The Scientific Method – Global Warming Style

Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does !

Can anybody show me the part of the scientific method that permits scientists to destroy the data on which their theories are constructed, in order to keep anybody else from seeing it?

Here’s the truth: Anybody who continues to support these corrupt AGW conspirators should be summarily drummed out of the fraternity of true scientists, and relegated to some sort of religious cult.

UPDATE: Vodkapundit » The Truth Hurts Is Just Plain Mean

How well do you understand climate science? Take this simple quiz and find out!

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


The Scientific Method – Global Warming Style — 20 Comments

  1. A quick search via Wikipedia reveals that Real Climate is run by Environmental Media Services, whose founder Arlie Schardt was the communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 presedential bid. EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications, who are notorious for environmental scaremongering.

  2. Mike Mann and Phil Jones work together a lot. Mike Mann is one of the people behind the (un)Real Climate website. He uses it to attack anyone that dares to point out his “errors” and out right fraud. BTW he has threatened legal charges against anyone posting or providing access to the CRU file.

  3. This is by far the most damning element of these released CRU emails. Defenders may claim that a particular comment is taken out of context or was merely a mistaken turn of phrase or that deletion of data occurred by accident. But there is a consistent pattern here. Repeated mentions of deleting data rather than releasing it. Repeated mentions of different methods of fighting FOI requests. Repeated mentions of an unwillingness to give access to data for no other reason than that critics want to look for faults in AGW theory.

    This behavior is absolute poison to science.

  4. Oh, I forgot to mention actual instances of deletion of data. When someone tells you “we deleted that data on accident, oopsie” and then you later find out that they have routine conversations about intentionally deleting data as a means to forestall outside investigation of their research, you start to get a bit suspicious.

  5. …he has threatened legal charges against anyone posting or providing access to the CRU file.

    Well then, he’d better tell his lawyers to get their hourly-billin’ asses in gear – they’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Just about every site I’ve visited in the last two days has links to this stuff, reprints/quotes of some of the contents, or both…

  6. In a properly run IT department at a university, it would be difficult to nearly impossible for non-IT users to effectively delete a server-hosted data file. Any/all files should be backed up at a minimum on local media and, in current practice, offsite. Accessing these backups would require IT cooperation. An ethical IT department would not cooperate; there is no legitimate reason to delete backup archives, especially not “to conserve [on-line] storage space”. Indeed, some backup media (CD’s, DVD’s) don’t support file deletion; they must be destroyed as a whole.

    Further, a deletion could not be done “inadvertently”. If the publicly available file were accidentally deleted from the server, a simple call to IT would get it restored — probably within a day.

  7. My reading of Canadian statistician McIntire’s mult-year effort to obtain the actual research data indicates that the really imprtant data was never archived – never put on any server, but kept in the possession of the researchers themselves. If you’re going to fudge, cherry-pick or misinterpret raw data to get the result you want, the last thing you’ll do is give up absolute control of that data, especially to IT people who would have independent access and do something crazy, like comply with a FOI request.

  8. Perhaps McIntire and your interpretations are correct but the Harry_Read_Me.txt file seems to indicate that he began his work by copying the data and program files from a server. But this readme is not definitive in that respect.

    At any rate, the emails were certainly on server/host machines with IT people having independent access. Maybe these “world-class” scientists are just not very bright.

  9. Reminds me of the legendary Harvard President, chemist James Conant, who complained in the early 50s about the huge increase in the budget for the Physics department (those accelerators are pricey):

    “Why can’t you be more like the Math department? They only need a pencil, a piece of paper, and a wastebasket. Or better still, like the Philosophy department? They don’t even need the wastebasket.”

    Apparently the “Climatology” department needs plenty of wastebaskets, to deal with all that pesky contradictory data.

Leave a Reply