Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Urban Heat Island" Crock

Messy raw DATA is what the code author wrote. He said the data was "unusable" it was "such a mess." The program was hardcoded to produce desired results....magnify ANY later temps more than earlier temps. CRIMINAL refusals of FOI requests.

But of course, all that is good enough to use to reshape society. LOL. Climategate has busted open their closed little AGW scam, and the entire theory is CRUMBLING. The work from CRU has ZERO credibility any longer with ethical scientists. Its over.

It would be a stretch to think that Climategate doesnt undermine AGW theory. They REFUSE to allow access to their raw data, and REFUSE to reveal their methodology. Why would you trust that? ALL CRU data will have to be reexamined. Same situation at GISS. NONE of that methodology can be trusted now while it is secret. But the worst is all the dissenting science that never saw the light of day from their corruption. Corrupting peer review process makes AGW theory all the more suspect.

Raw data is NOT available to the general public...only the "homogenized" data. Since you say this is so readily available please post a link to the RAW station data from GISS and from CRU. Also please post the link to the methodology they use to "homogenize" it.
Scientists have been fighting to get access to this information for years to no avail. They will be THRILLED to know that you have had it all along.
Funny how McIntire publishes the rude email reponses he gets refusing access.

GHCN is NOAA....not GISS.
Dont try to confuse the issue.

people like jwhat01 are just trying to
find excuses to dismiss the science. The emails don't support that, but psuedoskeptics will try it anyway.

Neither GISTEMP or CRU own the raw station data (they don't own the stations). CRU lost/deleted some of it's copy of raw data in the 80s.

If anyone else wants to do the analysis the raw station data is available and the methodology CRU and GISTEMP use is public. Even better they could come up with their own methodology.

But they dont. Funny

The raw station temperature data is available from the GHCN site, the methodology is published in peer reviewed papers. If someone wants to do the same analysis they can.

actually he wasn't the author, he was someone working on someone elses code. And like I said someone who cannot understand someone elses code is not "criminal activity". You make a big deal out of nothing. Also the code was to compile a database of precipitation, snow fall events etc that most people haven't even heard of. It wasn't temperature and it wasn't a climate model.

I don't deny any wrong doing by some of the scientists specifically Phil Jones with some of his e-mail statements as well as others. That's why there is an investigation and why he stepped down temporarily. This hacking of e-mails does nothing to the scientific conclusions on anthropogenic global warming. It only calls into question bad decisions made by some scientists and how the climate deniers are using this as propaganda to cast doubt on the science in the minds of the public.

Have you not kept with Climategate AT ALL???? The whole POINT is that the CRU has hidden, lost and destroyed ALL the raw data...the very data upon which they based their entire careers! They discuss DESTROYING the data rather than releasing it to Freedom of Information Act requests.

How could you have missed all this??? READ THE EMAILS FOR YOURSELF. This is the shadiest bunch of lying scum in the past 100 years of science. Burying dissenters' careers who DARED do critical research.

LMAO....read it yourself! You guys who defend these scum are incredible. READ IT YOURSELF.
East Anglia cannot release their raw data. They destroyed it. They also claimed it is all LOST. The ONLY data they have is the "value added" data which THEY changed without revealing their methodology. GISS does NOT, NOT, NOT release its raw data either. Only the "value added" data which they change IN SECRET. That is the whole problem with BOTH of these scumbag "science" outfits. This is science?