Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Copenhagen Bombshell:Russia Accuses CRU of Data Manipulation

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Copenhagen Bombshell:Russia Accuses CRU of Data Manipulation

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:52 pm

Source

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.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 643 times in 361 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:25 pm

Update: Here's a leaked related email from Michael Mann bragging about how he blocked two articles from Steve McIntyre from appearing in the peer-reviewed literature claiming that CRU had Russian temperatures wrong. More control of the peer-review process from the bully-boys. As today's news reveals, McIntyre was right all along.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.



Source
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 643 times in 361 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:29 pm

Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science. Still MikeTX will probably defend that too! :lol:
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 642 times in 415 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:34 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby mrh » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:32 am

Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.
User Avatar
mrh

 
Posts: 2072
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Grangeville, Idaho, United States
Thanked: 409 times in 238 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:27 am

mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby mrh » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:59 am

Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.
User Avatar
mrh

 
Posts: 2072
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Grangeville, Idaho, United States
Thanked: 409 times in 238 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:43 am

mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.

The beauty of partisanship, as I see it, is that there's no need to research and form your own opinion on anything; there's a ready-made set of opinions out there waiting for you.
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:02 am

Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.


I don't think I'm one of them. In fact, I changed. I was an AGW doomsayer back in the early '80's when nobody was paying attention to this. I listened to what I was told and didn't read for myself. Back in the early '90's I started to change my mind, as I watched prediction after prediction not come true. I remember Hansen's projections in the late '80's, predicting ruin by the mid-'90's. His and other "expert" projections never even came close. I also watched the consensus folks like Mann, Jones, and Hansen become shriller and shriller, and I watched the satellite and radiosonde data not reflect the warming that these guys said was happening. I saw these guys trying everything they could to destroy the reputation of the satellite data, as they relied on very flawed ground-based thermometers. Any idiot knows that a city is much warmer than the suburbs, and I saw some of the "adjustments" these guys made to the city sites. It was laughable, and you didn't need to be a scientist to know it.

I also saw the marginalization of skeptics and obvious attempts to avoid releasing data (as now proven in the emails). Watch all of these leeches flying all over the world on the dime of taxpayers, and it doesn't take a genius to see what this emergency is all about, and it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to see that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 643 times in 361 posts

Postby mrh » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:11 am

Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
mrh wrote:
Andinistaloco wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Selecting the data that prove what you want to find - a mortal sin in science.


That's very true. I bet only one side of the debate does it, too...
:wink:


Probably true since the other side is largely locked out of publishing.


It's entirely possible to select only data which prove what you want to find, without publishing anything whatsoever.


Certainly. But then you are largely working from the outside and people will dismiss you with comments like, "but he isn't in a peer reviewed journal" and ignore you whether you were a good scientist or did something curious with the data.


I see the point you're making, but don't quite agree. I doubt that whether or not someone's research is accepted matters to you - your opinion isn't going to change based on that, nor will most other peoples'.

I'm even fairly certain that certain people - many on this site :wink: - couldn't care less if 99% of the scientists in the world were in favor of global warming - they've made up your minds and that's that. Likewise, there are certainly people who couldn't care less if the reverse was true and all educated opinion was that global warming didn't exist.

The beauty of partisanship, as I see it, is that there's no need to research and form your own opinion on anything; there's a ready-made set of opinions out there waiting for you.



For people in general I think you are right. But my mind isn't made up on this and I very well think something could well be going on. But I'm having trouble getting through some of the politics and corruption of all this. I think it does taint the position quite severely and people should not assume that someone bothered by that necessarily has a strong opinion. I don't know enough to have a strong informed opinion, though I think I know enough to be a bit mistrusting.
User Avatar
mrh

 
Posts: 2072
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Grangeville, Idaho, United States
Thanked: 409 times in 238 posts

Postby peladoboton » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:15 am

kind of reminds me of gthe politics and coruption that came along with and actually delayed the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS.

i give it 10 years before we have any real clue as to what actually is going on with climate change, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 50.
User Avatar
peladoboton

 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: SLC, Utah, United States
Thanked: 1058 times in 674 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:30 am

peladoboton wrote:kind of reminds me of gthe politics and coruption that came along with and actually delayed the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS.

i give it 10 years before we have any real clue as to what actually is going on with climate change, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 50.


Back in the '80's, Hansen said it would be 10 years before it was clear. Then in the '90's, it was another 10 years. I guess these guys think it's clear right now. To me and many others, it's not.

Lindzen of MIT said that in 20 years, shen none of the dire predictions come true, nobody will be talking about it at all, and looking back on it, everyone will think we were crazy to be so hysterical about AGW in the early 21st century.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 643 times in 361 posts

Postby Andinistaloco » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:32 am

etsnyd wrote:I don't think I'm one of them. In fact, I changed. I was an AGW doomsayer back in the early '80's when nobody was paying attention to this. I listened to what I was told and didn't read for myself. Back in the early '90's I started to change my mind, as I watched prediction after prediction not come true.


Good on you. One of the reasons I rarely debate things like AGW is that I don't feel I have enough evidence and/or an educated enough opinion to really argue about it. I can look at what the experts say, but when you don't know who the experts are or if you can trust them, the question becomes more complicated. Likewise gathering data on your own is difficult because you don't know where or whom that data came from. Either way, I'd much rather debate with someone who has an educated opinion on something; otherwise it's like... well... trying to argue with a creationist about evolution.

mrh wrote:For people in general I think you are right. But my mind isn't made up on this and I very well think something could well be going on. But I'm having trouble getting through some of the politics and corruption of all this. I think it does taint the position quite severely and people should not assume that someone bothered by that necessarily has a strong opinion. I don't know enough to have a strong informed opinion, though I think I know enough to be a bit mistrusting.


It's an interesting point. Does the politics and corruption hurt? Absolutely. I think the politicizing of the issue (yes, it seems inevtiable with ANY issue these days, but some of this could've been avoided) definitely damages the cause. Had Al Gore not championed global warming, for example, I'm certain more folks on the right (and perhaps in the middle) would have been more willing to believe in it; therefore he actually hurt the cause somewhat by doing so. It's ridiculous that people could use Gore's electric bill as an argument that global warming doesn't exist, yet it makes sense that people would have such negative reactions - it's the way things are. Hell, if I saw Sean Hannity on TV telling me that drinking water after you come home from the bars helps a hangover, my first reaction would still be suspicion. :wink:
User Avatar
Andinistaloco

 
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:32 am
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona, The Great Southwest, United States
Thanked: 68 times in 42 posts

Postby The Chief » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:44 am

etsnyd wrote:
peladoboton wrote:kind of reminds me of gthe politics and coruption that came along with and actually delayed the discovery of HIV as the cause of AIDS.

i give it 10 years before we have any real clue as to what actually is going on with climate change, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was 50.


Back in the '80's, Hansen said it would be 10 years before it was clear. Then in the '90's, it was another 10 years. I guess these guys think it's clear right now. To me and many others, it's not.

Lindzen of MIT said that in 20 years, shen none of the dire predictions come true, nobody will be talking about it at all, and looking back on it, everyone will think we were crazy to be so hysterical about AGW in the early 21st century.


Let us not forget that Hansen was one of the original IMPENDING ICE AGE RAGERS in the early 70's.

Lindzen has consistently been a voice of reason regarding this whole issue since he rose up back in the 80's countering Hansen's cries of "Hot" doom.
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Next

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.