... take your pick ... either way, it's a mess:
Perhaps we need to go back to first principles?Rule # 1:
In Science, the raw data is sacrosanct.
Rule # 2:
Corrections to raw data to compensate for known anomalies are always kept in a separate data set or adjustment algorithms
Rule # 3
The corrected data produced from applying Rule 2 is also sacrosanct.
Rule # 4
You never throw anything away.
How hard can it be for the climate “science” crowd to understand this?
It is beyond being funny any more.
Luckily, team-climate has lots of pristine data sets ... right?
The biggest reason data is not well cared for by the CRU IPCC crowd is because the data can only prove that AGW is not happening. There are too many other factors to prove that CO2 is the sole driver of warming. As the historic record shows there were warmer and colder periods in our earth's history. So the only thing data can actually show is that is that AGW is not occurring. If the data shows that the global mean temperature is staying the same or decreasing then AGW is not happening. If the global mean temperature is increasing it might be because of AGW but it might equally be the result of a hotter sun, a shift in earth's orbit, 'hotter space' etc etc etc. Now if you were in charge of keeping what could only destroy your pet theory how sacrosanct would you maintain it?
None of these rules apply when there is a political agenda.
Chicanery beyond a reasonable doubt....
The Gore sci-fi movie was the tipping point for me......however, those who bought it, just proved they were not as smart as a 5th grader.
From http://tinyurl.com/ycftrjc
Has anyone seen any GISS adjusted (homogenised) data that do not have an increased or warming trend?
==================
Speaking for myself, and now you mention it – no.
Perhaps they sorted all of the cooling trend data into one place, and the homework dog came along and ate it.
Of course they understand it, but if they followed proper scientific principals, they couldn't keep the great ponzi scheme going, the gravy train of research dollars would derail, there would be no more breathless press conferences, trips to Bali, fawning TV interviews or that wonderful "we are so righteous 'cause we are saving the world" feeling when they wake up in the morning.
Crooks . . the lot of them deserve to be in jail.
You're right, CJ, the integrity of the data and the details of the methods used to process the data is crucial to science. Well, real science. Climate science may have started with a kernel of hard science but it has been wrapped in too many layers of politics, environmental advocacy, greed and BS. Now, as the layers of corruption are being peeled off, any remaining data still reeks of manipulation. There seems to be no way to separate out the real numbers from the fake ones.
QOTD
Does anybody know the contact details for James Hansen at GISS? I’ve got a couple of bank statements need homogenising.
Hey someone someone figured out the solution to the depression!
Professor, I just got an A on my final exam, but you don't have the security clearance to see it.
My term paper is so good, you're going to get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. But you can't see the data - Canada won't let me release it.