ClimateGate: So, where’s the “Oh, Snap!” Email?
by Christopher C. HornerOne thing about “ClimateGate” nagging at the back of my mind is the absence of any discussion by ringleader Phil Jones (or others) of the remarkable, shocking discovery that Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s.
That is the data that scientists have for years been seeking from Jones under the UK’s freedom of information law. Against numerous such requests he offered equally numerous excuses for refusing access culminating with the September 2009 claim – when it looked like he’d been cornered and had no excuses not to provide it to Prof. Ross McKitrick who met all of his long-stated qualifications – that in fact he’d lost it.
First, it does seem odd that Jones would so firmly and crisply articulate his many, very specific excuses for so many years about why he could not provide something that in fact they had, as he now tells it, lost. His refusals all clearly imply that a belief that he had it.
But where are the emails putting out the word, oh, snap, you guys aren’t gonna believe this?
Among all that has been revealed, there does not appear to be one. Let alone a chain discussing the importance of not at long last actually having the raw data, how this loss might relate to the scores of emails they wrote about whether to release the data and how to avoid releasing the data and how they’d rather destroy it (I don’t know, “pretend to have lost it”) than give it to the folks who seem to be on to them.
This seems like a big email, and a chain of discussions that would pervade that which has been revealed. It doesn’t.
To the contrary, we have numerous emails from Jones explaining how turning over the raw data is one option, but he’d much rather destroy it than let the intrepid start pawing over it which could only lead, as he admits in one email, to figuring out what CRU et al did to said raw data in order to come up with their alarming claims.
So there is a reasonable conclusion, and it is not that the data was lost or destroyed twenty years ago.
But who knows, maybe Jones wrote James Hansen at NASA, or Gavin Schmidt – for so long a taxpayer-funded activist for Environmental Media Services’ RealClimate.blog and now implicated as a major player in these emails (Capo number 6 according to this analysis). Those should turn up when the courts help NASA figure out how to come into compliance with their legal obligations and provide me similar data and correspondence that they have been, similarly and by chance, refusing me for over two years.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
150 Comments
Oh snap!
We've just been caught defrauding the entire world!
I am in graduate school working on a master’s in science education. I majored in chemistry in college and taught for 7 years before becoming a stay-at-home mom. When I mentioned the Climate gate scandal in a science class I am taking now called “The Nature of Science” with 32 other science educators, only three of us even knew what I was talking about. Granted I am attending the University of Colorado in Boulder, but I really believed that science majors would be aware of this scandal. Everything about this fraud goes against what we learn as scientists as well as science educators. LSM is not doing its job!
I was about to say the same thing.
When all else fails, destroy the evidence.
I don't know if there is such a thing as AGW, and I am not qualified to speak about the intracacies of the science. I did not even play a scientist on TV! But as a thinking person, if someone is telling me to give them my money because of a crissis, and his theory rest on information he will not share, I'm disinclined to believe.
So true to form for the left: Blame the previous administration. Jones is no longer fooling anyone except, of course, the true believers, who are now the real climate deniers.
I wanted to claim I was half my age, to attract beautiful women.
Unfortunately, I didn't know how to hide the decline.
"the science is settled" – Baghdad Bob Gibbs, the White house.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/...
A good post that shows they had to have the raw data until at least 2008. They could not have constructed the charts without it.
Sort of makes their 'the dog at my homework' claim a bit as valid as their derived hockey sticks.
It is up to you, to educate and alert your peers. The LSM is irrelevant, a stooge, a pawn at best for those with a seperate agenda. Since they have relegated themselves into irrelevancy, into the roll of a lapdog, it is time we kep them there. People must begin to educate their friends, their neighbors, their peers, their fellow sutdents and fellow citizens in a grass roots movement. This can be turned around.
One who is sure of his theory will always be willing to debate. Those with something to hide desire to cut off all debate before it begins. These global warming people have been in it for the money from the get-go. They're not getting one red cent from me.
Not that I'm trying to defend the Climategate scientists, but I would like to point out some reasons why I think this line of reasoning should be handled with extreme caution:
1. We don't have all of the emails that Prof. Mann, Jones, et al wrote on the subjects, only an unknown (and probably a vanishingly small) percentage. It is quite possible that conversations regarding the data loss might have indeed taken place, but none of those emails have to date been released (or are even themselves still extent).
2. As a general rule in research, a lack of evidence does not in itself constitute evidence. Claiming something as true based on the fact that there is no evidence, but that "All the evidence that supports my theory has been destroyed, and therefore its absence constitutes evidence!" is a well-known fallacy practiced by many a conspiracy theorist. One only has to look at the Rosewell, Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 truthers, and other conspiracy wackos to see the extent to which such flights of fancy can take people.
While I agree that such speculation has its place, I think we are far better off hammering the climate change crowd using the evidence we have at hand rather than pointing to unprovable hypothesis and building their significance far out of proportion. Keep after these people to release their data, but until evidence surfaces suggesting one way or the other what was known and when did they know it, it is probably safer to treat this as little more than idle speculation.
Really, teacher, the dog ate my homework.
The more we learn about this, the more we should be thankful to whomever made these emails available. Just as it took years to propagate the myth of global warming, it will take years to eliminate it. We must begin to pressure the politicians who still believe in it from office, then we must vote for those who will repeal the laws and regulations that were based on the now-disproven data.
Amazing! I have a science-guy friend and he says the same thing…most of his peers are unaware of this scam!
As we speak, Houston is receiving its earliest snow fall ever! I wonder what the scientists will do to hide this data!
Satire: Scientists at Climatic Research Unit Say “Unequivocal Evidence” Confirms Earth is Threatened by Giant Homework-Eating Dogs http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-at...
Phil,
It is the biggest scam ever perpetrated upon mankind.
Why? Economic reasons.
Who stands to be the largest winner in it? Goldman Sachs; for they will make the markets. Those markets are estimated at anywhere from 5 trillion, up to thirty-five trillion dollars. Make sense now?
They will wait until it melts, and say it never happened…………
Yet NObama still wants to deny the hoax! Oh SNAP! HE's a HOAX too!
Hey, kapcolo… I lived in Longmont three years ago and had a neighbor who was an assistant proffesor at your school named Owen Cooper. Do you know him? We had several discussions debating the lack of real science surrounding AGW and the nonexistant link to atmpspheric CO2. Having a master of science degree in Environmental Engineering (actually a civil engineering graduate degree concentrating in water/wastewater treatment design not some phoney baloney evironmental/earth psuedo science degree), I mentioned the colligative property of the solubility of CO2 gas into water assosiated with Boyle's Law and its' respective theoretical constant known a sHery's Constant. Guesss what????… the PHD assistant professor in atmospheric science had never heard of Henry's Constat of gas solubility and I had to explain it to him. After that, I was convinced this entire global warming fraud would never succeed. Ask some of your professors about the fact that their models don't account properly for the huge and complex CO2 sink that are the world's oceans. You can stump them just as I stumped Owen Cooper PHD. Cheers Jim Wing
I know that, with our PM Brown, saying he will reduce emisions by 45% it will cost us here a fortune, the bank bailout has already cost every person in the UK £14,000, Your president and our PM have delusions of grandeur, that surpass even those of Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin .
HP Jr, Here's my wife's formula: Start at the age you wish to remain for all time. This is your "desired age" or "DA" Then every year, subtract the number of years since you started the lie from your current "DA" to arrive at your "Adjusted Age Related to Personhood" or "AARP." To avoid confusion, it's easier to just call this number your "age." Like climate "sceintists," you will likely find that as your "actual age" diverges from your "desired age" it is necessary to make certain "adjustments" (e.g. face lift, lips suction, etc…) to reconcile your "actual appearance" with the effects of facts adjust for time and decompensation. Eventually, you can hire a democrat working at the Bureau of Vital Records as a "consultant" to destroy your birth certificate and claim it was lost. Of course, then you will need to kill anyone in your immediate family and friends who knows your actual age, but hey, that's what SEIU is for. Hope this helps, and Merry Festivus.
I must ask the question. HOW is this not TREASON for people like Al Gore and those in this Communist Administration? For Obama to go to Copenhagen with the intent (even if not now) to sign over our rights as a country to be taxed for our use of energy is a Treasonous act. We now know this has been a hoax to help get America into their One World Government, so they could then send the wealth of America over seas, all the while our country is going through a depression. It is Treason…
Isolationism is looking better by the day with these clowns in office.
Incorrect.
While the emails may lead to an unprovable hypothesis, it does, with the fact that the raw data has been requested for years, put the burdon of proof on THEM.
The burdon of proof is now on THEM to proof they DIDN'T manipulate the raw data. Not on us to prove that they did.
If the data was really missing prior to 2008 then Jones would have to tell his fellow conspirators. If there are no e-mails revealing this fact, then Jones followed through on his threat of destroying the data rather than sharing.
If this is true then the data at NASA is in peril. These "scientists" are in danger of 1) being seen as criminals if the data does not match their public releases or 2) incompetent.
I would opt for incompetent.
Thank the Lord I put down the soft drink before reading that…I can't afford a new laptop right now…
I deeply sympathize…and commiserate…
Maybe in his very tiny inner circle…
People in the checkout line at Walmart today were talking about this…
Diane B, as to your point #2,:
I don't believe Horner, et al. are saying the lack of evidence is evidence of the falicy of global warming/cooling/dytemperature dynamics. The assertion is that Mr. jones is a fraudulent "scientist."
The convenient destruction/loss of his basic data is, in fact, pima facia evidence that accumulates with his apparent lack of objectivity, to create a pretty solid case that he and his associates were not above scientific fraud.
Diane B, I would like to claim that I am the greatest lover of women in existence…
Your first words would be, "Prove that…"
If I followed that with, "I can't find the data…", your hysterical laughter would follow my back as I slunk off to lick my wounds…
C'mon now…are you lying, or stupid…?
Apply that same line of reasoning, and Global Warming meets hysterical laughter…
I am in favor of higher unemployment numbers as long as they consist of Scientists. How can anyone with a brain no make the connection that just as 'big oil' was an evil lobby of money motivated people that sought to undermine the environmentalists, is in fact no different than those supporting the AGW. Climate Change is an industry, with billions of dollars at stake.. No surprise they too are corrupt. GE is the new Halliburton.
you know what???? They all suck. The only difference that makes this new crowd more morally disgusting is that they pretend to care about the poor when they are stealing from them. ACORN, SEIU and all the rest are detestable for using the underprivledged to enrich themselves.
Don't you DARE inject a voice of reason into this!!
Actually, while I agree that your basic point is valid, given the clear intent of the High Priest/Priestess of the Church of Climate Change dogma, to enslave the worlds economies with 'repairs' to a not at all so "settled' science crisis, now is NOT the time for gentle persuasion.
By the time a reasonable discourse could conclude, the laws will have been written, the Committees established and empowered,
And it will be far to late to discuss their necessity.
HP Jr, Here's my wife's formula: Start at the age you wish to remain for all time. This is your "desired age" or "DA" Then every year, subtract the number of years since you started the lie from your current "DA" to arrive at your "Adjusted Age Related to Personhood" or "AARP." To avoid confusion, it's easier to just call this number your "age." Like climate "sceintists," you will likely find that as your "actual age" diverges from your "desired age" it is necessary to make certain "adjustments" (e.g. face lift, lips suction, etc…) to reconcile your "actual appearance" with the effects of facts adjust for time and decompensation. Eventually, you can hire a democrat working at the Bureau of Vital Records as a "consultant" to destroy your birth certificate and claim it was lost. Of course, then you will need to kill anyone in your immediate family and friends who knows your actual age, but hey, that's what SEIU is for. Hope this helps, and Merry Festivus.
The dog ate it.
LOL — thanks. (I'm so lucky my girlfriend doesn't read these sites.)
Only kidding!
Oh Snap!
You mean the data doesn't fit our theory? Quick, hit the Delete button!
I wonder how many millions or billions of dollars that raw data was worth? Taxpayers paid to build thousands of climate ground stations all over the country, then paid to have all that data gathered and correlated. Then paid all those "scientists" to manipulate it in unknown ways and then they threw it away because they said it took up too much space. What am I missing here? Who is going to jail for this? It really ought to be somebody.
That was brilliant!
It helped a lot. I feel better now, since I can think of it as a "divergence," rather than a "decline." As we've seen, those Democrats bureaucrats can be of immense help. Remember Joe the Plumber?
That everyday folk like me were talking about this in walmart….is a REAL good thing!
/sigh/
Believe me, I am NOT one of the climate doomsayers. I'm pretty much in agreement with most of the people around here, as anyone who has been reading my posts can tell you.
The problem is, for better or for worse the Church of Climate Change has managed to assume and keep the moral high ground. The only way we're going to dislodge them from that position is if we keep hammering away with logic. That means tangible, verifiable, certifiable evidence. In short, we have to out-logic and out-reason the scientists. If we allow ourselves to indulge in distractions for which there is no proof, then in the long run I think we do our cause a disservice.
Until some evidence to support this line of thought comes to light, I think this should remain nothing more than idle speculation. The evidence we do have strongly suggests a willingness to obfiscate and manipulate the data at hand out of all proportion; the fact that they no longer have the original data means now that the burden of proof is on them. That is where we should be hitting them.
Diane – we could all be buying beach front houses in Arizona tomorrow…BUT, as GetForSerious states above…it is now up to the 'scientists' to PROVE to us that there is an issue w/climate change. THEY LIED TO US
I have a Ph. D. in Chemistry and am working as a Biochemistry Professor. I've observed the same thing.
Give it a little time though. The news cycle in scientific publications like The Scientist, Chemical and Engineering News, and Science are much longer than cable news and newspapers (weeks versus days). In another week or so, the absence or presence of reporting about ClimateGate in these publications will be very telling.
Not disagreeing that we shouldn't. But my point is that if we are to succeed in changing that perception where it counts, we should err on the side of reason and not emotional hyperbole. Its all very well to wonder exactly when this data got destroyed; but until a smoking gun email shows up (or better yet, a garbage bag full of shredded documents with some kind of verifiable date as to when it was shredded) it can only remain but speculation. The fact that their data is no longer reproducible and verifiable (a cornerstone of modern science) is–at this moment–a million times more a potent weapon than questions about its destruction can ever be.
Madoff's a piker.
my degree is in Environmental, Population, & Organismic Biology, Univ. of Colo.-Boulder, 1983. it's not exactly a license to practice medicine, but it gives me more than enough horsepower to hold my own with the average ill-/misinformed, or willfully self-deluded, liberal apologist when it comes to debating the natural sciences.
Go Buffs!
if all else fails, a well-coiffed comb-over will always do the trick!
Al Gore has slipped in his own zhit.First he invented the internet now it has come back to bite him on climategate. So now he is climbing down his rate hole. He should be arrested like Madoff and thrown in jail.He just canceled his speaking engagement and used a lame excuse. Goes to show what a liar he is. I would bet that he was in with the scientists on manipulating the global warming statistics to suit their agenda. Was he paying them under the table? You make the call. Is O- Bow- Ma in on this scam? He still is going to Copenhagen.
I'd think anyone who buys into the Global Warming Religion is a friggen idiot. Thats what I think. I have watched this scam unfold now for twenty-five years, and it nothing but Pure BULLSHIT.
I cannot reach that site.
The AGW charts I've seen are all "adjusted", or made from the derivative information, not the original.
Oh Brian… you really need to do some research. By my count this is the fourth time the "Climate Change Community" has been caught cooking the data.
do NOT attempt this as a defense against ANYTHING in a court of law. claiming to have 'lost' evidence potentially inconvenient to your case will be considered in a negative light about 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time. how damaging that may be varies, of course, but it's never good.
speaking of which:
Here's the website of an independent group (no, not 'paid shills of big energy!') who are doing their part to expose the FRAUD of global warming, errr, climate change, or whatever they're calling it this week. It shows many, many examples of the basic data being influenced and outright falsified by locating temperature sensors in areas that will consistently give artificially elevated readings- typically due to placement near parking lots, bldgs, air conditioners, etc.
http://surfacestations.org/
One of the more blatant examples is this station in my home county of Henderson, Hendersonville, NC. Note to the right in the satellite shot the extra wide 6 lane Four Seasons Blvd (the biggest street in town) and the bank & its parking lot across the blvd. To the left across 7th Ave is a Lowes parking lot in front of what I assure you is the typical big box home center with its acres of asphalt roof. Off the bottom of the picture are relatively undeveloped woods and a small swamp (beautiful water lilies in season!), but everything off the top of this shot, and i do mean everything for a mile or so, is virtually 100% commercial development- what isn't built on is paved over. This one is all the more egregious given that this entire region is largely heavily forested or rural farm land, making this thoroughly urban site particularly unrepresentative of local conditions and topography. Nice, objective, unbiased data collection, huh?
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_it...
I'm totally going to post that explanation on my blog, Daryl.
Awesomeness!
For the last time, I'M NOT DISAGREEING THAT THE SCIENTISTS LIED, or the significance of the emails. What I am saying is that the speculation outlined in the original post–that the scientists in question destroyed their data at a date later than they are claiming–is little more than unprovable speculation at best. Unless some other revelations come to light, what I am trying to do is to caution people against reading too much into it. Especially when there are far more potent implications for the loss of the original data.
sorry, but no, we don't "all realize that this so called "climate gate" is a manufactured controversy". all of your pathetic objections/rationalizations/justifications of their corrupt mis/mal/nonfeasance have been thoroughly trashed in the last week or so.
out of context? nope.
'trick' being just a standard expression for a brilliant calculation? nope.
etc., etc., etc.
thank you for playing our game- we have these lovely parting gifts…
Nope. What does it matter what else they had to say? What they said is evidence of intent to deceive, what can anything they say other than that change anything?
The AGW crowd has something to prove, and requests for proof are met with authoritative bluster. The authoritative bluster and refusal to hand over the proof is evidence, of crack pottery.
Thanks for the reply. I have looked at the surfacestations site before, its a great site and really nails these global warming hucksters where they live.
But as the deficit spirals out of control the fraud will be non-material by the time it is finally and completely exposed. What's a few trillion among friends…..
Why can't greedy bankers and Republicans come up with something this evil? I thought businessmen and Conservatives were supposed to be the masterminds of all that is grasping, covetous, heartless and underhanded.
Well. The Left sure showed us, huh?
Sorry Brian, but these emails show what these particular scientists were doing – figure out how to manipulate the data to support a hypothesis rather than investigate why they didn't match. I believe there is global warming and that evidence of it being man-made is sketchy – certainly not conclusive! These emails are a poke in the eye to the whole debate!
This is frickin hystercial! Nice job.
Even Dick Nixon knew that much!
Which, in a manner of speaking, is pretty much what I was saying originally.
Has anybody considered that the data HASN'T been destroyed? Comparing the eco-types analysis to the actual data could be devastating. Saying it's destroyed would stop people looking for it, and they'd be safe. So, why aren't people looking for it?
FYI. In a court of law the destruction of relevant evidence and what it implies is not considered "speculation." In fact in every court system, by law, there is an inference or presumption given to the jury that the evidence destroyed would have in fact been detrimental to the position of the destroyer. Makes sense. When the legal system starts making more sense than the scientific debate we might as well resuurect the Flat Earth Soiety.
I suspect NASA has it. I think it will show up eventually and then we will know why they "lost it" in the first place.
"What does it matter what else they had to say? What they said is evidence of intent to deceive, what can anything they say other than that change anything?"
The policy makers and the MSM–at least in this country–listen to them and not us. The only way we're going to change that is if the evidence we present is stronger than their's. Unfortunately, probably by several orders of magnitude stronger. If we allow ourselves to be bogged down by lines of reasoning for which the evidence is weak at best, we waste our time for little gain.
I'll try, but no one can trump the Donald. Thanks for suggestiating it.
"Jones now claims he had that his precedessor destroyed the raw data in the 1980s."
If they destroyed the raw data in the 1980's then where is the data from 1981 to present? We would like to have a look at that too !!
Anyone ever think that if the Predecessor had deleted the data that he should still have the data from 1980's onward?
I mean If the predecessor had deleted the data but the currant guy has not, he should still have his data.
Excellent. So you followed the link and have some specific criticisms to report?
Maxx – I did some research. At the moment I'm looking at the fake climate gate controversy. What do you have to refute the claims I posted? Give me some specifics. Because from what I've seen, this one doesn't count as they weren't cooking the data.
I take it none of the overwrought posters in this thread have noticed that the data that was destroyed was destroyed in the 1980s, before anyone had even heard of AGW, and that it was copies of data obtained from "mets" (meteorological services) that still have the originals, because that is their job.
These facts are easy to determine with a little googling.
Interesting rebuttal. Got some citations to back it up? I'm willing to be convinced. It's just that all I've seen so far is the same quote mining and repetition.
Which ones? The two or three being bandied about and taken out of context? Or the thousands of emails as a whole?
OMG. You're right. I bet they have it locked away with Obama's birth certificate!
I guess this is why a full investigation with power of subpoena is needed. Why bother destroying the data in the first place and why would you not retain data – even a copy- that underlies a model currently being relied upon and finally, why not promptly respond to a Freedom of Info Act, or equivalent , request. I am no scientist – but something doesn't add up.
based on your premises — then we would have to conclude with logic and reason…..that it is NOW premature to move forward on Cap and Tax, or the Kyoto Treaty, or any thing at all that resembels the scam OwlGore climate change intiatives……becuase, we simply do not have the data to support their hypothetical theories…..science is all about the data, the evidence and the analysis……so as others have said above — it is up to them to prove it…..or shut up….
given our short life-spans, we have enough other things to worry about here on this beatutiful planet called earth…..
my dog ate my homework….
We Conservatives were too damned busy trying to make the wealth to plunder !! LOL
Here's a couple: not from the emails, but the really damning stuff, the computer code:
; Now fit a 2nd degree polynomial to the decline series, and then extend
; it at a constant level back to 1400. In fact we compute its mean over
; 1856-1930 and use this as the constant level from 1400 to 1930. The
; polynomial is fitted over 1930-1994, forced to have the constant value
; in 1930.
Translation: draw a hockey-stick, as synthetically as using Corel to do it.
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
Yes, he actually named his variable "fudge factor." That number series is degrees Celsius to be added to the genuine data to cool the past and warm the later 20th-c. It is also a naked manual kluge, forcing the data to fit the curve. Note also the magnitude of the corrections- 2.6 degrees C!!!!!
And it's not just Hadley/UEA/Met/CRU, either. The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:Actual Measured Temperature Increase:0.1C
Adjustments and Fudge Factors:0.5C
Total Reported Warming:0.6C
Yes, that is correct. Nearly all the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.
I know what you are thinking – this is some weird skeptic’s urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set
I am just a farm raised plain ole working guy who actually reads and I can hold my own against a liberal apologist !! lol
" have noticed that the data that was destroyed was destroyed in the 1980s, before anyone had even heard of AGW"
No, that's what Phil claims. And there is very good evidence that Phil is telling a whopper.
So, you're saying that temperature data for the entire measurable history of the entire planet is so unimportant that space concerns at a university where they have lots of space would trump its preservation?
How much space would this data take anyway? Like most libraries, they can put stuff on microfiche. Let's be generous and say it would take 15,000 square feet in raw form – pre-microfiche. Universities have millions of square feet of space. The temperature history of the entire planet isn't worth saving?
Oh, but they kept the "adjusted" data. I guess that doesn't take as much space.
And why bring up the birth certificate? I never said Obama isn't a citizen. Do you really think these are the same issues? Did you think Dan Rather was right about Bush and his service record?
Seriously, don't you keep anything of value? I'm keeping all my kids' artwork, all of it, because I think they might want to see it one day, and show their kids. Do you keep old photographs? How about the plans to your house? Books? Anything? The temperature history to the entire planet?
rofl
Hahahahaha!!!!
Dog ate the homework.
But we shall proceed to tax trillions on the findings proven out therein..
I am sure if we follow that dog around long enough we will get it back, substantially improved.
Mark
I have said this in another post, but I will repeat it here…. I seriously doubt the raw data is actually gone, since the numbers used by the scientists would have been copies of the data collected at the various sites. You don't send your hard drive/ file cabinet to the group asking for the data, you just send them certifiable copies of that data. In saying that however, I freely admit to not being a scientist, but would that not be logical? So SOMEWHERE at various weather stations/data collection sites, there should be the same raw numbers they used at first?
He & Gore are both investors in setting up a Carbon Trading Exchange in Chicago………………things that make you go hmmmmmm.
Just off the top of my head, the Mike-Mann-invented Hockey Stick chart was shown to be a complete fraud, he should have been fired, but is still very much involved in the climate studies. Then there was NASA that had their climate stations in heat islands and near the back-end of air conditioning vents and in all sorts of disarray and NASA either knew this or should have known it. And then there was the "fixing" of the data that changed 1937 from the hottest year on record to 1998 (or was it 1999 I forgot), but they got caught red-handed changing those numbers. So there are three times just off the top of my head, and this time makes four. They have been caught doing many very questionable things.
Maybe you were behind me, My wife and I put on little discussions rehashing the same stuff over and over again in lines and restaurants for the benifit of the unknowing, Try talking loudly on acell phone to no one, I know its a cheap trick but if you try to grab their shirt collars and scream at them they wont listen (and probably call the cops) but humans love to get the skinny by eavesdropping.
I would reply to your smart-alack remark, but just gave you a "thumbs down" instead… Have a better day in your liberal life….
** quiet applause!**
Hide the decline
It's called climate change…the earth has done it over and over and over and over again. It has to do with the earth's axis a long with a number of other calculations which I will not go into because I do not believe you would understand it if I did. Bottom line is they made their data up, covered it up, lied about it and are now in the process of getting busted. They should be prosecuted to the furthest extent the law will allow and forced to repay all of the money they scammed the world out of!!!
None of the global warming chicken littles are scientists. They are Snake Oil salesmen and charlatans, faking science for grant money.
Okay, I think I see where my error lies and the source of the confusion, and for that I apologize.
Let me back up a little bit. In the original post, my reading of Chris Horner's argument was that he was suggesting that the data loss occurred more recently than Jones & company have claimed (if indeed, as some around here have suggested, that the data loss has happened at all). My reading of the emails so far leaked is that, while one can infer that as a possibility, there is by no means anything approaching solid evidence–as you say, circumstantial evidence. Thus, I feel that messing too much with that line of attack to be dangerous, since at present it strikes me to be an irresolvable question and one with the potential to sidetrack us in unproductive directions. This is what I meant when I raised the "lack of evidence is not evidence" argument, NOT that the loss of the original data somehow undermines our arguments. I guess that was a poor choice of spur-of-the moment wording, and for that I apologize.
I guess this is why I bombed out of academia…
EXACTLY !! That says it all in a nutshell.
Depends. The original weather stations and data collection sites may have wished to get rid of their data for the same reason that East Anglia decided to destroy it–they needed the space. Its quite possible that some handed their originals over to the CRU, thinking that the CRU would archive it for future use.
I'll bet you there are grad students right now who are scrambling to find the answer to this question.
I just wonder how many people have lost their job (s) since Gore and his other greedy quacks started this scam.
Diane I would love to join you on the high ground, but there is a problem with your premise. AGW has become a faith, Disproving it with facts is the equivalent of disproving God. It exists within the hearts of beleivers not their minds. Think back of this last week or two of well meaning conservative folks attacking this scheme while stateing this doesnt mean we dont have climate change and something should be done? The whole premise of climate change is either refuted in total by these revelation or they are refering to the coming and going of ice ages over the eons in which case they are deluded in the power of man. GW transcended to Climate Change and the existence of climate change is irrefutable, IT EXISTS some call it weather, some call it Ice ages,it can not be disproved. All we can do is attack the faith that man can affect it in any significant way. That means the same tactics as the left has used on christianity, ridicule,ridicule ,ridicule. There is no moral high ground of fact. They stand upon a mountain of humanistic egocentric faith.
Sent A. Gore et al, to the Artic with no man-made materials and then they can observe first-hand the warmth as well as the dwindling polar bears.
You must be logged in to post a comment.