The Science Is Scuttled
Hah!
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.Scientists, my arse. The top CRU excuses and/or responses.
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.
- Uh, the dog ate my hockey stick graph.
- No, no. We said the seance was settled.
- An angel showed Michael Mann a set of golden plates which he translated into the Book of Warmin'. The plates have since been lost but it doesn't matter since only Michael Mann could translate them anyway.
- Why would we keep the raw data? The science is settled. Did Newton keep the apple?
- In light of recent developments, we decided to change our name to the Climate Research Unit Deleters (CRUD)
- Two words, Plausible Deniability.
- If you can't reproduce it, it is
notscience! - Save the raw data? We thought you said save the flawed data.
- Our plan is working, CRU has created or saved 1,000,000 snobs.
- Al Gore told us to.
9 comments:
Our hard drive was full.
Raw data is unsafe. It has to be cooked.
Data?? We don't need no stinkin' data!
Bubububut, don't you trust us? We're scientists!
Due to global warming, our network fried at the worst possible time--right when we were about to back up the files that contained the raw data...
As a result, you'll just have to take our word on it.
Peer reviews! What degree do you have, Patrick!!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. And then there's scientific consensus, which is completely trustworthy!"
"There is as much data to prove anthropogenic global warming as there is to prove that hydrogen can turn into people... uh oh..."
It just felt good!
Patrick and LarryD have degrees in blogology. Which means their experts on everything, especially atmospheric science.
Anonymous,
One doesn't need a degree in climate science to want to see the raw data.
I'm a programmer. I'd like to see the raw data and the code used to transform the raw data. If they had some problems with a sign bit on a sum-of-squares (the only way a sum-of-squares can go negative...), then there's a possibility that there is some other faulty code.
Science is supposed to be the equivalent of open-source, repeatable by others applying the same process, not black-box. Experiments should be repeatable, and others need to know the raw data used in order to repeat it.
In addition, one doesn't need to want to see the raw data personally, yet can still call for its release. I don't need to be on a jury to want complete evidence to be provided to the jury.
BTW, I'm not an English teacher, but I must point out that it's spelled "they're".
Anonymous - AGW isn't atmospheric science. It's fakery. You don't need a degree in blogology to understand that.
Post a Comment