From Greenie Watch:
This is extraordinary (and not believable) for a collective academic body -- particularly one that "is widely recognised as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change". Their ducking and weaving amounts to an admission that they have distorted the original data in undefensible ways and they are not going to let anybody correct that. By now they probably HAVE deleted the original data, just to make sure it never comes to light. Just another lot of Greenie crooks! If they were honest, they would have said from the beginning that they had not retained the raw data and that it was just their OPINION about the data that they were promulgating
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.Lately Steve has been spearheading an effort to get the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to release the data that underlie its analysis of global temperature trends. Such a request should not at all be controversial.
Steve McIntyre, of ClimateAudit, is a determined individual. While this may be no fun for those who fall under his focus and happen to have something to hide, more sunlight on climate science cannot be a bad thing.Lately Steve has been spearheading an effort to get the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia to release the data that underlie its analysis of global temperature trends. Such a request should not at all be controversial.[Follow the link above for the full post.]
1 comment:
I always thought there was a basic rule in science - if you refuse to provide the basic data for analysis, either within the body of your paper or as an addendum supplied to the publisher, your paper is open to challenge. Academic dishonesty can cost you not just one paper; it can mean that every piece of work you've ever influenced is automatically discredited.
Refusal to hand over the raw data when available, or a finding that one has destroyed or corrupted the raw data, should mean an automatic conviction for academic fraud, with subsequent sacking. A finding that one has been negligent in safeguarding it should also carry severe sanctions - at least dismissal.
Post a Comment