Yes, they threw out the data to save space. Isn’t that wonderful? They want us to spend trillions of dollars to combat global warming, and it’s all based on unverifiable data. Oh, they have the massaged data, but not the real, raw, as-collected data.
Isn’t that convenient?
Yes, I saw that. Guess at $100 per terabyte they couldn’t afford more disk storage.
“We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
Value added, homogenized ? In others words, throw away the data points that prevent the desired conclusion.
I believe a “the dog ate the raw data” story would be more believable…
Hooray for Australia! Finally, somewhere, some HOPE for CHANGE!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
I was wondering when this shoe would drop:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_sc/climate
Let’s see, they threw away data, now they want to spend $60 billion collecting new data ?
An organization representing the grandest ambitions of climate scientists wants Western nations to spend at least $2.1 billion a year for the next five years — and as much as $60 billion overall during that period — to glean huge troves of still undiscovered climate information from the world’s land, air and seas.
Where do these people come from ? Is this $60 billion for actual data, or “homogenized” data ?