You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science
Climate change data dumped
2009-11-29
If is true no wonder they didn't want this out during the week.
The Sunday Times, 29 Nov, Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
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.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU's director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data."

The CRU is the world's leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life's work, showing how the world has supposedly warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is "unequivocally" linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
Posted by:tipover

#16  Substitute Exxon for the CRU and imagine the outcry.
Posted by: Formerly Dan   2009-11-29 20:10  

#15  The problem isn't the loss of the data, it is the loss of the metadata.

Lets say you got data for 250 German stations from 1850 to 1975. If you have a list of the stations, you can throw away the data. If you need it again, you can go back and get another copy. The crime isn't in tossing the original data, the crime is in losing the list of data they had so they can't go back and get it again.

Incompetence doesn't BEGIN to describe this.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-11-29 19:03  

#14  real scientists do NOT lose their data
Posted by: Frank G   2009-11-29 18:33  

#13  Think shelves and shelves of reels of bubble-chamber photos, and boxes of dusty lab notebooks of retired or deceased professors. My office is stacked with hundreds of boxes of 8mm tapes of 10-year old muon events (luckily they are duplicates). I don't know if the calibration database to reprocess them is still online, and in any case a hundred times as much data is available online for Run 2.

After a while you have to ask if any human being will ever look at these again. Of course we're not the ones claiming the the sky is a toaster and agitating to take control of the world's economy...
Posted by: James   2009-11-29 18:21  

#12  CP- I think the implication of the McIntyre Aug11 post has shifted dramatically since it's suddenly more difficult to write him off as a skeptic crank.
Posted by: Free Radical   2009-11-29 18:04  

#11  CRU admitted to losing the data back in August. This is NOT new news. From CRU in August:


Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.


Why nobody raised hell about it back in August is anyone's guess but at least it is finally getting play in the context of Climategate.


Steve McIntyre published the above on August 11.
Posted by: crosspatch   2009-11-29 16:48  

#10  DD's back!
Posted by: Frank G   2009-11-29 15:09  

#9  "Dave D.
I think you are confusing post-normal science with normal science."


Nah. It's just that being a 60 year old fudd I'm locked into obsolete, reality-based normative thinking paradigms that give undue weight to outdated social constructs like "truth." And "don't jigger the data to make the results come out the way you'd like." And "don't deal with criticism by blacklisting the critics." And other quaint stuff like that.

I wonder if science is dead. Seriously.

Posted by: Dave D.   2009-11-29 14:39  

#8  I call shenanigans! (If only....)
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2009-11-29 12:26  

#7  Pull a stunt like this on a high school physics lab report, and it'd earn you an "F"-- certainly for that lab assignment, more likely for the entire course. This shit doesn't cut it.
Dave D.
I think you are confusing post-normal science with normal science.
Post-normal science is about belief formation. Facts are best left to the "experts"
Posted by: tipper   2009-11-29 12:26  

#6  Is this supposed to set an example of the 'Scientific Method'?

At a minimum take away their 'Doctor' and 'PHD's.

If only because they give the title(s) a bad name.

Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-11-29 12:13  

#5  They dumped the data "to save space" when they moved to a new building? WTF???

Unbelievable. And we're supposed to call these people "scientists"??? And acquiesce to a radical, top-to-bottom re-ordering of the world's economic system as a cure for the environmental catastrophe their alleged "science" allegedly predicts???

No, thank you. Pull a stunt like this on a high school physics lab report, and it'd earn you an "F"-- certainly for that lab assignment, more likely for the entire course. This shit doesn't cut it.

Isn't there some law under which these people can be prosecuted for gross malpractice? Sheesh...

Posted by: Dave D.   2009-11-29 12:08  

#4  Remember when Tony Blair was accused of 'sexing up' the intel on Iraq. One set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee. It's about power, baby.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-11-29 12:06  

#3  Only two things you can do with garbage, throw it out or put it in a computer
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2009-11-29 11:14  

#2   admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data

What a surprise! In REAL science, if it's not reproducible and independently verifiable it's NOTHING.
Posted by: DMFD   2009-11-29 10:59  

#1  "value-added" data. Lolz....
Posted by: Frank G   2009-11-29 09:24  

00:00