving, kool aid drinking envirowhacko buddies, GFY.

there it is on November 29, 2009 at 11:29 AM

This sounds like a really big story.

Can’t wait to read all the column inches devoted to it in tomorrow’s NYT.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Charles Johnson and the echo chamber known as LGF disagree. Charles was recently spotted at his local pharmacy purchasing copious amounts of dramimine to counter the effects of his spin machine.

Knucklehead on November 29, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Good one. LGF = Little Green Foibles

Geochelone on November 29, 2009 at 11:33 AM

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of.

Wait… this has a familiar ring to it…

“The documents are fake, but what they say is true…”

Skywise on November 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

It’s pretty clear at this point that we need to have some type of “Team A vs. Team B” analysis that the CIA had in the seventies to judge our intelligence on the Soviet Union.

There is simply no way we can enact the type of far-reaching legislation that proponents of AGW want with these many questions about the basic science.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Here is some real raw data from an article I found — it is worth reading

Open letter to Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

I found that the National Weather service had been formed in 1870 and that in that year a weather station had been placed on the roof of the Customs House in
Baltimore Harbor. That station had produced a continuous temperature record for 138 years. I downloaded the data and plotted the average annual temperatures for those years. I found that 1871 had been slightly warmer than 2008, but that there was no discernable warming or cooling trend over that time. During that time the world’s population grew fivefold. I did this analysis carefully, within a single afternoon. It led me to conclude that, if global warming is indeed happening, Baltimore has somehow been exempted. Or, alternatively, that the climate changes that have been observed in some places are regional, and not global. This experience leads directly to my recommendation.

iam7545 on November 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

So that makes him an expert on AGW? Really the entire AGW premise defies reason

It indicates to me that the entire AGW “movement” or “cause” or whatever one wants to call it isn’t made up of crooks or scientific zealots.

They may be wrong but that doesn’t mean they’re all corrupt.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Charles Johnson and the echo chamber known as LGF disagree. Charles was recently spotted at his local pharmacy purchasing copious amounts of dramimine to counter the effects of his spin machine.

Interesting isn’t it? Charles Johnson is now becoming Dan Rather.

tastes like chicken on November 29, 2009 at 11:37 AM

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.

You have to be kidding! The proof, for all that came after, was dumped.
Scientists destroyed the proof.
Some scientists!

donh525 on November 29, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Zorita says: “…Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process…because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

If thier future work ca not be trusted and if we know that their scientific misdeeds have gone on for years, then surely all past IPCC assessments. they have participated in can not be trusted either

DamnCat on November 29, 2009 at 11:38 AM

What is all the hub-bub? The science is settled.

Its not like they threw out tax return information – They needed room for God’s sake.

Can’t you people just accept that this is what will increase your tax bill and hinder your pursuit to hapiness? Please just get over it and do your patriotic duty by allowing the government to “Spread the wealth”.

What a bunch of babies you are. Don’t you know that you stole all the wealth that you have and what you have left needs to be given to someone in a hut?

Gee-whiz, the press is right about you conservatives. How greedy can you guys be?

blaque jacques on November 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

And the American press refuses to cover the story of the century…

d1carter on November 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Why does it have to be a “movement”?
Mord on November 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Well, simply because “movements” are, by definition, political.

I think that was Ed’s point in saying the “AGW movement” Not the so-called “climate science” per se, but the political lemming-migration that it increasingly appears that AGW is. The “movement” is based on a fraud, and, thanks to processes described by Dr. Zorita, has found avenues by which to increase its aura of respectability. Follow the money, as they say.

mr.blacksheep on November 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM

As someone in the IT industry, I find find the “we threw away the raw data” excuse pure bullshit. The data is the most important of possessions. Equipment can be replaced. Programs can be reinstalled. Your personal data can be lost forever. Think of your relationship with your PC. The LAST thing you want to lose is what makes that machine uniquely yours. These “scientists” should have been guarding their data with multiple back-ups…. not disposing of it to make room. If they could afford to be moving to a new or different facility, they could afford to safe guard the data. I don’t believe a word of it!

Storybec on November 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Let us not forget the media that gladly colluded with fraud because it fit their political agenda.

and to all the douches that say so and so believes, who cares. Data talks bullshit walks.

Lonetown on November 29, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

Ed, respectively (and I do mean it) that’s an absurd statement.

You just smeared thousands and thousands of honest, professional researchers, scientists, editors and others who had nothing to do with this unbelievable behavior and probably find it appalling.

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?

Now that is guilt by association.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Dear SteveMG,

Do you notice any particular words in your summary that are not in Ed’s original? Do you know what a “straw man” argument is?

fronclynne on November 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM

There is no manmade global warming. Man cannot replicate 1/100th the power of a sunspot or a volcano and for damn sure has not and will not unless we get into a nuclear war and I have just as many facts to back up my assertions as do the Global Baloney Propagandists.
In addtion to which I haven’t tried to stifle dissent, shut up or shut down the oppostion or alter my data!

This whole scam is discusting and the supporters of AGW should be laughed out of the room. This is politics not science and our politics is getting people killed and under Pinnochio turning us into a third rate, third world like country!
Shame on all who attempt to silence oppostion, stifle dissent and hide facts! In another time and another day they would be tarred and feathered!

dhunter on November 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Why does it have to be a “movement”?
Mord on November 29, 2009 at 11:19 AM

It’s a bowel “movement”.

VegasRick on November 29, 2009 at 11:44 AM

It indicates to me that the entire AGW “movement” or “cause” or whatever one wants to call it isn’t made up of crooks or scientific zealots.

They may be wrong but that doesn’t mean they’re all corrupt.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

“They may be wrong”
Well, why exactly are they wrong. If not corrupt, just stupid , willfully ignorant, misled by their own research, or what?

donh525 on November 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM

SteveMG, I totally agree; “..that doesn’t mean they’re all corrupt”. And, when you give it serious thought, it was by design that only a handful participated in the “adjustments” that influenced the rest.

Perhaps only 1% were involved in the bogus numbers. Had the number of fakers been any higher, surely one of them would have blown the whistle or taken some action that would have – quite innocently – let the cat out of the bag.

As the man said “you’ve got to believe in something” and right now I’m thinking the vast majority trusted their brethren’s data and took it from there. They really had no reason not to, and duplicating their research would have been very costly, time consuming and counter-productive to what they all feel is a legitimate cause.

GoldenEagle4444 on November 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Even with all of this REAL NEWS hitting the blog-O-sphere, very little has changed. This has to hit the MSM to make an impact on the average Joe who spends more time watching crappy sitcoms than reading sites like Hot Air…OR worse yet, who’s kids are being brainwashed by public schools and mass-media/entertainment outlets like Disney. Any of you with kids actually sit down and watch the crap that is on Disney now?

saltyrover on November 29, 2009 at 11:45 AM

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

And further: ALL climate science is tainted, at this point. AGW is shown to be a fraud. After this, all the believers are indeed guilty of perpetuating the hoax.

fronclynne on November 29, 2009 at 11:47 AM

“The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.”

Seperation of Church and State, please…

Seven Percent Solution on November 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM

They may be wrong but that doesn’t mean they’re all corrupt.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:36 AM

No it means that many are useful idiots and to do research that may counter AGW. I always thought that scientists saw certain results and challenged them instead of sheepishly going along with the flock.

thomasaur on November 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW. So does Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Thats neither here nor there. If Lomberg and Bailey were basing their conclusions on the garbage put out by CRU or IPCC, they are innocent of wrong doing, but their conclusions are based on the same crap. garbage in = garbage out. No one’s to blame but the ones who selected the what garbage to put in.

Itchee Dryback on November 29, 2009 at 11:49 AM

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.

Okay, let me get this straight, we have a group of “Scientists” (from the evidence at hand, this is using the term loosely) That are expecting the redistribution of Trillions of dollars, the destruction of basic freedoms, and the ruining of whole economies.

Based on data, they SIMPLY THREW OUT?

Juno77 on November 29, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I’m thinking the vast majority trusted their brethren’s data and took it from there. They really had no reason not to, and duplicating their research would have been very costly, time consuming and counter-productive to what they all feel is a legitimate cause.

Sure, that sounds to me like a more likely scenario.

The history of science that I’ve read shows that when errors were made that something along those lines occurred.

A sort of bureaucratic inertia set in along with human laziness, bias…et cetera.

Science is objective; scientists aren’t.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM

“The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.”

And gore is god!!

Little g’s folks.

donh525 on November 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

GEORGE ORWELL, 1984

miles on November 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

When does Al Gore get thrown out? Of the galaxy, I mean?

Bishop on November 29, 2009 at 11:53 AM

East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data

The dog ate my homework.

JohnGalt23 on November 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM

What’s Fenstermaker’s take on this?

JammieWearingFool on November 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I think the biggest problem with this story is that UEA and CRU are being detached from the IPCC. People don’t understand the underlying connections and relationships between these groups, which makes it look like some random university program went off the rails when in reality, it has very deep implications for the entire AGW movement and the IPCC.

The Calibur on November 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

You just smeared thousands and thousands of honest, professional researchers, scientists, editors and others who had nothing to do with this unbelievable behavior and probably find it appalling.

All of the people who believe in AGW are either frauds or zealots?

Now that is guilt by association.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Then let them explain themselves. Otherwise I have no sympathy.

Jim Treacher on November 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

How about:
“Some of the key individuals in the AGW movement….”?
Not only better but more accurate.
SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:13 AM

It should be: “Some of the key individuals in the AGW movement….”? That Bullied others into following a politically motivated consensus.

Juno77 on November 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Storybec on November 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

>

Storybec, I’m a server administrator for a small company. The DATA is the lifeblood of the enterprise. Data retention and protection is the name of the game!
>
Their data isn’t lost. One or more of those “scientists” has it locked away in a safe deposit box. I conclude that the raw data is too damning for release.

Metanis on November 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The science is settled – it is whatever we tell you is. Leave research to the professionals.

TinMan13 on November 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I’m thinking the vast majority trusted their brethren’s data and took it from there. They really had no reason not to, and duplicating their research would have been very costly, time consuming and counter-productive to what they all feel is a legitimate cause.

Some of their brethren were producing data in direct opposition to the majority and it was being totally ignored by the pious AGW believers.
The AGW scientists were not innocent here, not a single one!

donh525 on November 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM

If the hackers discovered information that conclusively proved beyond a doubt that AGW was in fact true, would the American media be this quiet? Something’s fishy in Denmark…

d1carter on November 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Ed, your post has not been peer reviewed yet so it means nothing. Find someone who agrees with you and have them take a look at it. Oh, wait I just read it and agree so it is now peer reviewed. It is excellent and 100% accurate.

kahall on November 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

I’ll withhold judgment until The Goracle speaks. I’m sure that Al will have all kinds of excuses for “the dog ate our raw data”. Bad dog. Bad.

Hey, perhaps Al can spare a few million to recoup the raw data. After all, didn’t he tell Congress that he’s all for plugging his earnings back into AGW.

GarandFan on November 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I keep getting hung up on this term “I believe in AGW.”

Is AGW a religion or philosophy to be “believed” in? Is it an all-or-nothing proposition that one must subscribe to in order to avoid the label of denier?

Here is what I believe. I believe that saying “I believe in AGW” is an intellectually vapid statement that requires extensive qualification to become anything more than fan-boy cheerleading of a cause. You could say “I believe that humankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is increasing global temperatures.” That would be a specific belief not vague enough to be thrown on the junk heap, but still about as useful and informative as “I believe in tides.”

We’re talking about science here, so what do you really believe? Do you believe that humankinds contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to cause dangerous increases in temperature across the globe in the next twenty years? Fifty years? Hundred years? When you lay out what you think the problem is and why you think it’s a problem, you then have drawn lines in the science that can be addressed and must be defended. That is harder than just saying “I believe,” which is why not many are willing to do it. But that is the kind of specific statement we need in order to achieve anything approaching an agreement upon required actions.

This isn’t some drama where Kevin Costner gets to explain to the president what he believes is going to happen and where the special effects geniuses then proceed to make it so. This is real life with real consequences, where American lives will be impacted. We have to do what is best for us, and what is best for us is to ensure that our decisions are made on the best possible science.

Anything coming from CRU is poison now until proved otherwise. Anything based, in part or in whole, on information that came from CRU is suspect. Anyone who has worked with, collaborated with or in any other way been influenced by CRU must now either re-validate their work through untainted sources or withdraw it. Anyone who works in the field of climatology or any of its more specialized branches should now seriously reconsider whether they are capable of being a fierce defender of truth and the scientific method, or if they are too compromised to continue as a scientist and should find other work.

It is obvious to me now that everyone involved in this line of work has been tainted to some degree, whether by active involvement or simply by keeping their heads down while others corrupted the science. Where do you find a reformer in this drek? Who can we trust to re-dedicate this field of science to pursuit of truth, rather than to just salvage the money train?

Immolate on November 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

Guilty.

JammieWearingFool on November 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM

East Anglia has always been at war with…

Sorry. Someone was eventually going to say it (if they haven’t already). Funny thing is, the comparison is actually apt.

techno_barbarian on November 29, 2009 at 12:05 PM

[..]
These “scientists” should have been guarding their data with multiple back-ups…. not disposing of it to make room. If they could afford to be moving to a new or different facility, they could afford to safe guard the data. I don’t believe a word of it!

Storybec on November 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM

They claim some of it is from the 80′s and 90′s and they could not find any floopy disks so they had to throw it all away for space for a new desk or something.

kahall on November 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I keep hearing the band Rush’s “The Temples Of Syrinx” while all of this is playing out.

“Just think about the average. What use have they for you?”

The global warmening priests just got defrocked.

Next week the US media should start pulling it’s head out of it’s ass, at least a little bit, and this story will begin to really snowball, much like it is in the UK.

Good times…

techno_barbarian on November 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

I’ve been curious as to way so many were so quick to check their skepticism and then I read this which provided the answer:

“In 1905, French mathematician and scientist Henri Poincaré said that the willingness to embrace pseudo-science flourished because people “know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether illusion is not more consoling … The bottom line: Pseudo-science preys on well-intentioned people who, motivated by love for their kids, become vulnerable to one of the world’s oldest professions. Enter the snake-oil salesman.”

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2009 at 12:09 PM

One cannot reason away sound science no matter what field you are in. The belief in AGW is BASED ON CORRUPTED RESEARCH therefore people who believe in AGW are not believers in sound science.. Toss the research and start over, with the proper protocols in place to produce verifiable results backed by peer reviews supporting the results from all sides of the debate.

canditaylor68 on November 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

What’s Fenstermaker’s take on this?

JammieWearingFool on November 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM

He blames George Bush.

SilverStar830 on November 29, 2009 at 12:10 PM

This is like the hand that is inside the box. Tere is a switch, the hand turns the switch on and off. What is the reason for government subsidized existence of these so called scientific institutions?

These so called scientist are trying to make themselves “Necessary” is that what is at the bottom of this? It would take a crisis to the entire planet to justify there employment by so many governments around the world -otherwise they would see their budgets cut? At the bottom of this whole global hoax – scam are just “humans” acting out of self interest?

This is Poor Science on a Global Scale. Odd though that people thought of as geeks, don’t get how the internet works – mass communication, and how the same, would eventually out them SEE “emails”

Dr Evil on November 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Raw data is never thrown out, and backup copies are made in multiples. When I worked in pharmaceutics, I could get a lab notebook from the 1940s if I wanted.

The key to the scientific method is repeatability. Within a narrow range of error, results have to match in the 1,000th experiment with the first (like when American astronauts tested Galileo’s theory of gravitational acceleration on the moon).

What happened at CRU was purposeful, to prevent proper examination of a conclusion reached by consensus. The actual science just got in the way, so the threat had to be removed.

Those responsible would, under normal peer review boards, have every one of their previous papers called into question, maybe also their doctoral theses. As for any future ones? They might never be published again if this travesty happened in a different field.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 12:11 PM

Then let them explain themselves. Otherwise I have no sympathy.

They’re guilty until they prove their innocence?

You can lead that parade if you want but I’ll be sitting on the sidelines.

I’m sure you’ve read the history of science, right? About incredible errors and misjudgments, entire civilizations built upon fundamental errors?

Why did that happen?

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM

If the hackers discovered information that conclusively proved beyond a doubt that AGW was in fact true, would the American media be this quiet? Something’s fishy in Denmark…
d1carter on November 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM

But then again, they would have been motivated to release the raw data and analysis methods if that was the case, right?

That alone should speak volumes on the matter.

Juno77 on November 29, 2009 at 12:15 PM

The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — already in a deep scandal over the e-mails released by either a hacker or a whistleblower

This is quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine. Aside from persistent repitition of the words hacked and hacker, is there any evidence that a hack actually took place? Is there any statement from CRU that gives any detail whatsoever of the hacking?

Whoever released those files knew what they were after when they took them, and we really have no idea how they were taken. This points to an insider, and that person is a whistleblower, even if they also happen to be a hacker or working with a hacker.

The cries of “You can’t read that and I can’t talk about it It’s illegal!!!” are utter nonsense, particularly considering the complete lack of evidence that any crime was committed. You’re supposed to be scientists. Put on your big boy pants and defend your work, or shut up and resign in disgrace. One way or another, there’s an awful lot on the line. The planet, it’s economies, etc… We should talk.

Pablo on November 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW. So does Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM

An odd choice of words. Sounds religious to me.

Johan Klaus on November 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Bjorn Lomborg believes in AGW. So does Ron Bailey at Reason Magazine.

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM

And therin lies the problem – its a matter of belief, not science. Does anyone “believe in” water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen ? Or that its freezing point is 32 degrees Fahrenheit? Or that air moving over an airfoil creates lift? Or .. or … or any of a million things that aren’t a matter of belief, but of fact? Personally, I don’t care who “believes” in Global Warming, no one has yet proved anything about this pagan religious tenet.

Filecchio on November 29, 2009 at 12:19 PM

They’re guilty until they prove their innocence?

SteveMG on November 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM

THIS. IS. SCIENCE!

Not criminal law.

So YEAH, their hypothesis are FAKE until they prove them. They destroyed their data.

In fact, they went out of their way to destroy their data.

I’m well versed in the history of science. That’s why you KEEP THE DATA.

Skywise on November 29, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6