Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all
esr.ibiblio.org
esr.ibiblio.org
> Tom Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., noted that the conclusions of the IPCC reports are based on several data sets in addition to the CRU, including data from NOAA, NASA and the United Kingdom Met Office. Each of those data sets basically show identical multi-decadal trends, Karl said.
I'm continually amazed by how many "skeptics" clearly haven't read (or even glanced at) the IPCC reports. It's hard to be skeptical of arguments that you don't understand.
------
>How could anyone who calls himself a scientist allow the primary data and metadata to be destroyed?
Copies of the primary data.
>Somebody will have to do the work of collating raw historical data from weather stations all over again before we will know anything
If only someone like NASA had also been keeping an instrumental record, we could check to see if they agreed with the HadCRUT record.
-------
Skip – most of the climate data the CRU disposed of was hard copy, and one of the reasons it WAS disposed of is because they felt that the digitization efforts of other climate research teams covered it adequately.
For example, the open source data sets put out by UCAR include the raw and adjusted data, and is gathered from the same sources that the CRU massaged data comes from.
The fact that there does not seem to be an overwhelming call among the climate-science community to purge themselves of unreliable research and researchers makes the whole field look like cargo-cult science.
I'm ok with GW articles being on Hacker News, because it is a very important issue. But let's at least keep it to articles that have something new or interesting to say.
I'd expect posts from a bit more level-headed source to make HN front page...