If you don't like what your data shows - fudge it and...

...if someone asks to see it? Well -- from Patrick J. Michaels at the National Review:

The Dog Ate Global Warming
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren�t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom�s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world�s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It�s known in the trade as the �Jones and Wigley� record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a �discernible human influence on global climate.�

Putting together such a record isn�t at all easy. Weather stations weren�t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado�s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren�t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren�t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6� +/� 0.2�C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that �+/�� came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones�s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, �We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?�

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to �try and find something wrong.� The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech�s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn�t have the data because he wasn�t an �academic.� So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were �confidentiality� agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre�s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

Further reinforces the facts that: #1) - we do not understand our climate #2) - an increase in Carbon Dioxide would be fantastic for agriculture and it's impact on overall temperature would be minimal #3) - there is no science here, only political agenda #4) - the people with the loudest voices are the people who are making the most money The comment about the measurement stations being encroached is the subject of the wonderful blog: Surface Stations