Steve McIntyre finds it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren’t any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
There’s an ongoing problem with IPCC climate ‘scientists’. Getting them to release their raw data (when it exists), the algorithms that they use to ‘correct’ the original data, and the source code for their climate change models is like pulling teeth. Real scientists are more forthcoming. No, I did not read the whole thing. Too many technical acronyms.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d say that the British Antarctic Survey’s original ‘data’ set was a total fabrication, designed to reinforce the IPCC’s foregone conclusion of Anthropogenic Global Warming Disasterism, and that the BAS is very nervous about Steve exposing them, the way he and Anthony Watts independently exposed blatant climate data fabrication, by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies several months ago. Is the current stonewalling déjà vu all over again? If so, then the Maxwell Smart sorry-about-that gambit would have been a reasonable political move. Better a buffoon than a crook.
Newsflash. What’s the big deal? Scientists throw away or conveniently misplace original data from recently published studies all the time. Not!
Maybe the journal which published the study should publish a retraction due to not meeting the journal’s data requirements.
In my work I use databases, which, although very important to us, probably less important, than BAS data that, eventually can be used to effect policy.
Yet, despite numerous crashes we never lost one bit of data.
I too find it strange, that an institute can “accidentally” delete data and have no backup copy?