<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Nov 30, 2009, at 12:02 PM, spike wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I am not a climate change skeptic, but I can see this episode sets<br>everything back to square 1. Surely CRU will no longer be considered the<br>premier research center for climate change. I don't know what will take its<br>place.<br><br><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece</a><br><br>This is the comment that blew my mind:<br><br>...In a statement on its website, the CRU said: "We do not hold the original<br>raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised)<br>data." ...<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Incredible, a century's worth of raw climate data destroyed! I think this ranks with Piltdown man, Hwang Woo-suk's stem cell hoax and the cold fusion fiasco as among the greatest scientific scandals of the last century. </div></div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark </div><br></body></html>