As climategate continues to unfold, this statement from the frauds scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) is positively infuriating precious:
We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.
How convenient. How very, very convenient.
The raw data refers to the original, historical temperature records that the guys and gals screwing you protecting your lives at CRU accumulated to make up prove man-made global warming. (Sorry about all the strikeouts – I seem to be having a bad typing day).
This original data was adjusted, which is a legitimate thing to do. A weather station in Uzbekistan, for example, may not be calibrated as well as one located in Pennsylvania. It’s called “normalizing” the data and we pointy-headed scientists do it all the time.
Now you poor, deluded non-academic types may deduce that normalizing the data presents scientists with the opportunity to – shall we say – “adjust” things in a direction that would tend to prove that their hypothesis is correct. I am shocked that you could believe that any reputable scientist would do something of that sort, but since this site is infested with greedy capitalists, I’m guessing that you have constructed a scenario whereby a scientist comes up with a theory, attempts to prove his theory is correct, and – when he fails to do so – tweaks the data to his advantage so that (voila!) his theory is proved and (here’s where the capitalist part comes in) he is able to secure more hotly-contested grant money for further research on the topic.
Well, this never, ever happens in the scientific community. We are, however, very sensitive to allegations of this sort, which is why every researcher hangs on to the raw data so that one’s peers can check the legitimacy of the adjustments that were made. This is particularly important in the case of a large data set, like – for example – world-wide temperature records going back over two centuries. It’s just not the kind of thing you would toss in the dumpster. ESPECIALLY when skeptics have been begging to see the raw data for years. You wouldn’t just toss it.
Unless you’re part of the CRU.
And you moved.
So you threw the raw data away.
To save space.
Seriously.
To save space.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
You silly little people wouldn’t understand it anyway.
Oh look….BOOOSH!
No doubt, the raw data is sitting in a dumpster somewhere, along with a couple thousand Minnesota ballots voting in favor of Norm Coleman.
I’m still afraid of the pending ice age they told me would kill me when I was in elementary school and the hole in the ozone they told me would kill me when I was in middle school.
And don’t forget how acid rain was going to melt your raincoat.
Seem to recall seeing a perfectly maintained and placed surface station and its’ raw data (on surfacestations.org) Funny thing was (well maybe not so funny) that NOAA’s adjustments were shown side by side with the raw – guess which direction the data was adjusted to?
If that’s a CRU climate scientist, she deserves a spanking.
I hope they at least tossed in the recycle bin.
Oops! I meant “…tossed it in the recycle bin”
With talk of BOOOOSH and heiny spanking, I like your initial “toss” just fine, Dooley. ever the vulgarian am I…
Cankles..is that Hillary?
Is there ever a legitimate reason for scientists to withhold data? I remember hearing a lot of, “you just want to make us look bad” objections, which were part of the reason I became a confirmed AGW sceptic.
This scandal looks worse each day yet it’s not surprising the way most of the media has shrugged their shoulders at it and continues to spread the lie.
The thing that ticks me off most is how people, especially kids, have been manipulated into thinking that by their very presence they are killing the planet. Remember the famous crying Iron Eyes Cody public service announcement? I was just a kid but it worked and hey, we should all be good stewards of the earth. That was a legitimate message even if Iron Eyes’ heritage wasn’t quite what it seemed.
Maybe I’m wrong…maybe carbon IS a poison and I am killing the earth by exhaling? I’d rather be fooled by a Faux Native for a real problem. That’s better than Real Scientists lying to me over something that isn’t a problem.
CW,
I too remember those commercials, they affected me in the same way. I also remember one for meals on wheels that had a really old lady trying to open a can with a manual can opener and she couldn’t and was so very distraught. I used to just sit and cry after that one.
Yeah, manipulation at it’s best. I remember the meals on wheels ad too!
I remember that and my dads reply was pot meet kettle. Do some
digging and you will discover our Native Americans weren’t all that
kind to Gaiia or their animal friends.
This is true…part of the myth of the Noble Savage perhaps?
can’t be Hillary…her bottom’s not nearly wide enough.
So what is left to be discovered? That Al Gore is chiseling away ice from Antarctica and hiding it in his cavernous basement?
Love that Ramirez…
What I really love is their statement that they saved only “the value-added data” – what a wonderful euphemism! Like the raw data was pretty much hardly worth the trouble until *they* had a chance to work it into something valuable (which then, of course, made the raw data superfluous).
Gives new meaning to the old saw about one man’s trash being another man’s treasure!
Got yer back, my fellow Stosh!
Stephen Eric