All Scientists Throw Out the Raw Data, Right?

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:
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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

What, like nobody else has any data?

On Nov 29, 2:26*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

What, like nobody else has any data?

So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
still cite Wang as valid?
http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp

On Nov 29, 1:16*pm, RonSonic wrote:
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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing. *

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

Desperate for something to cling to, aren't we? They threw away the
data twenty-five years ago as a normal part of cleaning drive space
back when such things were dearly expensive. Climate science as we
know it hadn't developed, either.

Don't let reality run over your dogma, though.

:sigh:

On Nov 29, 1:32*pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:26*pm, Dan O wrote:



On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

What, like nobody else has any data?

So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? *You know they
still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp

Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
disinformation site climateaudit.org.

Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.

On Nov 29, 2:44*pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:32*pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:26*pm, Dan O wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

What, like nobody else has any data?

So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? *You know they
still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp

Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
disinformation site climateaudit.org.

Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum

Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:44 pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:32 pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of
the source, because apparently some believe that if a tree falls
in the forest and you hear about it from Fox News it's still
standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged
and "adjusted" and throw out the raw information.

No, it's an increasingly exposed, ideologically driven religious movement.

What, like nobody else has any data?

So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp

Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
disinformation site climateaudit.org.

Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum

Apparently the GroundRat is still obsessed with homoerotic invectives
(indicating either a predilection for or undue fear of same); AND can't even
spell douche-bag! ROTFL LOL ROTFL

BS (saw enough to plonk long ago)

On Nov 29, 7:16*pm, RonSonic wrote:

All Scientists Throw Out the Raw Data, Right?

"Scientists" with something to hide may throw out data, real
scientists never, ever throw out the raw data for fear that someone
may say the adjusted data on which they base their final results has
been crookedly cooked. In fact, the generally correct assumption is
that data is thrown out only to stymie would-be critics and circumvent
the freedom of information laws.

In the case of the UEA, Phil Jones's institution, the excuse of
running out of space is simply not credible, University libraries have
great expertise in microfilming page material, and digital data was
then stored on tape and floppy discs. A small box of floppy discs, or
a few dozen microcassettes (my Epson PX8, called the Paris in the
States, stored my novels on microcassettes as also used in my Olympus
recorder), or one or two big reels of IBM tape would easily have
sufficed for centuries of temperature readings, hundred of millions of
data points if they had that many, which I doubt. Think of what is
involved: place, date, temperature. Gee. It's a barefaced lie. The
data was destroyed for another reason, which I leave to your good
sense.

More from Ron below.

Andre Jute
I still hold the raw data from my dissertations, as I have for four
decades, just so nobody can mistake me for a climate "scientist"

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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the source,
because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the forest and you hear
about it from Fox News it's still standing. *

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and "adjusted"
and throw out the raw information.

RonSonic wrote:
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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of the
source, because apparently some believe that if a tree falls in the
forest and you hear about it from Fox News it's still standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged and
"adjusted" and throw out the raw information.


http://today.excite.com/toonedview/id/0%7C0.html

On Nov 29, 1:22*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:44 pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:32 pm, Norman wrote:
On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, Dan O wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:16 am, RonSonic wrote:
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.

As usual, this will probably be challenged with a criticism of
the source, because apparently some believe that if a tree falls
in the forest and you hear about it from Fox News it's still
standing.

This is from the Times' Environment Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

So, is that science when you only keep the data you've massaged
and "adjusted" and throw out the raw information.

No, it's an increasingly exposed, ideologically driven religious movement..

What, like nobody else has any data?
So long as in the meantime 30 more studies citing Mann et al
can get pushed through, no harm done, right? You know they
still cite Wang as valid?http://tinyurl.com/yfkn8wp
Informath.org is the personal website of a Douglas Keenan, a right
wing dooshbag often cited by the energy interests astroturf
disinformation site climateaudit.org.

Translation: you're sucking the cock of Exxon again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum

Apparently the GroundRat is still obsessed with homoerotic invectives
(indicating either a predilection for or undue fear of same); AND can't even
spell douche-bag! *ROTFL LOL ROTFL

BS (saw enough to plonk long ago)

Again, though....

Doesn't that imply that you're IGNORING his posts?

Then ... why AREN'T you?

Hmmm.

Is it the fact that ... poor impulse control is one of the hallmarks
of Dry Drunk Syndrome?

I think that's it. YMMV.