All original data on climate change are still available for anybody to analyze independently. To obtain the facts on all the exaggerations and errors in the post appended below, please read the following Pew Center report:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09.pdf Here are the pertinent quotes: QUOTE Another data handling accusation involves the admitted deletion of “less than 5%” of weather station data from the CRU surface temperature database in the 1980s. This deletion was not from the original data logs for individual weather stations. Instead, it was only from the database that CRU staff collated for their use in estimating global surface temperatures. The data were deleted because a documented quality control process found them to be of insufficient quality. After the data were rejected, they no longer had scientific value. It is important to note that anyone could still retrieve the original data from the original weather station logs. It is also important to note that this took place in the 1980s, when climate change was purely an academic topic accompanied by none of today’s heated political debate. At the time, the scientists did not foresee the need to archive every bit of data regardless of its scientific value. UNQUOTE QUOTE 2. Purported muzzling of scientists skeptical of humaninduced global warming: o In several emails the authors complain about certain scientific papers and refer to them as “garbage” or other derogatory descriptions. All scientists complain about papers they judge to be inferior and it is commonplace for individual scientists to insult the work of others in private conversation. While disrespectful, this behavior is not suppression, it is not unethical, and it is by no means limited to papers authored by skeptics of human‐induced climate change. o There is an email exchange in which the participants contemplate boycotting a particular science journal and refusing to cite two specific papers they regarded as fatally flawed. It is crucial to understand that the authors of the emails were not contemplating the suppression of a dissenting point of view. Rather, they were reacting to what they considered to be scientific misconduct by the authors of the papers and/or by editors who circumvented the peer review process so as to publish inferior papers that support their own political agendas. One case discussed in the emails, and later documented in news reports and open letters from individuals involved in the events, was so egregious that half the journal’s editorial board resigned in protest when the publisher refused to allow the chief editor to revise the peer review process to make individual board members more accountable. The publisher later admitted the paper should not have been published and promised to strengthen the peer review process. The other paper that the email authors contemplated not citing was published without peer review in an obscure journal, of which the chief editor has admitted to using the journal to push her own political agenda. UNQUOTE Cheers, Santosh --- On Thu, 2/4/10, Mario Goveia <[email protected]> wrote: > > This discussion has devolved into a boat load of red > herrings. > > I agree with Santosh as a generality, but not in the > climate change arena. > > We know from the emails disclosed by the whistleblower at > East Anglia College that important climate raw data was > destroyed, other data was withheld from scientists outside > the orthodox group of like-minded scientists, there were > threats that data would be destroyed if forced to be > disclosed, and scientists with opposing views were > obstructed at every turn. >
