On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:29:36 -0600, HeyBub wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Care to list that "handful" of people?


"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted
throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their
predictions of global warming are based. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Refusal to release data they DO have:

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act!" [Phil Jones, head of CRU]
http://donklephant.com/2009/11/29/cl...-britains-foi/


And absolutely fudging of data:

"Why does NIWA's graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw
data looks
completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual
temperature readings show
none whatsoever!"
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ima...arming_nz2.pdf

OK, you've proven that one group of scientists at one university, plus
another scientist who used to work at that same university, have been
unethical. That surprises you? In any large group of people, there's
always a few as******s. But that's no reason to assume that the entire
group is the same. That's like assuming, because a few fanatic
Christians have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors, that all
Christians are nurderers and bombers.

And I don't think those East Anglians are the influential "handful of
people" that Dave Balderstone alluded to and that I questioned.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw