Climate Change Data Trashed
Climate Gate Continues . . .
The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has admitted that they threw a
way the data on which their global warming theories were based. That's right, the data that allegedly supported Al Gore's apocalyptic environmentalism was tossed in the trash along side last year's Marks & Spencer ad. And here I'll drop the rather important side note that the UEA's Climate Research Unit is the primary source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their attempt to levy climate taxes on countries like America (taxes that Bush was wise enough to condemn while Obama, well, Obama is Obama). You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol which bases its existence on this data.
Why, it's almost as if the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had something to hide.
On the heels of last week's hacked e-mails exposing what appears to be a planned manipulation of data coupled with strategic attempts to discredit skeptics . . . oh, and let's not forget that New Zealand's climate change proponents were caught doctoring statistics . . . the doomsayers of the global warming crowd have been dealt another blow.
According to reports, the University of East Anglia could not comply with requests for their documents and data that were sought under Freedom of Information legislation because, well, they . . . um . . . they . . . threw it away, undoubtedly just before their dog was about to eat it. Of course, in their minds this should pose no concern as they "do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” In other words, nobody should worry about reviewing our data, just trust us. So much for peer review.
Now I'm no scientist, but isn't science supposed to be based on analyzing data? And isn't that data generally maintained (i.e., not "thrown away") in case your hypothesis shifts during evaluation? And doesn't peer review require access to the raw, undoctored data? I guess I need to google the University of East Anglia since I don't know much about the school. Maybe I'm too harsh on them since the steps of scientific method generally aren't covered until the 3rd grade or so.
way the data on which their global warming theories were based. That's right, the data that allegedly supported Al Gore's apocalyptic environmentalism was tossed in the trash along side last year's Marks & Spencer ad. And here I'll drop the rather important side note that the UEA's Climate Research Unit is the primary source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their attempt to levy climate taxes on countries like America (taxes that Bush was wise enough to condemn while Obama, well, Obama is Obama). You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol which bases its existence on this data.Why, it's almost as if the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had something to hide.
On the heels of last week's hacked e-mails exposing what appears to be a planned manipulation of data coupled with strategic attempts to discredit skeptics . . . oh, and let's not forget that New Zealand's climate change proponents were caught doctoring statistics . . . the doomsayers of the global warming crowd have been dealt another blow.
According to reports, the University of East Anglia could not comply with requests for their documents and data that were sought under Freedom of Information legislation because, well, they . . . um . . . they . . . threw it away, undoubtedly just before their dog was about to eat it. Of course, in their minds this should pose no concern as they "do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” In other words, nobody should worry about reviewing our data, just trust us. So much for peer review.
Now I'm no scientist, but isn't science supposed to be based on analyzing data? And isn't that data generally maintained (i.e., not "thrown away") in case your hypothesis shifts during evaluation? And doesn't peer review require access to the raw, undoctored data? I guess I need to google the University of East Anglia since I don't know much about the school. Maybe I'm too harsh on them since the steps of scientific method generally aren't covered until the 3rd grade or so.
0 comments :
Post a Comment