Now why would the CRU do that? Certainly, it couldn’t have anything to do with money, power, and prestige, right?ClimateGate just got worse for the alarmists, no matter how much they want to ignore the issue or throw things like the 4 year olds liberals tend to emulate, via The Telegraph
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
Parts of the news release
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
Is anyone really surprised or shocked that the True Believers, whose data was intregal to the UN IPCC, played games with the data? You climate alarmists can continue to poo poo it, and stick your heads up your a in the sand, but, can you explain why the CRU would do this?
Even if there was warming, which, there has been, that still wouldn’t prove that it was anthropogenic, just that there has been warming, as has happened time and time again, followed by a cooling period, followed by warming, followed by cooling, and so on. But, since people and groups like the CRU like to play games with the data, we do not know how much warming there has actually been. Even if we did know, it still wouldn’t prove AGW.
Elsewhere, would it be un-Constitutional for Obama to sign a Copenhagen treaty? Ban Ki-moon admits the U.N. is looking towards global governance. And Greenpeace gets totally PWND.
The cartoon is by Michael Ramirez, who does them for Investors Business Daily. I cropped it to fit. Full version here.
I know at least one person who is realsick over the truth finally coming out.
Funny, we haven’t heard from our resident troll since Teach posted the link to the 500 skeptic papers. Back under his bridge, preparing to molest goats again, I suppose.
Hold off on that assesment, TFMo- The Left is still working on sexual rights and freedoms for pedophiles. Sex with animals is still some years down the road.
Probably, Otter. But Reassic strikes me as a TRUE Progressive.
So we’re now looking for what the “Institute of Economic Analysis” thinks about the CRU situation? I see there is no respect for science in this place…
I’ve explained the facts for you people, but you ignored them. You don’t have any rebuttal for the facts. You just say that I’m “spinning”, and then move on. How about we review real quick?
1. 95% of the data was untouched, and is readily available. Therefore, the claim that “all” or “most” of the data was manipulated or deleted is ocmpletely false.
2. Of the remaining 5%, adjustments were only made where necessary, such as to account for changes in the location or time of day of the temperature measurements. You can agree that if, for instance, a met station changes the time of day that measurements are recorded, there should be a correction up or down to ensure that the temperature record remains consistent, right?
3. The temperature information provided by the CRU is only one of several independent sets of data, and they have all already been shown to be in agreement prior to any of this. The implication by all of this Climategate nonsense is that there was some wrongdoing on the part of the scientists at the CRU, which resulted in an exaggerated temperature increase. However, if the CRU data matches nicely with other independent temperature records, and even with satellite measurements, one must also prove that all of the others are corrupted.
4. The small percentage of raw temperature data that was deleted is still available via either the national meteorological services in the UK or the NCDC in the US. No raw data has vanished from the planet.
This is what deniers like McIntyre and Michaels do. They create doubt through confusion and misinformation. They don’t have any proof that anything inappropriate occurred. They only have speculation. Indeed, an objective examination of the facts clearly shows no wrongdoing. However, true non-believers like you guys have spread this Climategate myth through the blogosphere, and even into the media. Now, actual scientists are faced with defending their work, rather than working on actual research, and all based on complete falsehoods from people like you.
I hear ya, TMFo.
What has me curious now is… what is that Huuuuuge blank spot in the comments? I see yours, I see mine….
Exactly, Otter. I’m glad to see that you are now publicly admitting that you ignore the facts, preferring instead to stick to your speculation about what happened.
I can think of about 500 peer reviewed papers with quite a lot of facts, Reassic. Care to speculate on that?
I see two big blank spots now, TMFo… must be all that global warming falling on Washington and Copenhagen- the latter having only seen snow 14 times in the last century.