Of all the revelations in Climategate, the most shocking is that the alarmists who support the notion that mankind is causing the Earth to warm up destroyed the raw data allegedly supporting that notion.
Revealed emails from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit contain a number of alarms. They call on others in their network to destroy emails in order to thwart freedom-of-information requests; suggest boycotting scientific journals that give opposing views a forum; and otherwise display an attitude that is the antithesis of true science.
But, all that aside, the fact is they have destroyed the original records used to construct the faulty computer models that allege catastrophe will result in a century unless humans spend trillions of dollars and essentially surrender individual freedoms to a world dictatorship. The raw data thus supports the entire house of cards that constitutes “anthropogenic global warming.”
“Trust us,” these demonstrably untrustworthy worthies say. "We know what the data said." Yet their emails talk of using tricks to "hide the decline" in temperatures over the past decade.
The laughable excuse they offer for dumping the data is that they didn’t have room in their computers back then to save all the information. On its Web site, CRU says, "Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
First, who believes that? Admittedly, computer storage generally was smaller, but these were not large graphic files that hog storage space. This was numbers and text, which can be stored in huge amounts in a matter of gigabytes. Secondly, if there was no storage space for the digital info, why not print it out and store the hard copy in file cabinets? Certainly, there was no lack of file cabinets 20 years ago. It just won’t wash.
They could not turn over the raw data because honest scientists would see that it did not support the far-out projections of the alarmist community. That’s the only logical conclusion.