Altering the Data, Manufacturing the Increase
In science, data matters more than anything else. Data allow others to examine and replicate your experiments and to check your work. Data give you a secure foundation from which to rebuild your work if it is lost or goes awry. An unimpeachable data source is the heart of any scientific endeavor.
When we read the CRU e-mails and see how Jones and Mann, et. al., altered the data, not for sound scientific reasons, but to force it to confirm their view of the world, we know that something has gone wrong. Science doesn’t work that way. We rightly should be more alarmed when we find that the only data we have now is the altered data because the CRU threw the orignal stuff out some time in the 1980s.
Anthony Watts, who has been trying to get his hands on unaltered climate data for years, wrote an excellent post on how data gets changed and what can happen preconceptions get in the way of objectivity. He focuses on just one set of observations from one set of stations in Australia. The post gets technical, but if I can understand it, I’m pretty sure you can, too. Watts is a good writer and he doesn’t leave the big words out there unexplained.
CORRECTION: I attributed the article to Anthony Watts, when it was actually written by Willis Eschenbach. I regret the error. Sorry, Mr. Eschenbach!
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey, Jim Lindgren, and Glenn Reynolds are all on this story today. No linky love, guys? For shame.
Other Posts of Interest:
- The CRU Scandal’s Real Crime Against Science.
- If You Think Bush Was Anti-Science, Wait Until You See This Guy
- A Book You Need to Read if You’re Interested in Climate Change
Category: Oh the Climate, It is A-Changin'
