OK, so now that we know that much of the global-warming raw data was thrown out, supposedly back in the 80's, so that none of the models relying on that data can be checked, I have a question.
What exactly does the citation tree look like?
Who cites that data that can't now be reviewed? Who cites the models built on that data? Who cites the people who cite the models built on that data?
It's probably relatively easy to build a straightforward citation tree, since those links are all documented and hyperlinked in places like the Science Citation Index (SCIFINDER). Harder would be to exclude the citations that are made merely as a nod to predecessors or for completeness in the review of the relevant literature, because to be fair what we're interested in is not hat-tips, but documentation of work building on previous work, taking it for granted that said previous work was rigorous.
Look, I've written a literature review, done it a couple of times in fact. I've written a model (not a very GOOD one), making assumptions which I supported by arguing from other people's data. I'd be pretty pissed off if I found out that those other people didn't actually, y'know, HAVE the data they said they had, especially if they knew it for 20-plus years and sat on that truth while other people decided it was a good idea to trust them and base their graduate theses or maybe even entire research programs upon that trust.
bearing blog 