How Can People Be So Stupid? Rotating Header Image

What Do Global Warmingistas Do When They Realize People Are Starting To See Through Their Fraud? Loose The Data!

This is a truly stunning story. I’ve been saying for a long time that the whole man-made climate change catastrophe-in-the-making was primarily a political power grab, and that it had little to do with science. (See my earlier articles. “More Evidence That Global Warming is Political, Not Scientific”, “Government Running Full Speed Ahead Into Expensive Policies Based On Politics, Not Science”, ) Recently, more and more people have been coming around to my side of the argument, including 30,000 scientists who signed a petition against CO-2 caused global warming

Now, a recent article by Kevin Libin in the National Post (“Kevin Libin: You’ll just have to take our word on the global warming stuff”, ) brings out the fact that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) has LOST THE ORIGINAL DATA! As pointed out in the article:

For years, global warming advocates held up every calving ice shelf, failed crop or natural disaster as proof of a dawning warming apocalypse; whether it was too much rain, or not enough — either way, it was abnormal, and the fault of Big Oil and anyone questioning that, labeled a “denier.” As Vicky Pope, a senior British climatologist, citing overblown claims of rapid melting of arctic sea ice, and the ice sheet around Greenland, bemoaned earlier this year, for scientists, “overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.

But probably nothing could damage the credibility of climate change believers than the recent revelation by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that it has lost or destroyed all the original data used to construct historic global temperature records. The CRU, at the University of East Anglia in the UK, which has been using information collected from weather stations across the globe for decades, is probably the most widely cited source worldwide for those mounting a case that the earth has exhibited an inexorable warming trend: its website boasts that CRU’s research has “set the agenda for the major research effort in, and political preoccupation with, climate research.” The critical raw climate data responsible, which scientists of all climate-creeds have a natural interest in, is now gone, apparently, forever. With the exception of a handful of countries that the CRU has agreements with to sell its data, all that remains for the bulk of the statistics are “value added” versions, which is to say, consolidated, homogenized data. Actually, the CRU says it doesn’t even have all the data for countries it has data-sharing agreements with. “We know that there were others, but cannot locate them, possibly as we’ve moved offices several times during the 1980s,” the CRU writes in a rather embarrassing explanation for all this posted on its website.

Talk about a blow to Al Gore and his minions at large corporations and the UN, who are scheming to profit handsomely off this whole scam by taxing you, the citizens of the world, for your use of a scarce resource called energy! And, don’t get me wrong. I believe we need to break the oil habit. Many of the people who sell us oil hate us, and our way of life. And, lets face it, if it were not for their oil, the United States would have nothing to do with most of the countries in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran. And, without oil revenues, those countries would be nothing more than they were 70 years ago; feuding, backwater, 7th century fiefdoms consisting of various waring tribes. (Even with their oil revenues, they are not much better than that, today, to most of their inhabitants.) But, at the moment, there is no economically viable alternative for fossil fuels, especially for transportation purposes. Yes, we should be investing in solar, wind, and other forms of alternative energy, and encouraging the adoption of those technologies, especially since the cost of some alternative technologies is coming down to a point where it is almost economically viable. Also, we should be investing in nuclear energy, especially since it is a proven technology that is highly cost effective. But, we can’t break the back of the world’s economy on increasingly dubious claims of CO-2 caused global warming.

What makes the article even more interesting is the fact that the data was apparently “lost” at the very time that many different individuals, scientists, and organizations, were seeking access to this information. This information was sought under the British Freedom of Information Act. As also pointed out in the article, as well as other articles (1), the CRU has been doing it’s best to keep this information from researchers outside of their organization. The article (1) states:

The CRU has refused to release the raw weather station data and its processing methods for inspection – except to hand-picked academics – for several years. Instead, it releases a processed version, in gridded form. NASA maintains its own (GISSTEMP), but the CRU Global Climate Dataset, is the most cited surface temperature record by the UN IPCC. So any errors in CRU cascade around the world, and become part of “the science”.

In 2004, Professor Phil Jones, who maintains the data set, stated to an Australian climate scientist:

Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. (1)

This is NOT the way science works. Scientists work by freely exchanging information. This has to be the case, since that free exchange can serve to validate data and theories, as well as invalidate them.

What is even more interesting, and perhaps incriminating, is that the CRU “lost” all of its data after it discovered that Steve McIntyre, a Canadian statistician and blogger,

…obtained raw data when it was accidentally left on an FTP server last month. Since then, CRU has battened down the hatches, and purged its FTP directories lest any more raw data escapes and falls into the wrong hands. (1)

Steve McIntyre is the same researcher who found serious problems with the famous “hockey stick” temperature charts in early IPCC documents. Due to his tenacious work in pointing out of the problems with this data, the “hockey stick” graph was eventually removed from later IPCC documents, although the damage from the original graph was done, and continues to be done, as people view propaganda such as Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”, where the hockey stick lie is still touted as an “inconvenient” truth.

On July 29, 2009, Steve McIntyre published an article stating that he had discovered that the DRU had deleted files from their data directory at . Other people noticed other deletions, or strange movements, of files. According to Steve’s article, (2)

Under U.K. Freedom of Information Act, once FOI requests have been made for information, public authorities are not permitted to “alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.”

This is extremely troubling! It sure looks like the CRU deliberately deleted the original, raw data sets so that they could not be scrutinized by outside observers who might find faults with the way the data was “reduced”, or “homogenized”, so as to support the whole IPCC global-warming-caused-by-CO2-scam.

But, it gets even murkier. Dr. Steven Pielke, Jr. is a professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder ( ). He is not a friend of “global warming deniers”, since he generally supports man-made global warming. He requested the data from the CRU, since the CRU refused to give it to Steve McIntyre, because the CRU claimed that Steve McIntyre was not an academic. Since Dr. Pielke, Jr. is a well recognized academic in the field of atmospheric sciences, the CRU could not refuse his request. But, they did, saying, essentially, that they no longer had the original data. All they had was the data sets after they had adjusted them for “homogeneity”. Thus, as Dr. Pielke, Jr. states in his blog post (3):

Say what?! CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious? So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past — which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on — but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. CRU is basically saying, “trust us.” So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).

So, we have an organization that was the primary repository and guardian of the global temperature data upon which the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the IPCC findings, as well as the whole Cap and Tax bill, telling us, essentially, trust us, the data is good. The adjustments that we made to the original data is fine. But, no, the original data is gone for good, so nobody can ever examine it, in case our adjustments have some faults. And, this coming from an agency where their data adjustments have been proven to be false in the past. (4)

This is just more evidence, to me, that the whole man-made climate change catastrophe-in-the-making is nothing more than a giant fraud that is going to cost the world trillions of dollars at a time when the entire global economy is already hanging on a thread, largely due to other bad government policies and decisions.

Go read all of this stuff for yourself. It is highly illuminating.

(1) “Global Warming ate my data: We’ve lost the numbers: CRU responds to FOIA requests”

(2) “CRU Erases Data”

(3) “We Lost the Original Data”

(4) “Quality Control, CRU Style”

Leave a Reply

Maximum 2 links per comment. Do not use BBCode.