Facts to fit the theory? Actually, no facts at all!
<p>It just keeps getting better and better.  Now we learn that the CRU  has admitted to <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece">throwing away the primary data</a> on which their climate models were  based.  I quote: &#8220;We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.â€ </p>
<p>This means that even the CRU <em>itself</em> has no idea how accidentally corrupt or fraudulently altered its data might be.  And the IPCC reports used the CRU&#8217;s temperature reconstructions as a gold standard.  So did other climatologists all over the world.  And now they can&#8217;t be verified!  Without a chain of provenance tieing them back to actual measurements, every single figure and trendline in the CRU reconstructions might as well be PDOOMA, a fine old engineering acronym expanding to &#8220;Pulled Directly Out Of My Ass&#8221;.</p>
<p>Words don&#8217;t often fail me, but this is beyond ridiculous.  How could anyone who calls himself a scientist allow the primary data and metadata to be destroyed?  I&#8217;ve long thought the AGW case was built on sand, but it&#8217;s worse &#8211; it&#8217;s built on utter vacuum.  Somebody will have to do the work of collating raw historical data from the weather stations and time periods the CRU mined all over again before we will know <em>anything</em> about the quality of their results.  A significant portion of the climatological literature &#8212; everything that used CRU reconstructions or models as an input &#8212; will have to be outright scrapped.</p>
<p>While I still think the leaked emails and code make a strong case for active fraud, the scale of this disclosure makes that almost irrelevant.  It is, at the very least, procedural incompetence on a breathtaking scale &#8212; the most astounding case of my lifetime, and I&#8217;m hard-put to think of a parallel in the entire history of science.</p>
<p>UPDATE:  High drama!  There&#8217;s a strong argument, based on the CRU dump, that the CRU&#8217;s claim to have lost the data in the 1980s <a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11630">has to be a falsehood</a>.  If so, we&#8217;ve moved from an incompetence-centered explanation back to a fraud-centered one.  But then, a counterclaim that the reporting was bad and they&#8217;ve only destroyed 5% of their data.  Pass the popcorn&#8230;</p>
