Free Markets, Free People

UK Climate Scientists Accused Of Manipulating Russian Temperature Data

Things just got a worse for the “consensus science” of the AGW crowd. Russia has accused the Hadley Center for Climate Change in the UK’s Met Office of cherry picking Russian temperature data. The timing couldn’t be more perfect, with Copenhagen underway.

The Russian business daily Kommersant reports:

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.

In anyone’s world, that’s “fudging the numbers”. And this is a different crew than that at the University of East Anglia’s CRU. In fact, as you recall, the UK’s Met announced quite recently that in light of the CRU emails, it was going to do a 3 year study of all the temperature data from the last 160 years. You have to wonder if, in fact, they’d already internally uncovered this charge by the Russians (or knew it was coming) when they made that announcement.

To put this in perspective, Climategate just got a whole lot bigger. And again, we’re talking about fundamental data here – the basis for all of the AGW claims can be found in the data of these two institutions.

Fudging numbers isn’t all that has been done in this scandal. The message has been mightily manipulated as well. Here’s an example.

Graph one (via Wolf Howling) – the AGW claim that human beings are responsible for heating up the planet:

GL Graph 1 1400-2000

This is how the AGW argument has been presented. The data has been conveniently graphed from 1400 till now.

But what if we expand that a bit?

Graph 2:
GL Graph 2 - 800-1900

But if you take it back to the year 900, the beginning of the Medieval Warm period, suddenly the hockey stick looks like a toothpick.

And to really stress the point, let’s take it back a few thousand years.

Graph 3:

GL Graph 3 2500 bc to present

Suddenly the horror of AGW, in perspective and sans any possible influence by man in the past temperature increases, looks so puny as to be insignificant – even if the data wasn’t fudged!

This is the state of the scandal called “AGW science”. Fudged, manipulated and more and more discredited every day. And they’re still trying to use it to redistribute wealth in Copenhagen.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to UK Climate Scientists Accused Of Manipulating Russian Temperature Data

  • Sadly, I expect more …

    In the wake of climategate, questions were asked on the BBC’s Question Time last week about whether or not global warming was a scam. The absolutist claims of two of the panelists—Daily Mail journalist Melanie Phillips, and comedian and broadcaster Marcus Brigstocke—revealed how science ends up being portrayed as a fight between two dogmas: Either the evidence for man-made climate change is all fake, or else we are so sure we know how the planet works that we can claim to have just five or whatever years to save it. When science is invoked to support such dogmatic assertions, the essential character of scientific knowledge is lost—knowledge that results from open, always questioning, enquiry that, at best, can offer varying levels of confidence for pronouncements about how the world is, or may become.
    The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values.

  • There is now a very real chance that we can get climate research on the right track in time.  We seem to be in the midst of a natural warming trend, and the sooner that we learn just how much influence humans really have, the better.  If these alarmist charlatans have their way, we’ll wind up in a death spiral of our own, a world where we continually harm our economies and our people in order to try and stop a phenomenon that we cannot control.

  • If this sort of thing continues, pretty soon the “deniers” will be the ones denying that the evidence for “global warming” has been faked!

    The problem then with getting our relationship with science wrong is simple: We expect too much certainty, and hence clarity, about what should be done. Consequently, we fail to engage in honest and robust argument about our competing political visions and ethical values. [emphasis original – dj505]

    I suggest that this misses the point of science entirely.  Science isn’t about policy: it is about establishing facts and developing theories to explain the universe around us.  Clearly, those facts and theories can affect policy, but to expect science to tell people what to do is a bit silly.  Further, it includes the implicit assumption that science is always 100% accurate, that scientists always have the final, definitive answer, making science a modern-day substitute for oracles, prophets, sybils, soothsayers, Magic Eight Balls, etc.  Again, this is silly: any scientist worth his salt will admit pretty readily that there is ALWAYS uncertainty and that, no matter how good a theory might be, new research or a different view of existing evidence could easily overturn it.

    Now, the rest of the paragraph is dead-on: there ALWAYS needs to be an open, robust argument about policy.  This is what has been missing in the AGW issue because its partisans have used “science” to stifle, belittle, or otherwise silence dissent.  They are not and have never been interested in debate, but rather about control, and they have perverted science to aid them in their totalitarian scheme.

  • It makes you wonder what the folks in 1500 BC were burning to generate that level of AGW. …Frickin’ Bronze Age polluters.

  • Snark on –
    Oh come on!  Russia is a little bitty place!  How could leaving off 40% of their temperature readings possibly effect anything?  get real!  You deniers!  You’ll do and say anything!  It’s warming, I decree it!
    Snark off –

    • I get the sarcasm but just wanted to point out it isn’t just the Russian data.  How much of the total data has been cherry picked?

      • Yes, and consider the landmass that is ‘Russia’.  And how much of it is in permafrost (I only point that out because it OUGHT to be sensitive to the warming more visibly than other places).  Now consider throwing out 40% of the data pertaining to that land mass, which in and of itself represents a very substantial portion of the world.
        How much of the data has been cherry picked?  heh, as much as was necessary, we’re talking about science consensus here you know!

  • Just want to point out that the graphs are from Greenland ice core samples, not from Russia.  Doesn’t change the basic premise of the post, though.