The fact that CRU may or may not be releasing data in the future is not significant. All past findings on the data which no longer exists are invalid. That reaches far and wide, even to the IPCC. Since there has been legislation created on scientific research which now has no foundation, that legislation should be held in question. It will be an interesting exercise to see if CRU can be held legally liable in class action suits. Many careers were stiffled, defamed and put down by CRU’s practices. Many businesses have been harmed. Countless sums of grant money used under false pretenses.

As far as obligations on CRU to release data. One of the CRU emails cited that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act. CRU was concerned that if it was discovered that FOIA requests applied to the data, they would have to respond. That same email outlined how the data could go missing if such a FOIA request occurred.

Here is an interesting question. Lets say CRU did in fact have data which scientifically proves Man Made Climate Change. I would think that data would be considered priceless. Why would CRU be so careless as to remove data which had infinite intrinsic value? I doubt the data had significant value in proving APGW, instead it was a danger in that it could prove tampering.

I do work in the arena of science, although not specifically related to climate research. This is a sad time in our history where scientific process has been perverted to support an apparent agenda. To that end, anyone seeking to challenge APGW is called names and denigrated.

Thanks for the intresting bit of fun on the blog.

Rob,

If CRU had allowed their Climate Change findings to be peer reviewed, they would have provided copies of the base data to other scientists. That would mean CRU wouldn’t have had the only copy. CRU themselves stated they deleted the data and it can not be recovered. By CRU’s own admission, the data was not peer reviewed.

You could argue that all the peer review was done internal to CRU. As we all know now, that would not have been a real peer review. Again by CRU’s own admission, they went to great extents to block research which was contrary to APGW.

Nothing I formulated, CRU’s own position demostrates the point in question.

Although Rob, if you know of a scientific journal where CRU’s research was peer reviewed, please cite the publication.

The problem is that there is no open peer reviewed science being performed by the Man Made Climate Change crowd. The recent CRU email also supports that conclusion. When CRU said the core data was deleted and can not be recovered, that also means they never allowed the scientific community to peer review that data, otherwise there would be copies. Deleting data is contrary to accepted scientific methods. It also means any conclusions formed from that data are not proven. Many people including the IPCC have based Man Made Climate Change claims on this very data, a very foundation which is built on quick sand. It could be there is Man Made Climate Change. If so it has certainly not been proven, in fact this so called science fails to use widely accepted scientific methods.

That’s is good you are questioning things. Have you researched Milankovitch cycles. If so then you are aware how much these mathmatical proven natural Earth cycles assist in research and confirmation of climate research. Ocean floor core samples and ice sheet core samples are commonly clibrated using Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch spent many years of his life on his mathmatical theories. He consulted many scientists in his process, he encourage peer review throughtout his research. Other scientists suggested considerations, one such suggestion help Milankovitch prove his theories. This is the scientific method in practice.

Simply looking at the statistics in considering mathmatical principles like Milankovitch cycles, Solar variations, etc. there is a far better chance that I am correct and you are incorrect.

I am willing to entertain the opposing view, please cite open peer reviewed scientific proof that proves the existance of APGW. By open peer review, I mean that base data, theories, computer models and all processes are published and have been made available for review by all in the scientific community not just like minded scientists. Of course any science base on CRU can not be considered, there is no base data available.

By the way, APGW is not a religion whether one thnks it exists or not.

Do you really think Gore and a couple of rich people (who happen to be Liberal) have that much power, really? Isn’t it much more logical to think that it is the largest global corporations who don’t want global warming to bite into their bottom-line/business as usual?? Why is that not logical to you? I don’t understand that way of thinkig. Yes, Gore is backing Cap and Trade, which I don’t believe in BTW. But that is just another example of the global elite (which includes MANY Republicans/conservatives/libertarians too by the way) ripping all of us off. You are being diverted from soemthing that could be real, and if so, should be examined much more carefully and not dismissed because a few Liberals are behind an ordinary and Republican-invented scheme to make money. Wake up.

So you guys found your “holy grail.” Must be nice…

The emails are not the “holy grail” nor are they an epiphany. People like Al Gore have been yelling “the sky is falling” for so long, people now believe the sky is falling. The problem is, no one has actually looked up to verify for themselves.

This is the problem in the science of Man Made Global Warming. Too many people just accept what is told to them. School used to teach kids to question, seek out information and prove things for yourself. This approach seems to be a lost art these days.

I would submit that I could cite any number of scientific facts that challenge the concept of Man Made Climate Change. I could compare and cotrast natural occurances to demonstrate that the scale of nature far exceeds the scale of man. All that will not matter, people do not want to confuse preconceived notions with facts.

Rob, if you want to create solidarity, encourage people to study all the facts. Not just the missives circulated by the APGW crowd.