Russians Say CRU Manipulated Data

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.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!