ClimateGate: CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data. That They Haven’t Thrown Away

Yesterday, the “scientists” involved in ClimateGate made an important announcement

Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

Today, “um, well, ya see, our Bad!”

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.

They are saying they dumped the raw data, after it had been adjusted, massaged, given a nice vacation in the Sahara Desert, during a move to a new building to save room. The originals, kept on paper and magnetic tape (it was the 80’s, after all), were deemed unimportant. Considering the real importance of the data, and the money these folks have been granted over the years, it might have been worth the investment to rent a self storage space, or build a shed, or something.

Considering the importance of the data in showing that their theories about Man induced warming, this could be one way of “hiding the decline.” Just wait till the government hearings start, and they have to explain why they dumped the data, and are raked over the coals.

Riehl World View: The very foundation of science is that it be reproducible. These unprofessional hacks have made re-production of their work to validate their conclusions impossible.

TigerHawk: So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few “scientists” whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

Others: JustOneMinute, Guardian, DaTechguy’s Blog, Samizdata.net, American Power, Pajamas Media, Watts Up With That?, HazZzMat, Christian Science Monitor and Jay Currie

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “ClimateGate: CRU Agrees To Publish All The Data. That They Haven’t Thrown Away”

  1. Reasic says:

    What we do in Copenhagen will be an investment in the future.

    • datechguy says:

      Yes you are right Reasic. It is an investment in the comfort and easy living of many bureaucrats and the rich folks who will have tax money of the masses funneled to them.

  2. Choey says:

    So they’re going to release all the data..

    Does that include the discarded data, the “tricked” data, the “synthesized” data and the “hide the decline” data? I’m sure other scientists will find it very useful.

  3. Otter says:

    Has anyone noticed, johnny has vanished and realsick has shown up?

    Are they a tag team, or a multiple personality?

  4. TFMo says:

    Good lord, Reasic, you really are clueless, aren’t you?

    You’re lvely “investment in the future” is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme that will give foreign nations a greater say in OUR laws. Obama, by signing this travesty in the name of quack science, will be signing the sovereignty of our country over to people who are running their own countries into the ground. Awesome plan, huh? Communists, Islamonazis, socialists, anti-Semites, genocidal dictators, THESE are the kinds of people that will be overriding the wishes of the American voters.

    America is a free country. WE decide who our leaders are, for good or ill. We influence our leaders by threatening their job security; if they continuously ignore the will of the people, then they will eventually be voted out (so long as ACORN isn’t allowed to operate, at least). We will have no such power over foreign rulers, nor will they have any real stake in what policies they dictate to us.

    It is this sort of thing we fought the Revolution for, and now Obama and the left want to hand us over to a newer, shinier, and more despotic version of King George III.

  5. TFMo says:

    Apologies for the typos, coffee hasn’t quite kicked in.

  6. reasic says:

    I didn’t post that comment.

  7. reasic says:

    Since, I’m here, though, TFMo, you’re showing that you have no idea about the purpose of Copenhagen. Please, please, try to learn about something before you comment publicly about it, making a fool of yourself.

  8. TFMo says:

    You seem so very concerned abut others making fools of themselves. Perhaps you should tend to your own appearance?

    Have you read the Copenhagen plans, Reasic? Apparently not. Just keep trusting the Obamessiah, I’m sure it’ll all work out just fine.

  9. Otter says:

    reasick, guess what? Even James Hansen of NASA thinks the Copenhagen meeting is a crock.

    You can do your own google, though.

  10. Reasic says:

    TFMo,

    Where in the plans are “foreign nations given a greater say in OUR laws”? What about the plans makes you think we’d be giving “sovereignty of our country over to people who are running their own countries into the ground”? Where does it say that anyone else “will be overriding the wishes of the American voters”?

    Are you just talking in general about signing agreements with other countries? Are you generally against treaties and such, or do you have specific examples of how this could occur? That’s what bugs me most about you, Otter, and Teach. Youo’re all hot air. Where are the specifics? I guess you can just make up any claim you want, if you never have to back it up with evidence.

    Otter,

    Hansen hardly agrees with you. He thinks it doesn’t go far enough. He wants to see the major source of the problem (fossil fuel usage) specifically targeted in these talks, and he has a point. Talks like this are a compromise between nations, so there is a lot of give and take. Inevitably, there will be some dancing around the issue, rather than getting right to the source of the problem, so that certain countries don’t walk away. This is unfortunately how it must happen. If Hansen had his way, all of the major oil-producing countries would walk away. There has to be compromise to keep everyone at the table.

  11. Otter says:

    I wonder how much hansen stands to make if this goes through? Any idea what he’s invested in, reasick?

    You might also want to forget about seeing ANYthing from this conference based on fraudulent agw… Brazil, China, India and South Africa plan to walk out if the more advanced nations violate ANY of their NON-Negotiable demands.

  12. Reasic says:

    How cute that you keep adding a ‘k’ to the end of my name.

    Let me ask you a question. If you were a scientist who has discovered through honest, rigorous research that the planet is warming due to human activity, what would you invest in? I don’t know what he’s invested in, but would it really prove anything? How about we stick to the data, which you have yet to provide to support your claims? You keep making baseless assertions about a cooling trend, fraudulent data, etc., but never with any evidence to back it up. Let’s look at the evidence and base our decisions on that, rather than red herrings about who’s invested in what.

    If the planet is not warming, how do you explain the temp graph I provided from NASA? How do you explain the accelerating melting of ice sheets, glaciers and icecaps? How about rapid arctic sea ice decline and sea level rise?

    If man is not at fault, how do you explain the fact that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen to levels not seen in over 650,000 (or more) years? Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that more of it warms the earth. That’s basic atmospheric science. Yes, the earth has always gone through natural cycles, but it has never had carbon-producing humans living on it.

    Please explain for me what, specifically, you disagree with.

  13. TFMo says:

    Page 62, and page 122, item 17, brainstem. In a nutshell, it means that by signing this thing, Obama is giving legitimacy to the claim that the developed world (particularly the US since we’re the ones getting all the blame for this) is killing less developed countries with our icky carbon dioxide. As such, we agree that we MUST make financial restitution based largely on the CLAIM, rather than actual PROOF, that this has occurred. Which means that they get to eat our economy AND set whatever standards they see fit to make sure we halt our naughty ways.

    The American public has NO SAY in this; this will all be determined by FOREIGN bodies. So ass-hats like Chavez, who has certainly shown how much he LURVS the US, will be getting a massive chunk of OUR money, and these people will be setting our Cap and Trade policies. Not our elected officials, not the American people.

    Considering how much of our society can be affixed to climate hysteria, there is literally NO aspect of our lives that these governments will NOT have a say in; how warm or cold we keep our houses, what food we eat, what we can wear, what is being taught in our schools, what cars we can drive, IF we are allowed to drive, even how we USE THE BATHROOM. ALL of these things and millions of other things are DIRECTLY related to our use of fossil fuels and therefore falls under the plans listed in the Copenhagen treaty.

    That specific enough for you, dipstick?

  14. reasic says:

    Teach,

    Which means that they get to eat our economy AND set whatever standards they see fit to make sure we halt our naughty ways.

    Did you even read the pages in question? Yes, this treaty starts with the understanding that man is causing global warming, so they’ve lost you already. It is also understood that the least developed countries will be the most disadvantaged, as a result of climate change. Developing countries are also generally exempted from certain regulations, so that they have the chance to develop to a reasonable level.

    …there is literally NO aspect of our lives that these governments will NOT have a say in…

    Your fear-mongering is nonsensical, and is not based in fact. You clearly either didn’t read or didn’t understand the draft of the treaty that you saw.

  15. TFMo says:

    Hey stupid, that was MY post, not Teach.

    Yes, I read all two hundred plus pages of it. And yes, my assessment is quite accurate.

    Starting with the premise that AGW is a fact. It is not. It begins from a faulty premise. Not “understanding” but rather a meme.

    Perhaps if these least developed countries weren’t mostly run by socialist dictators, stealing the wealth from those who are actually providing an economy and handing it over to deadbeats (after skimming a bit off the top, of course) maybe they would not be so less-developed.

    And you think that siphoning off a massive chunk of the US’s economy is going to help? Given the track record of the people who will be getting this money, I wouldn’t trust them with a jar of gasoline and a wet match.

    Nonsensical. Really. Care to provide an example, Reasic? You seem so big on demanding them from others, put up or shut up. Name ONE aspect of our society that has NOTHING to do with fossil fuel or electricity or carbon dioxide. JUST ONE.

  16. Reasic says:

    TFMo,

    Sorry, I don’t know why I said “Teach”. It doesn’t matter anyway. You’re all the same. jk. 😛

    Yes, I read all two hundred plus pages of it. And yes, my assessment is quite accurate.

    No, actually, even if you only read through pages 62 and 112, you are horrible at summarizing. Nowhere in there does it say that we will allow other countries to control our lives. That’s you inserting your fear-mongering.

    You don’t think AGW is fact, but yet you continue to avoid my evidence that I’ve presented to you. If it’s so obviously bunk, you should be able to very easily refute every claim I’ve made.

    Perhaps if these least developed countries weren’t mostly run by socialist dictators…

    Ah… oversimplification. All of the least developed countries are run by dictators who can’t be trusted, therefore we shouldn’t enter into agreements with them. You raise an interesting point about whether the money received by SOME countries would reach the intended recipients, but do you have any proof for your assertion that they are all this way?

    Care to provide an example, Reasic?

    I see where you’re going with this, and your reasoning is flawed. There is a HUGE difference between agreeing to reduce our carbon footprint and giving another entity direct control over anything in our country. Nice try.

Bad Behavior has blocked 8103 access attempts in the last 7 days.