The Presidential Planner

—SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted THROWING AWAY MUCH OF THE RAW TEMPERATURE DATA on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics ARE NOT ABLE TO CHECK basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The REVISED FIGURES WERE KEPT, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”—(The Times of London)
“Value-added,” of course, means adjusted to suit the plans of the statists to take more power and stifle western economies.

Oh oh . .. here come the oil industry shills huffing and puffing while the oil burns. Humans are angels, we don’t pollute – oil is clean, you spill it in water, or burn it into the air – no problems. Everything is fine folks, move on . . . nothing to see here.

Let’s not be naive. Government officials invariably “lose” incriminating data when faced with pesky FOIA requests. That is, if they can’t manage to ‘redact’ everything that will get them jailed. Our world leaders are going into Copenhagen pretending that climategate never happened, while press lackeys like the intrepid Mr. Tapper play right along.

If the price of a gallon of gas was not enough reason to seek alternate energy,I still do not see any reason for these so called scientists to fabricate global warming by men,other than to get rich off some investments or other charge the taxpayers scheme.

Why should research funding institutions and taxpayers fund scientists who deliberately delay, obfuscate and deny open access to their research? Why should scientific journals publish peer-reviewed research where the submitting scientists have not made every reasonable effort to make their work – from raw data to sophisticated computer simulations – as transparent and accessible as possible? Why should responsible policymakers in America, Europe, Asia and Latin America make decisions affecting people’s health, wealth and future based on opaque and inaccessible science?
They should not. The issue here is not about good or bad science, it is about insisting that scientists and their work be open and transparent enough so that research can be effectively reviewed by broader communities of interest. Open science minimizes the likelihood and consequences of bad science. (Financial Times)

“But let’s be clear: Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs”
_____________________________________
If you have evidence the President has been blocking scientific inquiry – well produce it then.
Or is this yet another unsubstantiated accusation?