RochesterConservative.com

Beaufort Observer

In what is turning out to be the most astounding farce of our generation, the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has disclosed that it “threw away” the data upon which the predictions of global warming are based.

The Times of London is reporting that the disclosure was made by the CRU in response to requests for the data under the Freedom of Information Act. When pushed for it, they could not produce the original data. All they have is the “adjusted” data that they have used to “prove” the earth is warming.

Not having the original data means that other scientists cannot verify the accuracy of the “adjusted” data nor the conclusions drawn from the data. Thus the models used to predict future climate cannot be proven correct.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered the data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

What makes the “loss” of the data even more alarming is the fact that the CRU knew years ago that the data did not exist. Yet they did not disclose it but continued to insist, as recently as last week, that it was “proprietary” and thus not subject to the FOIA.

Thus the simple fact of the matter is that the “science” upon which all of the hype that has been created about global warming is based on non-peer reviewed science, generally making it meaningless unless it can be replicated by other scientists. None have done so.

The “science” of global warming was on tenuous ground to begin with. That is so because we do not have accurate data points that go back thousands of years. What they did was look at secondary affect, such as ice bores, tree rings and other secondary indications to conclude which geologic periods were colder than others. Then they took the data points they “did” have for the past 150 years (the data that is now missing) and developed models projecting both backward and forward. They compared the retrospective models to the secondary observations they had to “validate” the models. Based on those assumptions they projected how much global warming there would be in the future, depending on such things as carbon dioxide levels in each period. But without the data the models are invalid and thus the predictions about future global warming have no factual basis in legitimate science.

This could well explain why the models say that with the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the average global temperature should be increasing. In reality it is decreasing. This was one of the points made in the hacked emails…that the scientists who claim the earth is warming could not account for the fact that it is actually cooling.

Now we know why.

To read more click here.

But in what could be even more ominous, some blogs have published data from some of the hacked emails that show graphs that extend until last year. If these graphs indeed are correct and contained original data that CRU is now saying was destroyed years ago then we have yet another scandal on our hands. But what remains unknown at this time is whether the 2008 graphs were based on the original data or on the “altered” data. We’ll leave that to you to judge: click here.

And in a related matter the Detroit News is reporting that the head “scientist” at the CRU has pulled in $22.6 million in grants since 1990.