They destroyed personal e-mails, not data.
BULLSHIT.
You know damn well they deleted huge amounts of embarrassing data. CRU kept pleading that the data was "misplaced" or "damaged."
They did not have the orginal data, it is kept at the places that it is recorded. Muller used that data for his study.
They destroyed much of the backing for CRU findings that the IPCC based it's bullshit on.
No, actually it isn't. Because it isn't, the frauds have altered the terminology from "global warming" to "climate change." Global warming simply doesn't work at any level.
We were getting warmer, not "Dust Bowl" warmer, but there was a trend. But that collapsed over a decade ago.
The problem is that the fraud has been so rampant and overwhelming along with suppression of contrary data and well coordinated hits on any who offer contrary studies, that there is literally no credibility in the evidence. If James Hansen was the only one caught falsifying data, we could write it off as an overzealous and reactionary researcher. If Michael Mann was a rogue us created fraudulent models like the hockey stick, we could damn him.
But this isn't the case, there is a consistent pattern of fraud. Hanson isn't just a fraud, he launched a witch hunt to destroy the lives and careers of young scientists who dared utter any questions about AGW. Mann isn't just a fraud, he acted to block studies that impugned AGW from journals that offer peer review. Phil Jones isn't just a fraud, he criminally destroyed data to hide the extent of the the fraud at CRU.
Over and over, the fraud and sleaze of AGW are inescapable.
At this point, can we trust them? Isn't proven fraud Mann at Berkley now?
The Berkeley Earth project compiled more than a billion temperature records dating back to the 1800s from 15 sources around the world and found that the average global land temperature has risen by around 1C since the mid-1950s.
Yes, and failed to account for urban heat sinks and dozens of other obvious factors.
Berkeley took a conclusion and found or fabricated evidence to support it. That ain't science.
This figure agrees with the estimate arrived at by major groups that maintain official records on the world's climate, including Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), and the Met Office's Hadley Centre, with the University of East Anglia, in the UK.
"My hope is that this will win over those people who are properly sceptical," Richard Muller, a physicist and head of the project, said.
"Some people lump the properly sceptical in with the deniers and that makes it easy to dismiss them, because the deniers pay no attention to science. But there have been people out there who have raised legitimate issues."
Muller sought to cool the debate over climate change by creating the largest open database of temperature records, with the aim of producing a transparent and independent assessment of global warming.
The initial reluctance of government groups to release all their methods and data, and the fiasco over emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in 2009, gave the project added impetus.
The team, which includes Saul Perlmutter, joint winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, has submitted four papers to the journal Geophysical Research Letters that describe their work to date.
Until some level of integrity is returned to the scientific method in regard to climate studies, nothing in the field can be trusted.
Sorry, there is simply no credibility in the cesspool of fraud know as climatology.
