You can pretty much bet that a theory is nothing more than junk science when the “scientists” who support it refuse to produce any, you know, evidence.

Such is the case with the UN’s unit on climate research in regards to global warming. After refusing to disclose temperature data for years, the UN is attempting to claim that its evidence of global warming was…lost.

Yes, the group is actually pulling the, “my dog ate my homework,” excuse. Apparently without any sense of shame whatsoever.

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

You have to read the whole article over at National Review to truly grasp how shameful, pathetic, and transparently petty this excuse is.

Basically:

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, ..politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Okay. So then followed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests followed from actual scientists interested in reviewing the data. Now the response is that all of the data over the past 25 years has suddenly been lost, so there’s no actual, you know, evidence.

They actually expect us to take their word for it that the data actually existed at one point and it really pointed to the conclusion they’re claiming it did. Science based on faith and trust rather than facts and data. Seriously.