Why do you think 150 years of raw climate data was deleted?....really why?

It's possible the data was considered obsolete as it had be verified at the time. Work building on that data would then seem more important. I agree it is bad science and doesn't help the case against deniers or put faith in skeptics. However climate science is a global collaboration and there is plenty of data out there supporting the 0.7/0.8 rise. Unfortunately for UEA's their data will not be as valid as other data.
 
For the same reason that the University of East Anglia hackers deleted what was going to be the definitive proof of global warming, that would end all questioning, and finally move it from "theory" to "principle handed down from God."
 
Would a "responsible" "scientist" delete "raw data" proving "a global crisis" to "save disk space"?

Is it possible one (or more) of the words in scare quotes is NOT the truth?
 
Please amplify, I'm intrigued!!

Oh I see what you mean, suspicious or what?
I await the answers with bated breath, come on explanations please!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030
 
Back
Top