My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Citation please? Also, if the CRU has been a

My recollection is that CRU responded to requests for raw data in the past by saying they didn't have it anymore. Citation please? Also, if the CRU has been admitting to the loss of data all along, why didn't they say as much in their statement about the loss? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693... Furthermore, why did Jones, Mann, et. al. spend so much time talking about "hiding from" (their words) FoI requests if the data being requested were lost? I don't equate failure to live up to the scientific ideal to gross misconduct... Misconduct is peripheral. The scientific ideal is to approach every situation with reasoned skepticism, and then to use experiments to collect evidence that removes as much doubt as possible. We have just discovered that we have less evidence, and more doubt, than we thought we did. The proper response is to re-establish those results as quickly and conclusively as possible. Lepidopterists do that much, even knowing that their papers will only be read by a handfull of colleagues. Global warming is a historic issue and requires a historic response, but it seems there are some who want conclusive proof that their is a problem before they will publicly acknowledge that there might be a problem. I can't imagine why. But considering how virulent an argument about "Science" global warming has become, I think we would do well to remember that science is a method, not a set of conclusions.