cayadopi at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 15 15:22:12 EST 2009
There's a big difference between keeping papers for writing grants for a school etc.......... and keeping papers that would CYA on saying the world is warming in a cataclismic manner that will threaten the very existance of life. :-)
'Course maybe they didn't know the world puppet masters would seize on their report for another means.... but then what's the deal with the hacked emails?
"Several of the e-mails were allegedly written by Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit. One, dated November 16, 1999, contained a sentence about temperatures and referred to a “trick” that could be used to “hide the decline”. "
The would have been much smarter in deleting potentially incriminating emails that their source documents for their conclusions.... LOL.
Can't help but wonder..... what does "hide the decline" mean? Decline in global warming? Stay tuned, more on climate-gate will undoubtably be forthcoming.........
Not quite accurate, Drew. I did grant writing and each grant has its own
specific requirements. Some were only 7 years, some were longer. None were
infinite. If they are keeping data till hell freezes over, that is their
choice, not a requirement unless a specific grant so states, and most don't.
AND, since the grants I wrote were for schools, I would question keeping all
the supporting documentation. Results are a different story. Plus, once
you have your audit, you can trash away to your heart's content in most
And, there seems to be a disconnect between what reality is with research
and what people perceive it to be. The data they trashed was simply
information they had collected. The vast bulk of that data they got from
other sources. Those sources should still have their data.
--"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theordore
----- Original Message -----
From: <dsanner106 at aol.com>
> The problem is they cannot be duplicated, they are gone and were not
> duplicated. We have only the work product they generated after massaging
> original data. My wife is a university grant writer, I think they would be
> happy to hear that they can throw away all the data gathered from those
> funded studies that they have always been required to keep. There is a
> warehouse full of the stuff, still kept even though it has been
> transferred to
> microfilm and later digital formats.
> In a message dated 12/15/2009 12:27:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> lurine at com-pair.net writes:
> I don't think the average person, which the DC Whorehouse, etc. counts
> understands what happens to all that paper.
> They collect data, they correlate data, they digest data, they spit out
> in the form of papers for peer review and scientific journals. The data
> sits around and then the data is trashed. That specific project is over.
> They have the results. It is done.
> No big conspiracy. Just basic, ordinary everyday housekeeping. The idea
> that someone might have thought 30 years ago that not keeping a
> of references, that can be duplicated if needed, would cause such a stink
> Homestead list and subscription:
> Change your homestead list member options:
> View the archives at:
Homestead list and subscription:
Change your homestead list member options:
View the archives at:
From: Lynda <lurine at com-pair.net>
To: homestead at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 2:13:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Homestead] Climate-Gate
More information about the Homestead