The scandal surrounding a key university in global warming science continues to mushroom even further. Scientists at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were already on the defensive after a series of embarrassing internal e-mails was stolen by a hacker and released to the Internet, showcasing an effort to silence critics of their theories and suggesting data was being massaged to conform to a pre-ordained theory.
Now, the same group of scientists has been forced to admit that they no longer have the raw data upon which their computer models’ predictions of global warming are based. The data sets they do have were adjusted to account for other variables and homogenized, but the lack of the original raw data points means other researchers can’t verify the calculations made to come to a conclusion of anthropogenic global warming.
East Anglia is saying the data was dumped in the 80’s because it was taking up too much space and are busy asserting that the lack of the original data in no way invalidates the research based upon it. Unfortunately, one of the principles of the scientific method is repeatability, and without the original data to check, the calculations cannot be independently verified and East Anglia’s conclusions cannot be checked – conclusions, by the way, which were instrumental in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pronouncement of a “unanimous consensus” on man-made global warming and directly led to efforts at industry-killing carbon rationing like the cap-and-trade bill currently stalled in the Senate.
It’s all just a little too convenient for my taste. Not only has it become glaringly obvious that the pushers of man-made global warming made a strong effort to exclude conflicting opinions and data, but the complete lack of the original data means that any computer models based on it cannot be verified and are thus invalid. Likewise, any global effort to impose carbon taxes and energy cost hikes must be put on hold until something resembling a scientific deliberation can take place.
That would be the responsible thing to do. However, global warming has progressed from beyond a scientific debate into a political means for the implementation of an ideological agenda. In a sane world, the climate summit at Copenhagen can’t possibly come up with sweeping global agreements against this backdrop of controversy. But now that the emperor’s clothes are coming off, I have to wonder if the push will become even greater to come up with some sort of climate legislation before it’s shown to completely be a farce and the public outcry becomes too great.
In fact, that seems to be the modus operandi these days – hurry up and get it through before anyone has a chance to object. That’s not transparent or deliberate, and it’s not scientific by a long shot.