Here is part of an editorial at the Washington Times:
The entire piece is worth reading here. A previous piece in the Washington Times on this topic is here. Even the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has this post up. Computer World adds this note to the discussion:
The entire University of East Anglia file with all the emails and other documents is available here. Some emails are available here.
The entire collection of news and discussions on Climate Gate is available here.
The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report.
Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation's IPCC report chapter titled "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes," says he "accidentally" deleted some raw temperature data used to construct the aggregate temperature data CRU distributed. If you believe that, you're probably watching too many Al Gore videos.
Mr. Jones is the same professor who warned that global-warming skeptics "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Other revelations hit at the very core of the global-warming debate. The leaked e-mails indicate that the people at the CRU can't even figure out how their aggregate data was put together. CRU activists claimed that they took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. One of the leaked documents states that their aggregation procedure "renders the station counts totally meaningless." The benefit: "So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"
Academics around the world who have spent years working on papers using this data must be in full panic mode. By the admission of the global-warming theocracy's own self-appointed experts, the data they have been using is simply "garbage." . . .
The entire piece is worth reading here. A previous piece in the Washington Times on this topic is here. Even the American Academy of Arts and Sciences has this post up. Computer World adds this note to the discussion:
As someone with a background both in IT and in science (I participated in particle physics experiments as a physics PhD student), I would also add the following lesson to the folks writing scientific code: Don't make stuff up. The released document HARRY_READ_ME.txt contains examples in which the coder, supremely frustrated with the poor quality of his data, simply creates some. Even if the underlying science is sound, "created" data taints the integrity of the entire process. Don't do it, no matter how tempting.
The entire University of East Anglia file with all the emails and other documents is available here. Some emails are available here.
The entire collection of news and discussions on Climate Gate is available here.
Related Posts
New Washington Times piecesQueering our schools: More dangerous ideas from Obama's 'safe schools czar'So much for new job growth: White House reco- The Obama administration keeps blaming others for the high unemployment rateFrom CBS News:Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters,
- Expensive Electric Cars Selling Very PoorlyFrom CNET: In terms of price, the Focus Electric costs just under $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit. The Nissa
Another Stimulus recipient seeing stock collapseFirst Solar's stock fell an additional 20% early today. The company received $1.5 billion from the Stimulus. The awar- Academics speak out on ClimategateSome of the media have argued that the controversial emails are too difficult for nonacademics to understand. Well, th
- Some editorials from the Washington TimesHere are some pieces that I wrote for the Washington Times:What is Obama smoking?: White House claims of stimulus-based
Climate-gate gets worse
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
