What happened here? They threw away their copy of the raw data. That data still exists (they gathered it from public repositories), and the methods of the paper describe what they did. You could reconstruct the results.
Essentially, the "skeptics" are getting worked up over what amounts to throwing away the lab notebooks for a paper published two decades ago. Even if you assume malfeasance on the part of these authors (an assumption that does not appear to be justified), you'd have to disregard the results of thousands of other papers to leap to the (wild) conclusion that "there is no evidence the earth is warming."
But between the raw data and the set of data is a correction. Without being able to show what that correction is, all the models based off the second set of values is not valid science.
So you have to go back and recollect the info from all these sources (not an insignificant undertaking, though mostly do-able), actually give a reason for the "corrections", and then create models that fit that data, and then issue new predictions.
Without starting over from raw data and following all the way to the conclusions reached about man made global warming there is no scientific proof that man causes global warming. None of it is valid until you can show how that "correction" was made. And the loss of this data means they will never 100% be able to show that.
Out of curiosity, why do you put the word skeptic in quotes? Do you imply that my skepticism is not genuine? Believe me, it's genuine. I'm no "skeptic", I'm a skeptic, proud and true.
If what you say is true, that's really good. It's probably not true, judging from the comments in the source code, where the guy laments on his inability to verify the very existence of some of these stations. That's not to say the stations he wanted, didn't, at some point, probably exist, it's just that time passes and the world moves on, people retire, and filing cabinets go to the salvation army.
I put the word skeptic in quotes to denote the difference between scientists (who are already quite skeptical), and the people who employ fallacious "skeptical" arguments to advance a political agenda. I don't know to which group you belong (but then, I wasn't referring to you in my comment).
Anyone who has spent any time around scientists knows them to be a conservative and naturally skeptical group of people. The "scientific establishment" -- if there is such a thing -- is powerfully opposed to new ideas. The climate change debate was a controversial new idea thirty years ago, but after three decades of research and debate, it's been as close to universally accepted as anything ever is in the world of science. The people who would have you believe that climate change is a conspiracy amongst rogue scientists either do not understand how science works, or are purposefully dissembling to advance their cause.
You're being a bit kind to yourself, don't you think? You're skeptical, as are those you agree with, but those you don't agree with are "skeptical".
The climate change debate was a controversial new idea thirty years ago
See, this revisionist stuff drives me crazy. 30 years ago, it was called "global cooling". Now, sophisticated punters call it "climate change", instead of the less sophisticated and more embarrassing flip-flop of "global warming". http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Just call it global warming and admit that 30 years ago, climatologists were wrong. Don't try to obfuscate their lack of perfection (nobody expects perfection anyway) with this "climate change" nonsense of "we knew it all along, see, we predicted climate change 30 years ago!"
"You're being a bit kind to yourself, don't you think? You're skeptical, as are those you agree with, but those you don't agree with are 'skeptical'."
No, not really. There's a difference between being skeptical and using fallacies and rhetoric to cause confusion. I disagree with people who do the latter in the guise of "skepticism".
"See, this revisionist stuff drives me crazy. 30 years ago, it was called "global cooling". Now, sophisticated punters call it "climate change", instead of the less sophisticated and more embarrassing flip-flop of 'global warming'."
What part of "the climate change debate was a controversial new idea" don't you understand? When presented the theory, scientists didn't believe it. They debated many different theories -- global cooling, global warming, temperature cycles, etc. -- and eventually, the data led them to a theory. It's not "revisionist" when new data leads you to change your hypothesis. It's science.
What happened here? They threw away their copy of the raw data. That data still exists (they gathered it from public repositories), and the methods of the paper describe what they did. You could reconstruct the results.
Essentially, the "skeptics" are getting worked up over what amounts to throwing away the lab notebooks for a paper published two decades ago. Even if you assume malfeasance on the part of these authors (an assumption that does not appear to be justified), you'd have to disregard the results of thousands of other papers to leap to the (wild) conclusion that "there is no evidence the earth is warming."