What new information do we have since my last post?
In my speeches on global warming, I have used the unadjusted historic world temperatures from the CRU database, because I believed it was the most accurate. That is the data I used in my comment about the Associated Press’ “stilts” story nearby.
One of the new developments is that the raw data from which the CRU database was disposed. So, this data cannot be replicated – and replication is a necessary element of the scientific method.
Was the deletion intentional? We don’t know for sure.
But, I am leaning toward that conclusion. Why? Because Jones, in the Climategate emails, explictly discusses deleting data rather than turning it over in a Freedom of Information Act request. The second reason is, in all of these emails, there is no “Oh Snap”
email where they ask each other “what happened to the data??!!” or “Where did it go??!!”
Some are contending that this doesn’t matter because there are other databases. I heartily disagree. Satellite temperature data does not begin until 1979. There is no other independent database that can answer the question whether current temperatures are unusually warm when compared to, say, the 1930′s.
There are other reasons to believe the trendline of recent temperatures (last 20 years) is too high. That will be the subject of another Climategate post.
NEW INFORMATION Since posting the above last night, The British Met Office (Great Britain’s equivalent to our National Weather Service), a strong proponent of global warming, has announced that it will reexamine all 160 years of temperature data. This is a reversal of their initial position on Climategate. The news story is here.
Hat Tip: Watts Up With That.