It seems the cabal of scientists and their enablers, central to the Climategate scandal, just cannot stop themselves from making false statements in an effort to convince those not paying attention that they are being open with the long withheld data.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit explains how New Scientist magazine has used the occasion of CRU’s release of CRUTEM station data (temperature records) in response to the ICO’s rejection of CRU excuses to disseminate further disinformation about the Climategate dossier. New Scientist is spinning that:
Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year’s “climategate” scandal.
Only the raw data they are talking about is the temperature record which was not at the centre of the scandal at all. Climategate was focused on the ‘Hockey Stick’, Yamal tree ring records and proxy reconstructions.
Those at New Scientist know this, but they are determined to cynically distort the facts to make it appear the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) is open and transparent. It isn’t. As McInytre explains, a recent FOI request for the 2006 Yamal regional chronology was rejected by the University.
UEA seems desperate to hide data Keith Briffa appears to have excluded from the tree ring set that it is believed shows no statistically significant increase in temperature. The only tree rings that were included are believed to be those that suggested there had been an increase. The University could easily put this matter to rest by simply release the full, unadjusted data set. But it is refusing to do so.
People should make up their own minds what CRU/UEA is trying to hide. Meanwhile the misleading statements from CRU/UEA and their friends in the journal community continue to pour forth.