Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data

[kallsop]

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data)

"In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space."

As we all know, a couple of USB flash drives would have busted the storage budget wide open LOL. What do you think - incompetence, or destroying inconvenient data?

[Klimax]

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data (http://cei.org/news-release/2009/10/05/govt-funded-research-unit-destroyed-original-climate-data)

"In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space."

As we all know, a couple of USB flash drives would have busted the storage budget wide open LOL. What do you think - incompetence, or destroying inconvenient data?

Usually raw data can be much more bigger than a couple of flashdrives not to mention that they exactly are not reliable for longer term storage.And if they are funded similar way as our universities and research units(czech) then I am not suprised they couldn't get more space...

[Slayhamlet]

I wonder why they didn't just blow up the building in a controlled demolition like they did to WTC7 on 9/11?

[Horatius]

I wonder why they didn't just blow up the building in a controlled demolition like they did to WTC7 on 9/11?



Too big a carbon footprint.

[Dave Rogers]

As we all know, a couple of USB flash drives would have busted the storage budget wide open LOL.

They probably would have, in the 1980's; I don't think the University of East Anglia could have funded the development of the USB port single-handed, let alone the flash drive.

This looks like a classic example of judging the past by the standards of the present day. The data discussed was gathered in the 1980's, when attitudes to data storage were very different. Even though it may have been feasible to store all the raw data, it may have simply been seen as not cost-effective. I started doing scientific research in the 1980's, and it was fairly commonplace back then not to keep data that wasn't likely to be critical, simply because storage media weren't cheap.

Dave

[ElCid]

I found an interesting page on this topic on the web...

What do 60 of the world's most influential scientists* have in common?
They all agree that the Bush administration has systematically distorted scientific fact to meet its political goals on issues ranging from military intelligence to health to the environment and more.
* Including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science and two former Republican presidential advisors.

According to these scientists, President Bush and his administration have:

* deliberately stacked advisory panels with political appointees
* censored and disregarded government scientists and reports when they conflict with the administration's political goals
* disbanded scientific panels whose advice conflicted with Bush administration policies.

Even worse, a recent Pentagon report leaked to the British press predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. Thus far, the President has skirted all global attempts to curb the phenomenon and until recently denied that global warming was real.

[Klimax]

They probably would have, in the 1980's; I don't think the University of East Anglia could have funded the development of the USB port single-handed, let alone the flash drive.
...

I should have read link.

Technology wasn't there yet...