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 4 5 6

Rod Tidwell: Are you listenin’?
Jerry Maguire: Yes!
Rod Tidwell: That’s what I’m gonna do for you: God bless you, Jerry. But this is what you gonna do for me. You listenin’, Jerry?
Jerry Maguire: Yeah, what, what, what can I do for you, Rod? You just tell me what can I do for you?
Rod Tidwell: It’s a very personal, a very important thing. Hell, it’s a family motto. Are you ready, Jerry?
Jerry Maguire: I’m ready.
Rod Tidwell: I wanna make sure you’re ready, brother.
Here it is:
Show me the data. Oh-ho-ho! SHOW! ME! THE! DATA! A-ha-ha!

Jerry, doesn’t it make you feel good just to say that! Say it with me one time, Jerry.
Jerry Maguire: Show you the data.
Rod Tidwell: Oh, no, no. You can do better than that, Jerry! I want you to say it with, with meaning, brother! Hey, I got Bob Sugar on the other line; I bet you he can say it!
Jerry Maguire: Yeah, yeah, no, no, no. Show you the data.
Rod Tidwell: No! Not show you! Show me the data!
Jerry Maguire: Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: Yeah! Louder!
Jerry Maguire: Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: Yes, but, brother, you got to yell that sh*t!
Jerry Maguire: Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: I need to feel you, Jerry!
Jerry Maguire: Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: Jerry, you got to yell!
Jerry Maguire: [screaming] Show me the data! Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: Do you love this black man!
Jerry Maguire: I love the black man! Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: I love black people.
Jerry Maguire: I love black people!
Rod Tidwell: Who’s your motherf***er, Jerry?
Jerry Maguire: You’re my motherf***er!
Rod Tidwell: Whatcha gonna do, Jerry?
Jerry Maguire: Show me the data!
Rod Tidwell: Unh! Congratulations, you’re still my newspaper.

papertiger on November 29, 2009 at 4:52 PM

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

It was only a matter of time…

Grafted on November 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Romeo13 on November 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Getting HIV is almost an ‘honor’ on the Left.

It’s Klaatu, Verada, nick-toe.

Don’t go into that graveyard without it!

Yes, I’m a fan of Army of Darkness. Ash is one of the best movie characters ever!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

I bet it still is around … Remeber it was collated from weather stations all over the world from hard copy …

tarpon on November 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Yes, I’m a fan of Army of Darkness. Ash is one of the best movie characters ever!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Shop smart, Shop S-Mart….

!!

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Shop smart, Shop S-Mart….

!!

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 4:56 PM

Touche!

~falls over laughing~

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 4:57 PM

I’ve been scanning the media for signs of this story, and apparently not one American MSM outlet has written anything about the raw data being destroyed. I’ve found foreign media, conservative media, and blogs – not even an AP blurb so far that I can find.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Take this instance (deleting data). Storing terabytes of data is extremely expensive. We are constantly under pressure to delete data to save the taxpayers’ money. I’d love to be able to keep every single data set, but that’s an inefficient strategy. For the most part I toil in obscurity, but should I ever become high profile I can see a blog posting here or elsewhere accusing me of some deep dark conspiratorial behaviour.

zmrzlina on November 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Mr.zmrzlina;
If what you are doing (deleting data) would disqualify you from participation in a Junior High School Science fair I think it’s safe to say it’s bad Scientific Method on the most basic level. No poster needs to be Climate Scientist to recognise that.

There are a good many of posters here who have a better than pedestrian grasp of some branch of science and we can understand when science is being conducted to prove a belief, not a test a hypothesis. When you are not allowed to question a belief it certainly seems more like a religion than science, and Yes it has been a “cash cow” for a select few – those pushing the belief.

Transparency is not a double edged sword – it is not a sword at all and shame on you for thinking suggesting that. Just like Junior High, you better be prepared to show your data & communicate your results.

batterup on November 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I’ve been scanning the media for signs of this story, and apparently not one American MSM outlet has written anything about the raw data being destroyed. I’ve found foreign media, conservative media, and blogs – not even an AP blurb so far that I can find.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

No surprise there. But the media aren’t the end-all and be-all. We have our moments at the water cooler in the morning.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM

zmrzlina on November 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Wow. In the time between me reading your post and responding to it, you really got jumped on! Now, I (almost) feel bad for adding to the blows. :) I hope you aren’t too bruised and breathless to come back and participate another day because without contrary opinions politely stated there’s no debate, and without debate truth rapidly fades from view.

YiZhangZhe on November 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

You folks can feel free to pile on the IPCC, the UN and CRU’s policies, but I hope you don’t take it so far that you venture into scientific judgment on things you know nothing about.

zmrzlina on November 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Scrape the crap off your shoe, because you just stepped in a load of your own.

You might be surprised how many actual scientists and technologists you just addressed on HA with that comment.

I’m betting that a number of people here probably know and understand more about the earth’s extreme climate variations in it’s early history (late Archean through mid-Proterozoic to late-Paleozoic) than you have ever bothered to address. The sediments attest to the extreme and rapid climate variations.

The climate changes we are seeing now; we’ve been there many, many times before. Carbon dioxide level variations of an extreme nature are common, prior to human existence, yet seemed to be ignored by climate scientists when they discuss their precious models.

As far as data retention of a scientific nature, hell, my bookcase has personal notebooks with field notes and mapping from all the way back to 1962.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

I’ve been scanning the media for signs of this story, and apparently not one American MSM outlet has written anything about the raw data being destroyed. I’ve found foreign media, conservative media, and blogs – not even an AP blurb so far that I can find.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

The MSM engages in the same delinquency that these scientists did at CRU. Both the MSM and the CRU ignored data because it failed to fit their template–the earth is warming, man caused it, and man must pay for it. If it doesn’t fit that template, it either gets deleted or willfully ignored.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Did you know that CRU and GISS get 90% to 95% of their data from the same surface stations, the same raw data, the same code, the same adjustments, and the same dodge.
You can’t look at their stuff. It’s a secret.

It’s secret science.

What’s worse, the US government, through the Global Change Research Act of 1990, created a bureau called the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) with the sole purpose of “adjusting” the satellite and radiosonde temperature records until they were in agreement with the GISS/CRU crap.

SHOW ME THE DATA!

papertiger on November 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Reagan said it best: America begins at the supper table.

We don’t need the MSM in the end. They’re an extension, far as we allow them, of what we do together every day one-on-one. Hell, the Dems put out a paper about that Republican at the table at Thanksgiving.

Screw the MSM. They’re as invalid as those jokers at CRU.

Guess what? WE won, because the libs are liars and we nailed them to floor.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Have they cancelled Copenhagen yet?

What a joke that’s going to be…and the biggest joke of all will be there too.

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

papertiger on November 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

of course we can’t see the data, we obviously couldn’t be trusted with such secrets as temperature records —what would we peasants do with such information…

//s

Say hello to my boomstick!

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

I hope you aren’t too bruised and breathless to come back and participate another day because without contrary opinions politely stated there’s no debate, and without debate truth rapidly fades from view.

YiZhangZhe on November 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

The comment that was made:

“…but I hope you don’t take it so far that you venture into scientific judgment on things you know nothing about.”

…was not a wise way to approach a group of posters when not being totally certain of their academic or professional experience. Not wise, nor polite.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Have they cancelled Copenhagen yet?

What a joke that’s going to be…and the biggest joke of all will be there too.

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Nope, Copenhagen is their last chance to force Green Socialism on us… before the proletariate wakes up.

Romeo13 on November 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Hmmm… Ashe a Jefersonian?

“Good, Bad, I’m the one with the gun…”

Romeo13 on November 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

what would we peasants do with such information…

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Think for ourselves, which isn’t to be allowed. Just ask the libs who post here.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM

How exactly can you have a peer-reviewed paper if the raw data was destroyed? Also, how can you have peer review when some of the data has always been kept hidden? Apparently, true peer review has been missing for a very long time.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM

“…but I hope you don’t take it so far that you venture into scientific judgment on things you know nothing about.”
zmzrlina

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Yoop; I guess our collective response is that no one should venture into scientific judgment on things that neither they, nor we, know anything about.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Hmmm… Ashe a Jefersonian?

“Good, Bad, I’m the one with the gun…”

Romeo13 on November 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Now that you mention it, I think Ashe was a Jeffersonian. He was a common guy, with uncommon events thrust up around him and he performed well.

Whodathunk that “Army of Darkness” would be an iconic classic for liberty and freedom replete with awesome quotes that we conservatives can invoke and a bevy of heinous villains that we can cast as our favorite liberal villains.

“Yo, she-bitch! (Nancy Pelosi), Let’s go…”

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

zmrzlina on November 29, 2009 at 2:52 PM

I thought this comment was tongue in cheek. The main clues to me were his holding up the widely discredited James Hansen as someone whose word is to be taken at face value, and his whopper that

Storing terabytes of data is extremely expensive.

And this:

We are constantly under pressure to delete data to save the taxpayers’ money.

And this

I’d love to be able to keep every single data set, but that’s an inefficient strategy.

strategy? a scientist would have said practice,

For the most part I toil in obscurity, but should I ever become high profile I can see a blog posting here or elsewhere accusing me of some deep dark conspiratorial behaviour.

Not from me. I salute your comedic genius.

Basilsbest on November 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Where are the abusive libs who post here to defend all this?

Oh, wait! I know how they will.

It was once considered the Earth is flt, so this scandal no longer matters because of a something done 500 years ago!

As simplesimon does, it’s ‘unfair’ to mention Islamic terror because of the Crusades!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Charles Dawson (Al Gore’s predecessor) was an amateur British archaeologist who is credited and blamed with discoveries that turned out to be imaginative frauds, including that of the Piltdown man.

The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
(The Church of Global Warming says the earth is heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming and it’s High Priests)
- Ferdinand Magellan

Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
— Friedrich Nietzsche

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on November 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

They didn’t even need to store the original data. All they need is the meta data … the data that describes which original data was in the original files. One can then go back and get the original files from the original sources.

Apparently they are saying that

A: they lost the data and
B: they lost the descriptions of the data data

So now they can’t even go back to the original sources and get new copies of the files.

Losing the original data is no problem if you have an inventory of what it consisted of. You can then go back to the various sources and request replacement of the missing files. The scope of this loss is well beyond simply losing some data.

crosspatch on November 29, 2009 at 5:23 PM

It’s time for us to get a couple things straight in this fight. We know the other side fights dirty and makes things up out of whole cloth. With that in mind, can we:

1. Stop calling these people “scientists” regardless of what they call themselves

2: Stop calling their climate change schtick “science”

These people and their lunatic theories make a mockery out of real scientists and real science. We need not lend then any legitimacy by calling them anything other than the lunatic fringe that they are.

Thanks.

t.ferg on November 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

MB4 on November 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

From the Bible, which libs never dare speak: “Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.”

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Heb 11:1

nice one.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

These people and their lunatic theories make a mockery out of real scientists and real science. We need not lend then any legitimacy by calling them anything other than the lunatic fringe that they are.

Thanks.

t.ferg on November 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

The Branch Carbonian Cult?

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM

For your aural delectation the Show me the Data song!

Show Me The Data!
words and music by Greg Crowther

Information all around –
Some is bad, and some is sound.
How can I decide which statements to accept?
There’s a logical recourse:
Locate each primary source,
So conflicting sets of rumors can be checked.

CHORUS:
Show me the data.
You’ve got to show me the data.
If you don’t show me the data,
Then how will I know?
Show me the data.
You’ve got to show me the data.
If you don’t show me the data,
Then how will I know?

Is that candidate a jerk?
Does this toothpaste really work?
We must gather all the facts and then decide.
If there’s truth in what you say,
Let me see Exhibit A.
Then my thirst for details will be satisfied.

CHORUS
Show me the data.
You’ve got to show me the data.
If you don’t show me the data,
Then how will I know?
Show me the data.
You’ve got to show me the data.
If you don’t show me the data,
Then how will I know?

papertiger on November 29, 2009 at 5:28 PM

just more proof, that ‘science’ has become a cult.

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I don’t need to show you underlings any data! I am Al Gore, the Imperial Master of Global Warming Science! Knell before Zod Gore!

MB4 on November 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

from americanthinker.com. Comment submitted on essay by JR Dunn on AGS.

Posted by: Critical Focus Nov 29, 12:56 PM

——————————————————————————–

Excellent article. Here are several thoughts from an old classically-trained (ie. actually using the Scientific Method) Ph.D. scientist (immunopathology):

Anthropogenic global warming, from what I’ve read and studied, is most likely a fraud.

In part, climatology suffers from being an observational science rather than an experimental science. Hypotheses can be made, data collected and analyzed, and conclusions drawn in experimental sciences. Most importantly, a hallmark of these sciences is the ability of other scientists to perform the same experiments and get the same results. Not so in observational sciences.

The publish or perish, grant-dependent nature of academic science is also, in part, to blame. Responsible scientists often fail to challenge crappy science because the crappy scientist may be on the editorial committee of a peer-reviewed journal or on the grant review board or on the academic’s tenure review committee. It’s a “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” mentaility.

Beyond the obvious, devastating economic consequences of the global warming fraud, I’m particularly concerned that it is destroying the value of responsible scientists of all disciplines as they are tarred with the same bush as these irresponsible climatologists. True science is part of what has allowed America to grow so rapidly into the most advanced nation in history.

Lastly, when religious-like fervor, zealotry, and political (social engineering) objectives get substituted as science, as they frequently are in global warming and other environmental “sciences”, they start with the desired conclusion and work backwards to make the “data” prove their creed. That’s not science and the result is what we’re seeing with the whole global warming debacle.

Many others, Ed included, are concluding that AGW is promoted using religious like fervor. This does nothing to diminish religion in its rightful place, but does everything to diminish this branch of science.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

My seventh grade science teacher, (botany) actually showed the class, his notebooks from his science classes in Jr. High school. His class room appeared to be significantly smaller than it was because he had boxes of records stacked against the south wall. The one important thing I learned in that class was, scientists always save their data. We had a fire alarm and everybody had to carry a box.

Slowburn on November 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I have come to believe that these jokers WANT the planet to burn up. It’s the only way they’ll be ‘validated’.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

just more proof, that ’science’ has become a cult.

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

And more proof that great minds think alike!

The Other McCain on November 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

And where are the trolls? I want them to defend this.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Not from me. I salute your comedic genius.

Basilsbest on November 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

I would have believed comedic genius, but I caught a whiff-of-liberal in there.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

they’d rather be right than to do the right thing. What an immature position to take. If the left can’t use reason, logic and rational debate to present and defend their arguments, then their arguments have already failed the public peer review process.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

And more proof that great minds think alike!

The Other McCain on November 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

great article!!

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

1. Stop calling these people “scientists” regardless of what they call themselves

t.ferg on November 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

The very first thing to do is to cease paying them as scientists, and cut off all grants. THAT will get their attention.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

just more proof, that ’science’ has become a cult.

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

this branch of science has become a cult. There are far more scientists out there who behave ethically than these CRU clowns. These guys are snake oil salesmen amongst pharmacists….

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

I’d like to see these CRU guys detenured–or untenured, or stripped of tenure, or whatever the hell it’s called.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

they’d rather be right than to do the right thing. What an immature position to take. If the left can’t use reason, logic and rational debate to present and defend their arguments, then their arguments have already failed the public peer review process.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

So their last resort is slander, without backing evidence as we’ve seen.

I’m just in mood to call them on their endless shit. Since this mess is fake, and the libs here bought into it, all else they say is also under scrutiny. They’ll never admit that, but this is a big Gotcha! for me.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM

DR. FLETCHER
Kathryn, you know he can’t possibly
know that. You’re a rational person.
You’re a trained psychiatrist. You
know the difference between what’s real
and what’s not.

RAILLY
And what we believe is what’s accepted as
“truth” now, isn’t it, Owen? Psychiatry –
it’s the latest religion. And we’re the
priests — we decide what’s right and what’s
wrong –we decide who’s crazy and who isn’t. …

I’m in trouble, Owen. I’m losing my faith.

12 Monkeys, 1994

TheBigOldDog on November 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

you out there, simon? Bleeds Blue? Any lib, any of you?

the sandbox is open. Any takers?

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:45 PM

And where are the trolls? I want them to defend this.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

This is a scary thought, but is it remotely possible that even the trolls sense that this one has gone a bridge to far and is difficult to defend and spin, even for them?

Would getalife say “The adults have left the room”?

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

this branch of science has become a cult. There are far more scientists out there who behave ethically than these CRU clowns. These guys are snake oil salesmen amongst pharmacists….

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:40 PM

I can think of two other areas of science that are cultish..darwinism and string theory.

what I find interesting though is I would bet these global warming nut-cases are all evolutionists….and if they really beleived in evolution, then why would they worry? animals will just evolve, and if they don’t…too bad…they’re not fit enough to survive.

but instead, they treat the world more like a creationist would….in that we cannot replace things like the polar bear…

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

This is a scary thought, but is it remotely possible that even the trolls sense that this one has gone a bridge to far and is difficult to defend and spin, even for them?

Would getalife say “The adults have left the room”?

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

They just got snagged on this, which is ammunition against them. I mention the War on Terror, they bring up the Crusades.

They got nailed here, so it can be used to attack them on everything they believe. I say that’s why no libs have commented on this string.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM

The libs are notoriously absent from these threads because we are basking in the sweet emotion of vindication that they longed to feel. How would they achieve that you ask? Liam alluded to it earlier….and it doesn’t look good for the home team.

I have come to believe that these jokers WANT the planet to burn up. It’s the only way they’ll be ‘validated’.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM

So for all these years these guys didn’t let anybody look at their raw data…and now that it’s time to produce it at last they get around to admitting that they threw it away years ago.

You know, if millions of taxpayer dollars weren’t changing hands and legislation designed to kneecap capitalist economies around there world weren’t sitting in congresses and parliaments all across the globe this would take on the sheen of high comedy.

manofaiki on November 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Does anyone want to buy Air Force One from me? I will give you a good price. I even had a deed for it once but threw it away but never mind that as you can trust me.

MB4 on November 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Excellent points.

but instead, they treat the world more like a creationist would….in that we cannot replace things like the polar bear…

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM

The reason they treat the world like a creationist would is that they elevate “The World” or “The Environment” to a deity. It is their god, one that replaces the one, true God as something they worship. The zeal they bring to the debate, the passion, the charges of heresy leveled against us skeptics are simply a page out of the Inquisition–same chapter and verse with regards to the tactics used.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

I’d like to see these CRU guys detenured–or untenured, or stripped of tenure, or whatever the hell it’s called.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Removing tenure, once bestowed, is so difficult that you would have a better chance at getting an agreement for a public hanging or a firing squad.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

siiiimon?

Blue?

Fins?

Where are you?

And don’t try saying you have lives. You don’t, but are watching all this and twisting in your unwanted winds.

C’mon! Gimme some lovin’!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Removing tenure, once bestowed, is so difficult that you would have a better chance at getting an agreement for a public hanging or a firing squad.

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

okay, option 2 sounds better.

right shoulder, ARMS!

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

And don’t try saying you have lives. You don’t, but are watching all this and twisting in your unwanted winds.

C’mon! Gimme some lovin’!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

maybe henry waxman and nancy pelosi are having a conference call to put out their weekly talking points. Conversely, maybe there are Obama inauguration reruns on Cspan since this is a weekend of giving thanks, why not give thanks to a most historical inaguration.//s//

maybe its time to break out the obama quotes on his climate change plans.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

very true!

right4life on November 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM

maybe its time to break out the obama quotes

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Oh, you mean the sound of crickets?

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Obama on climate “change” during UN summit. Sounds like he’s obviously a “believer.” Sorry for the torment
*******************************

Good morning. I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating. That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it – boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.” It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day. It is a new era. And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy – an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years. Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits – projects that are creating new jobs and new industries. We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances – helping American families save money on energy bills in the process. We’ve proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks – a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil. We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects. We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country. Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge. And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before. In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States. In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas. We’ve worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world. And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

maybe its time to break out the obama quotes on his climate change plans.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Oh, wait!

Obowma: “Uhhhh….errr….duuuuhhhh….err, oh! Yeah!”

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM

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

J_Crater on November 29, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Shoot me here, but I’d vote for Peter Griffin of Family Guy before I’d trust these so-called scientists.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

OT, but I have been meaning to ask you before, do you work at Tilden?

ya2daup on November 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

I am pissed at the Lame stream media for neglecting this MASSIVE story. that is why FOX news is # 1, all their programs are # 1 and the rest of the media will all be relegated to clown shows. We want the TRUTH.

royzer on November 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

I’d like to see these CRU guys detenured–or untenured, or stripped of tenure, or whatever the hell it’s called.

defenestrated?

Lonetown on November 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

I have a proposition. This Branch Carbonian Cult operated within the safe confines of the university system. Protected by tenure and cloaked in the peer-review process, these men launched their assaults on freedom and liberty via scare-mongering the public and politicians into believing their “global warming” then “climate change” hypotheses.

These university guilds protected and housed those that try to do conservatives harm. Research universities are giant vacuum cleaners that have the widest revenue streams out there. Federal dollars, state dollars, alumni dollars and parental dollars are sucked into a giant vortex of cash that funds projects such as the CRU. Spurious and unethical people foist unsound science on both the public, and future researchers who toe their leftist line.

I submit to my fellow readers here at HotAir that the stage is now set for conservatism to mount an assault on the university system and tear down the protective guild that robs us of freedom and liberty in multiple ways. The university system that robs us of our money, seeks further to destroy us in even greater proportions by promoting cap and trade legislation based upon science that we paid to fund!!

Universities are forcing us to buy the rope that they would love to see us hang with. They do it from behind a curtain of protection that has them now exposed as a result of the ClimateGate scandal.

All freedom loving people should consider how to mount a successful assault into this system as a means of restoring freedom and liberty to the institutions that we pay for against our will.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Here’s a good round up not covered by blog saturation yet:

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=2170

Lonetown on November 29, 2009 at 6:35 PM

siiiimon?

Blue?

Fins?

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Situation update:

siiiimon? Simply speechless?

Blue? Bled out?

Fins? Fish-out-of-water?

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM

OT, but I have been meaning to ask you before, do you work at Tilden?

ya2daup on November 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Nope. Retired, and out of the game. Watching the anti-mining and anti-exploration greenies from the bench.

Turned down the last consulting job that was offered. No Bret Farve thingy for me… ;-)

Yoop on November 29, 2009 at 6:45 PM

We are civilized people here beveryone!

Those “scientists” and Al Gore should be offered the opportunity to commit sepuku.

MB4 on November 29, 2009 at 6:47 PM

I’d like to see these CRU guys detenured–or untenured, or stripped of tenure, or whatever the hell it’s called.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Let me help you with the spelling, you got all the letters just in the wrong order. It’s spelled N-E-U-T-E-R-E-D. There now isn’t that more like it?

Oldnuke on November 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM

Let me help you with the spelling, you got all the letters just in the wrong order. It’s spelled N-E-U-T-E-R-E-D. There now isn’t that more like it?

Oldnuke on November 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM

yeaahhh, that’s what I meant…!

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 6:56 PM

Wow. Check this out from American Thinker:

The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.

One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them.

Despite the explosive nature of some of the messages – which revealed apparent attempts by the CRU’s head, Professor Phil Jones, to destroy global temperature data rather than give it to scientists with opposing views – Paul Hudson failed to report the story.

This has led to suspicions that the scandal was ignored because it ran counter to what critics say is the BBC’s unquestioning acceptance in many of its programmes that man-made climate change is destroying the planet.

The sequence of events strongly suggests that an insider leaked some emails to the BBC (and for all we know, others), hoping that they would be incriminating enough to intrigue anyone. When faced with a media stonewall, the insider then chose to post the complete files where they could not quickly be extinguished.

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Ed:

The following courtesy of LGF:

145 Charles Sun, Nov 29, 2009 1:53:02pm replyquote

* 11
* down
* up
* report

And of course, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is eagerly promoting the complete falsehood that the CRU destroyed data and it’s now lost forever.

No data was destroyed. No data is lost. The NOAA has all of the raw data that the CRU used.

I’m so disgusted with the right wing blogosphere on this issue, there are no words for it. These are people who used to pride themselves on fact checking, and now they’re marching in lock step to promote lies.

FYI

FloridaBill on November 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Are you kidding me? The BBC sat on this information for a month? This is like the NYT spiking the story regarding ACORN and the election, except this is planetary in scope. A massive attempt to conceal fraud from the CRU, now ranging to the BBC–at least one reporter there. What does the BBC have to say about this?

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:15 PM

“Progressives” have one thing(and perhaps more than one thing) in common with Muslims: they are allowed to lie to the Infidel.

Really Right on November 29, 2009 at 7:17 PM

Ha ha ha! New headline article just linked on HA promoting the GW hoax already had comments section closed and dozens of opposing comments deleted. More “Free speech for me but not for thee” leftist trash. The left is scum.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/29/copenhagen-summit-climate-change

Fishoutofwater on November 29, 2009 at 7:18 PM

It’s Klaatu, Verada, nick-toe.

Don’t go into that graveyard without it!

Yes, I’m a fan of Army of Darkness. Ash is one of the best movie characters ever!

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Not disputing what it was in Army of Darkness, but originally the phrase was from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), and is Klaatu barada nikto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaatu_barada_nikto

mwdiver on November 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Don’t jump too fast on that ‘threw it out’ story (see here).

And I finished a pretty detailed analysis of CRU files prior to all those infamous ‘corrections’ are applied, and I find no rampant warming.

AJStrata on November 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM

I’m sure these AGW “believers” are viewing Copenhagen as their Mecca… a chance to bow reverently at the altar of government and the environment…. to sacrifice others for the greater good and for the cause of preventing AGW…. Oh yes algore, you’re the only one who can save us…. yes algore, you’re the only one who can save us (in your best Princess Leia voice of course)..

//s/s

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Threw out their raw data, come on who believes that nonsense. There was never any raw data to begin with.

Tommy_G on November 29, 2009 at 7:23 PM

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:15 PM

I just posted that link on the other AGW (Hanson) thread…thought this one was dead—like the warmongers will soon be!

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 7:24 PM

No data was destroyed. No data is lost. The NOAA has all of the raw data that the CRU used.

FloridaBill on November 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

Oh thank God! So that original raw data was included in the “peer reviewed” papers, right?

Right?

Hmm?

Riposte on November 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM

The BBC sat on this information for a month? This is like the NYT spiking the story regarding ACORN and the election, except this is planetary in scope. A massive attempt to conceal fraud from the CRU, now ranging to the BBC–at least one reporter there. What does the BBC have to say about this?

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Or the MSM (NBC?) sitting on the Monica Lewinsky scandal until Drudge broke it weeks later.

mwdiver on November 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM

IrishEi on November 29, 2009 at 7:24 PM

no this thread has been steadily going up all day.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM

mwdiver on November 29, 2009 at 7:21 PM

Yes, you got me on the details.

I was speaking phonetically (almost a dead language now). You know: Do physicists phuck phrogs? *L*

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 7:33 PM

From AJStrata’s blog:

I was going to mention the HARRY_READ_ME file and forgot – so thanks CP for reminding me. And yes, why worry about FOI requests if the data is gone? Jones is a complete BS’er.

That’s a great point. Hadn’t thought of that.

Weight of Glory on November 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM

You believe they threw out the data? Didn’t think so. If you do, I have some carbon credits for sale, cheap.

Kissmygrits on November 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM

from americanthinker.com. Comment submitted on essay by JR Dunn on AGS.

Posted by: Critical Focus Nov 29, 12:56 PM

——————————————————————————–

Excellent article. Here are several thoughts from an old classically-trained (ie. actually using the Scientific Method) Ph.D. scientist (immunopathology):

Anthropogenic global warming, from what I’ve read and studied, is most likely a fraud.

In part, climatology suffers from being an observational science rather than an experimental science. Hypotheses can be made, data collected and analyzed, and conclusions drawn in experimental sciences. Most importantly, a hallmark of these sciences is the ability of other scientists to perform the same experiments and get the same results. Not so in observational sciences.

The publish or perish, grant-dependent nature of academic science is also, in part, to blame. Responsible scientists often fail to challenge crappy science because the crappy scientist may be on the editorial committee of a peer-reviewed journal or on the grant review board or on the academic’s tenure review committee. It’s a “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” mentaility.

Beyond the obvious, devastating economic consequences of the global warming fraud, I’m particularly concerned that it is destroying the value of responsible scientists of all disciplines as they are tarred with the same bush as these irresponsible climatologists. True science is part of what has allowed America to grow so rapidly into the most advanced nation in history.

Lastly, when religious-like fervor, zealotry, and political (social engineering) objectives get substituted as science, as they frequently are in global warming and other environmental “sciences”, they start with the desired conclusion and work backwards to make the “data” prove their creed. That’s not science and the result is what we’re seeing with the whole global warming debacle.

Many others, Ed included, are concluding that AGW is promoted using religious like fervor. This does nothing to diminish religion in its rightful place, but does everything to diminish this branch of science.

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Does anyone have the link the above quote?

toliver on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 PM

You believe they threw out the data? Didn’t think so. If you do, I have some carbon credits for sale, cheap.

Kissmygrits on November 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM

I believe it. The data didn’t fit the premise so the data had to get lost.

I don’t want those carbon credits, but I’m out for a drawbridge over a dry gulch in the middle of the Arizona desert.

Got one for sale? I’m willing to trade two AlGores and a dozen nine-peso wooden coins.

Liam on November 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Does anyone have the link the above quote?

toliver on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 PM

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/489341/page-2.html

ted c on November 29, 2009 at 7:43 PM

Does anyone have the link the above quote?

toliver on November 29, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Nevermind — got it:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html

Comments:

http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/489341.html

toliver on November 29, 2009 at 7:44 PM

FloridaBill on November 29, 2009 at 7:06 PM

The only source for your claims, is Jones himself, whose credibility has been totally destroyed. Charles in that very same post goes on to criticize the CEI, while constructing “connections” between “climate deniers” (whatever that is) and big energy and big tobacco, thereby creating his own global conspiratorial scapegoat. Nice.

Weight of Glory on November 29, 2009 at 7:47 PM

I’ve been scanning the media for signs of this story, and apparently not one American MSM outlet has written anything about the raw data being destroyed. I’ve found foreign media, conservative media, and blogs – not even an AP blurb so far that I can find.

forest on November 29, 2009 at 4:58 PM

No worries. Over on Watts up With That, he has an interesting piece up with screen-shots that, in only the week since this story broke, “Climategate” gernerates more hits on Google than “Global Warming” which has been a commonly used term for over 10 yrs!

Methinks that despite the State Run Media’s efforts to ignore this story away, the effort is failing miserably. If the overt fawning of Obama and the demonization of Tea-Partier’s weren’t enough to bury the SRM for good, their enabling this fraud will. Especially when the public starts to weigh the trillions that were to be robbed from them in the name of AGW.

FYI, the UK Telegraph has been providing the best coverage of this story.

Archimedes on November 29, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6