re: #127 Obdicut

Yes, thank you, the other deniers have already spammed the thread with that.

Throwing away the original data, however, is a serious blunder. It’s nearly unheard of in scientific circles to destroy data - it is often necessary to revisit it to answer criticisms, and - more importantly - every single case of scientific fraud brought over the last several decades has ultimately been resolved through examination of the original, raw data. Sometimes in favor of the original researchers, other times against them. But preservation of such data is the norm, to the extent that even the cheaters have hung onto it lest it’s disposal raise eyebrows.

I’m not going to draw any conclusions regarding the researchers in question in this particular case, but I will say two things about their destruction of the data. First, it feeds directly into the story being told by their opposition that the research is cooked and they were trying to cover their tracks when questions were raised. Second, it’s extremely unusual to destroy such data in the first place, and such behavior bespeaks extreme sloppiness on the part of the researchers in question. Given the political nature of the argument, it is hard to understand why such an action would have been taken. It ought to be obvious that, at the very best, it would only add fuel to the fire already roaring. And I would expect better of researchers trying to convince a skeptical world to radically alter it’s behavior and spend vast sums of money whose arguments ultimately rest on that data.

For those opposed to taking action against global warming, this is a dream come true. I’m interested in hearing the researchers involved explain their actions.

As I said when the CRU documents came to light: it isn’t about the contents; it’s about the appearance. And the appearance here is hard to cast in a positive light.