You know, I'm almost astounded that no one on this site has commented on the ongoing climate change data dumping story.
The Times of London has this on the story.
I think it's a huge deal. Being a computer programmer, I know how data can be manipulated and massaged and made to point to one conclusion or another. I'm disappointed that the scientists involved have destroyed the raw data from which they drew their conclusions.
I know, all of the raw data is still available, but not in one place. And but without knowing exactly what data the UEA was working with (which data points were used, which were discarded, which were "corrected"), there's no way to test their conclusions independently. One of the determining factors of a scientific conclusion is that the results are reproducible by others using the same beginning data and same processes. That's why the huge furor in the mid-80's over two chemists "discovering" table-top cold fusion blew over so quickly - no one could reproduce their results, and therefore their claim was determined to be unfounded.
This is a big deal to me. One person who commented on this story wrote:
Now, data has been discarded. Hmmm. Toto has pulled the green curtain aside and we see the great, omnipotent Oz frantically throwing levers and pushing buttons, screaming, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Can't get that image out of my head.
Interesting analogy.
There's no doubt that the climate is changing. There's no doubt that the climate has changed before and will change again. But there are huge doubts that we humans are primarily responsible for this change. There are also huge doubts that anything we do will slow down or even reverse the change.
And even if we do affect the climate change, there are immense doubts that it would be a good thing. If we don't have a consensus on whether or not humans are causing climate change, we for doggone sure don't have any firm grasp on what might happen if we're successful at making an impact on that change.
Let's assume that humans can reverse a global warming trend. Let's further assume that we cool the planet down a bit. Now let's assume that we can't stop that cooling trend - one which we, the humans, have initiated - and the Earth enters a new period of ice ages. Don't mock. If we can reverse global warming, it's entirely possible that we won't be able to stop it on command.
Will we then warm the Earth up again? Will we just hunker down and accept an ice-locked Atlantic US east coast ten months out of the year? What about the farmers across the temperate zone who feed the entire world? What about the tropical zone ecosystems? Wouldn't they freeze to death? Would sales of fur coats in Hawaii skyrocket?
I'm not a doomsayer. And I'm not saying that those who take a human-caused global climate change position are totally wrong. I'm just saying that without the base data, the conclusions drawn from this data can't be verified or shown to be erroneous. The conclusion that the Earth is warming and that it's humankind's fault can't be tested, and that isn't science, it's speculative assertion.
