|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Nov 30, 2009 3:10 am |
|
re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths > more Climategate fallout |
Thomas Holford
| |
Reg Charie sayeth:
> Why delete them?
> We are all adults that can put up with people that cannot deal with the facts.
Well, apparently if you are a global warming climate quack, you CAN'T deal with the facts. THAT'S why you delete them.
- - - - - -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
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.
- - - -
I don't think I have ever heard of a case where an authentic scientist has justified deleting raw data that supported his published research.
A. Scientists make mistakes, and it is necessary to check and recheck calculations from the source data.
B. The fundamental principles of science require that phenomena be reproducible in order to be validated by science.
If raw data is deleted, it is IMPOSSIBLE to SCIENTIFICALLY validate it.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
