Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, November 29th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments

I REALLY wouldn’t like to be you right about now:

Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

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

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

The 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.

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.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Does Climategate(or Climaquiddick) discredit science?  Of course not.  A true scientist wants to find out how, when, where or why and he’ll go wherever the data takes him.  Climategate(or Climaquiddick) most emphatically does discredit SCIENTISTS!! with a political agenda. 

And that’s all to the good, something even enviro über-leftie George Monbiot understands.

I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

Tell you what, George.  Work out the science, work it out honestly, bring in the skeptics to avoid even the appearance of political bias and then get back to us.

If we’re convinced that you’re on to something, we’ll trade in our pickups and our SUV’s for Smart cars tomorrow. 

I would, anyway; I have to figure that the adrenaline rush would be out of this world(Does that semi see me or not or…).

So let us know when you get the “science” nailed down, George.


Amy P.
November 29, 2009

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.

So much for the hyped “peer reviews” on which Ed Begley, Jr. was so desperately relying.

The Little Myrmidon
November 29, 2009

Quelle surprise. Wow the data that could’vebacked up their claims was tossed.

Guess we’ll just have to take their word for it.

The Pilgrim
November 29, 2009

Or, as a young English lady from another century once said…”Curioser and curioser.”

November 29, 2009

Why wouldn’t you want to be them? This won’t phase them a bit. They KNOW they’re right, even if this one data set is fake but accurate.

November 29, 2009

Ah, but the raw data – the actual numbers, how they were collected, what adjustments must be accounted for in collection techniques – gone, gone, gone! This really is unconscionable. The actual data points – gone.

Processed data is available. That’s like Cheez Whiz, ya’ll.

November 29, 2009

Dr. Mabuse has pulled out a little Chesterton on these frauds and nailed ’em between the eyeballs:

November 29, 2009

Sadly, this isn’t all that new. Remember the Club of Rome and their computer model which no matter what you did said we were doomed unless we cut back to a sustainable, nearly subsistence level? It turned out that the model, to give them credit for making it available, had so many constraining assumptions that it did not allow for innovation and new technologies. 30+ years ago, it is laughable. And then there was Nuclear Winter, with all the inputs and data skewed to the worst cases. People noticed that when you ran it against such things as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it predicted freezing nights and snow. Didn’t happen. Again, they were honest enough to release the code. It was universally derided by leading physicists, though at least one commented that “the psychology might be right.”

FW Ken
November 29, 2009

I suppose the Times of London counts as MSM?

I’m still waiting to see it on NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, or whatever CBS is calling their propaganda venue now.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
November 29, 2009

And now… IDIOTS!!!

ann r
November 29, 2009

Been following this on, Anthony Watts’ blog for the last week or so. Great site, because many folks with various scientific backgrounds comment.

November 29, 2009

A scientific theory which cannot be checked is no theory at all. If the data are not available, there is no science here. It might be possible to reconstruct it if the algorithms by which the date were “adjusted” were reliably available, but it sounds as if this was not a systematic process, but rather haphazard. No theory, no case, and certainly no reason to cause severe damage to an already damaged world economy based on these guys’ guesses.

November 29, 2009

Peer review means simply that an editor got a few reviewers, typically three, to look at the paper and more said to publish it than said to reject it. It means absolutely nothing at all more than that. It should never be construed as meaning that all of the work has been checked, the raw data verified, or even that all of the footnotes have been validated. In some cases, a reviewer is able to write a solid critique of the paper, in other cases he is restricted to answering about 10 questions in 15 words or less for each question. It sometimes happens that there is a single reviewer. Peer review is a highly malleable term that never means any thing approaching a careful, line by line checking. Been there, done that!

November 29, 2009

Mainstream Media may not be reporting this story, but the internet is abuzz.

As of a moment ago Google shows— about 13,300,000 hits for climategate.

Whereas, “global warming” has now been surpassed by “climategate” with Google showing—- about 9,940,000 hits for “global warming”

I do not believe MSM can keep the lid on this one much longer.

November 29, 2009

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, can anybody verify that the data really was dumped when they moved offices, and not just since the freedom of information requests began pouring in? As I recall some of the reports on the hacked emails, some of them discuss destroying the data rather than let it fall into unsympathetic (to global warming) hands. Of course, those emails may have pre-dated the office move, but still . . . I’m skeptical.

November 30, 2009

I was really hoping you would have linked to the Pelosi 2012 instead of the smart car.

November 30, 2009

Sadly, I agree with Stephen. Except perhaps for a few deluded Prius drivers, these people are wealthy, they are invited to all the best parties, and neither their closed circle of friends, nor the friendly media will ever expect them to answer any awkward questions about their faith. I don’t see how their life changes.

Ed the Roman
November 30, 2009

For several years I have reflected that this was a case of the (largely) the same people, predicting a different catastrophe brought about by similar causes, prescribing the same solution.

Makes you think they are REALLY attached to the solution.

Allen Lewis
November 30, 2009

Ed the Roman is right.

President Obama is bound and determined to commit the US to all the stupid CO2 reduction goals in Copenhagen. He doesn’t care about any of this, so why should anyone else?

Suppose the MSM does finally get the word. It will not matter. The elitists will not disappear. They will just go underground for a while. There they will figure out a new meme to wow the media. Interestingly enough, that new meme will have the same solutions offered: total government contol of everyone’s life.

That is what elitists do.

November 30, 2009

The amount of demagoguery associated with the disciples of this QUACK science is what has made me a complete skeptic since day 1.

“It’s been getting warmer ever since oh…about THE LAST ICE AGE!”

“If we keep this up, maybe the dinosaurs will come back.”

“I’m a global warming agnostic.”

These are three of the things I have regularly said out loud to people HARPING at me about becoming more “green”.

I will do my best to not become completely smug with all of these announcements about the “scientists”.

November 30, 2009

I remember the Club of Rome report well. I also remember reading years later that the so-called “scientists” were well aware that the modelling was very primitive and that the results were wild projections.

Poor research is found throughout academia. Academic research has been compromised for many decades, but the public is largely unaware, and, sadly, probably uncaring. Certainly, it is not a topic to be found in newspapers.

Ed the Roman
November 30, 2009

Generally, a level of understanding that presupposes understanding median, mode and mean is beyond almost all reporters.

November 30, 2009

The adage “Figures don’t lie….but liars figure” comes suddenly to mind.

Smurf Breath
November 30, 2009

Poor secularists… they put their faith in humanity, and (shocker) sinful humans have let them down. To whom will they turn now? There’s always the Earth, but perhaps her need of their protection isn’t quite as urgent a matter as was previously thought.

Does Climategate(or Climaquiddick) discredit science? Of course not.

Why not? Doesn’t the inquisition and sleazy televangelists disprove Christianity? And Sinner, if you’re reading, yes, it would be wrong of us to wish harm on these people, but you gotta admit: we’re not really bound to believe in GW until credible research comes out, and these particular scientists have proved themselves to be untrustworthy in carrying out their charge. Do you admit that’s reasonable? This kind of explodes the dichotomy “either you believe in GW and forget about all other ethical/social issues (especially ones opposed to liberal beliefs) or you are neglecting your stewardship of earth”.

Peter C.
November 30, 2009

The other distinction lost in the MSM’s coverage and the elitists’s zeal is that between “global warming” and “man-made global warming.” Is the global climate changing? Sure, all the time. Do we have anything to do with it? I doubt it. Will all the carbon taxes and cap & trade do anything to prevent it? Probably not. If the Seychelles are going to be flooded over because of climate change, the smart money is going to go towards evacuation of the islands rather that a futile attempt at prevention.

So, were Noah and his kin the first documented examples of climate change refugees?

November 30, 2009

Iowahawk…has done himself proud satirizing the global warming scandal:

[…] Global warming has been revealed as a massive, coordinated fraud.  Yet Obama’s still heading to Copenhagen to promise our money and our soverignity to other nations on the basis of phony data and specious “science”, and cap and trade is not dead enough for my liking.  I have said it elsewhere, but it bears repeating: Obama’s cap and trade bill is one prong of a three-pronged fork designed to turn us into a welfare nation.  The other two prongs are health care “reform” (where premiums will skyrocket!) and massive spending.  The former is designed to give government unprecedented control over our  bodies and medical decisions.  Life-or-death control and decisions.  The former is designed to keep unemployment high.  Coupled with the skyrocketing of utility costs (and, therefore, everything else) under cap and trade, Obama will kill the middle class, forcing those teetering on the edge of being  self-sufficient or government-dependent squarely into line for the dole. […]

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments