Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 29, 2009

And so it turns out, perhaps not surprisingly, that much of the raw data amassed from weather stations across the globe over the years – the very data which has been used to codify and forecast an impending global warming catastrophe – is forever lost. That means the conclusions drawn by doomsayers based on that now long gone data cannot be checked or “peer reviewed” by other academics. Scientists at University of East Anglia (UEA), the womb from where the current “climategate” scandal was born, announced that the raw numbers were thrown away.

The words “How Convenient” come to mind.

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor of the Times Online, writes:

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

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

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

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

If nothing else, in the name of “science,” wouldn’t it just make sense to wipe the “Earth-is-in-peril” climactic slate clean and start over? In light of the current scandal, and seeing as the only data available for review are “adjusted” or “revised” figures, isn’t it more reasonable to conclude that dire global warming predictions are, at best, questionable and worthy of a “reset?” Wouldn’t it seem to be appropriate for man-made global warming skeptics (who are willing to admit that they may be wrong) to team up with global warming militants (who believe they cannot possibly be wrong) and try and make heads or tails of all of this “settled science” through credible means?
wordpress statistics


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: