Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[bfdd]

That's not their Job. Fail.

That's the Job of Meteorologists.

... you realize the only real difference between the two is the time span they look at right? one looks at the short term one looks at the long term. neither are very good at predicting what is going to happen. so like i said, if they can't predict tomorrows weather how can they predict next years?

also, im not saying anything out of the ordinary. the top climatologists have made models in the past and recently that don't hold up to what is happening. if you are going to criticize us because we aren't informed enough on the sciences, then obviously these guys don't understand it that much either. im not using this as an argument to say AGW isn't happening, even though i don't believe us to be the cause of GW/CC, im using it as an argument against you saying "oh you just don't understand, these scientists do" when they have been wrong continuously.

 

[Ozoned]

The problem is, you and your non-believers have made this into a political issue.

This is the most dishonest statement I have ever seen in this Forum.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And guess what? If powerful evidence accumulates that that ACC is false, then the scientific consensus will change.

That's how science works.

You seem to think that science is like religion, where one revealed "truth" is by definition true for all eternity. Think Christianity will EVER conclude that God doesn't exist or that Jesus isn't his son?

General Relativity isn't "by definition" true, despite what the general public may think of Einstein. If GR can't be reconciled with some of the consequences of quantum physics, GR will fall.

It's the religious fanatics that think that there's something wrong with science when a theory is discarded. They fail to grasp that science is not itself knowledge; it is merely a process designed to obtain knowledge.

No, I believe that science is science and there shouldn't be a need to for one side to attempt to shout down and belittle the other side when the truth WILL come out eventually. At this point anyone who subscribes ONLY to one side of this matter as if it's all decided when so much is still unknown and unaccounted for is being the religious fanatic.

btw, I can't believe you actually try to compare GR and ACC. GR lays out a very specific, detailed, and testable theory that has endured for decades. What is the specific, detailed, and testable theory for ACC? That CO2 might be contributing to CC? In a nutshell that's all ACC theory really currently boils down to. Lots of speculation, little in the way of hard, testable facts. The data they use continue to fail to produce any sort of reliable models. There's no comparison between GR theory and ACC theory.

 

[Ozoned]

And guess what? If powerful evidence accumulates that that ACC is false, then the scientific consensus will change.

Why does it have to be powerful?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
J. D. McLean

Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia

C. R. de Freitas

School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

R. M. Carter

Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

Time series for the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) and global tropospheric temperature anomalies (GTTA) are compared for the 1958−2008 period. GTTA are represented by data from satellite microwave sensing units (MSU) for the period 1980–2008 and from radiosondes (RATPAC) for 1958–2008. After the removal from the data set of short periods of temperature perturbation that relate to near-equator volcanic eruption, we use derivatives to document the presence of a 5- to 7-month delayed close relationship between SOI and GTTA. Change in SOI accounts for 72% of the variance in GTTA for the 29-year-long MSU record and 68% of the variance in GTTA for the longer 50-year RATPAC record. Because El Niño−Southern Oscillation is known to exercise a particularly strong influence in the tropics, we also compared the SOI with tropical temperature anomalies between 20°S and 20°N. The results showed that SOI accounted for 81% of the variance in tropospheric temperature anomalies in the tropics. Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation

 

[sandorski]

Could you please tell us who is a "Climatologist" Who they are and where they got their "Climatology Ph.D." ? I mean if we can only listen to Climatologists we should at least know the path to get there.

Here ya go

 

[sandorski]

... you realize the only real difference between the two is the time span they look at right? one looks at the short term one looks at the long term. neither are very good at predicting what is going to happen. so like i said, if they can't predict tomorrows weather how can they predict next years?

also, im not saying anything out of the ordinary. the top climatologists have made models in the past and recently that don't hold up to what is happening. if you are going to criticize us because we aren't informed enough on the sciences, then obviously these guys don't understand it that much either. im not using this as an argument to say AGW isn't happening, even though i don't believe us to be the cause of GW/CC, im using it as an argument against you saying "oh you just don't understand, these scientists do" when they have been wrong continuously.

Close, but not quite.

 

[charrison]

And yet you've always failed to demonstrate that.

You think because we usually not disagree? That is a fairly dumb way to view people. Lets face just because I dont swallow everything krugman has to say about economics does not mean I dont know anything about it. Nor does it mean other people at his academic level that disagree with meant hey dont know anything about economics. There are various opinions about how the world works, we simply disagree on many of those.


As far as science in general goes I put a lot of trust into it. And as far as this topic goes I think I have maintained a very reasonable position global warming. At his point we dont know enough about climate, so more research is required. And of course that does not mean we should do nothing now, but it does not mean we need to take radical steps either. If co2 is in fact a major issue, we need to move to nuclear power, something the greens still by and large do not want. Wind and solar are nice, but they are currently not cost effective for power generation. Research should be continues and solar will probably be cost effective in the next decade or so based upon historical price declines.

And scientist at CRU appear to be having more like politicians than scientist and that is good for no one.

 

[GoPackGo]

So we shouldn't listen to a worldwide consensus of scientific experts because you point out they aren't deities? Sounds like you have a problem with science in general. No one is saying scientists are gods, but they have decades of data, decades of studies, and have formed conclusions based on the data. No one is saying they can't be questioned. The whole point of science is to question. But you need to question in good faith and with opposing data which also needs to be vetted. I don't buy that every accredited national and international body on climate change, all of whom agree on AGW, is motivated by some bias or conspiracy. And if that's all you got, it's pretty weak.

If the data can be questioned, why are there such labels as "Global Warming Denier" and "Non-Believer"

Remember Algore said the issue was "settled".

Plus as information is being revealed that the data is manipulated...how can you trust the results.... and don't forget that data has been gathered next to air conditioners and other negating factors.

The fact that these people who want to "save the world" don't practice better conservation is also damning against them as well.

Have they not heard of Webex?

 

[bfdd]

Close, but not quite.

um not really, that's about it. obviously climatologists have to find other methods of finding climate/weather data ie tree rings, but they're basically the same thing when it comes down to it. one is using recent data to try and predict soon to occur events the other is using data that goes further back to predict events that occur down the road. other than the time thing they're basically the same.

 

[monovillage]

Here ya go

Thanks for the link, now answer the 2nd part of that question. Who actually has a Ph.D. in Climatology?

 

[sandorski]

um not really, that's about it. obviously climatologists have to find other methods of finding climate/weather data ie tree rings, but they're basically the same thing when it comes down to it. one is using recent data to try and predict soon to occur events the other is using data that goes further back to predict events that occur down the road. other than the time thing they're basically the same.

Incorrect.

 

[sandorski]

Thanks for the link, now answer the 2nd part of that question. Who actually has a Ph.D. in Climatology?

I dunno. You aren't, I know that much.

 

[IGBT]

If the data can be questioned, why are there such labels as "Global Warming Denier" and "Non-Believer"

Remember Algore said the issue was "settled".

Plus as information is being revealed that the data is manipulated...how can you trust the results.... and don't forget that data has been gathered next to air conditioners and other negating factors.

The fact that these people who want to "save the world" don't practice better conservation is also damning against them as well.

Have they not heard of Webex?

the eco-KOOKS are frothing at the mouth to get their carbon-CON tax revenue going. They got the first ten years collections spent. That's why they engage in fraud and fail to tolerate any divergent opinion. It's an enormous amount of work servicing a lie and they want to get paid.

 

[werepossum]

... you realize the only real difference between the two is the time span they look at right? one looks at the short term one looks at the long term. neither are very good at predicting what is going to happen. so like i said, if they can't predict tomorrows weather how can they predict next years?

also, im not saying anything out of the ordinary. the top climatologists have made models in the past and recently that don't hold up to what is happening. if you are going to criticize us because we aren't informed enough on the sciences, then obviously these guys don't understand it that much either. im not using this as an argument to say AGW isn't happening, even though i don't believe us to be the cause of GW/CC, im using it as an argument against you saying "oh you just don't understand, these scientists do" when they have been wrong continuously.

One of the things that has always made me suspicious of the CAGW theory is its adherents' insistence that meteorologists have no knowledge about climate. Climate is nothing more than weather integrated over time, and if you don't first understand the mechanisms driving weather you are not likely to understand the mechanisms driving climate. Once we reach the point that we have testable, repeatable mechanistic models of Earth's climate, we should be able to predict general weather trends, at least down to a weekly basis. As it stands today, climate models only predict things that have already happened and fail when used to predict future weather, with such failures attributed to "variations caused by unknown natural processes" which are assumed to be not important over the scale of time. Even theoretical astrophysics has to be more accountable than climatology, yet climatology is the science which we are told governs how we must reorder our society and in fact the whole world.

And it doesn't help that the solutions to global warming are the same as the solutions to global cooling. As a former true believer of the coming anthropogenic ice age, I've learned a bit of caution in my old age.

 

[WHAMPOM]

One of the things that has always made me suspicious of the CAGW theory is its adherents' insistence that meteorologists have no knowledge about climate. Climate is nothing more than weather integrated over time, and if you don't first understand the mechanisms driving weather you are not likely to understand the mechanisms driving climate. Once we reach the point that we have testable, repeatable mechanistic models of Earth's climate, we should be able to predict general weather trends, at least down to a weekly basis. As it stands today, climate models only predict things that have already happened and fail when used to predict future weather, with such failures attributed to "variations caused by unknown natural processes" which are assumed to be not important over the scale of time. Even theoretical astrophysics has to be more accountable than climatology, yet climatology is the science which we are told governs how we must reorder our society and in fact the whole world.

And it doesn't help that the solutions to global warming are the same as the solutions to global cooling. As a former true believer of the coming anthropogenic ice age, I've learned a bit of caution in my old age.

Yea right! I can watch the 24/7 weather channel for fifteen minutes and see the weeks forecast's real/time/computer/update temperatures go up and down. Their (meteorologists) computer models change with each gust of wind. Long range climate prediction is thirty years old and that is only a blip on the time period it is supposed to forecast.

 

[PJABBER]

The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has evaluated the cherry picking of data from Russian monitoring stations and have concluded that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy should be considered tainted.

They now believe that the Hadley Center for Climate Change in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian climate data and that Russian meteorological station data does not substantiate the anthropogenic global warming theory.

In summary -

1) Russia is needlessly under represented in the HadCRUT analysis.
2) Temperature data for 40% of the Russian land mass was ignored
3) Many of the longest temperature records were ignored
4) A preference for incomplete data series was demonstrated
5) A preference for stations that changed locations was demonstrated
6) A preference for stations in cities was demonstrated
7) Collectively this resulted in a 0.64C exaggeration of the Russian temperature rise compared to using all data with no filtering.

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

Kommersant

Russia affected by Climategate

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

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.

(PJABBER's link to Hadley land surface climate station records
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html)

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.

The full report (in Russian):

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has evaluated the cherry picking of data from Russian monitoring stations and have concluded that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy should be considered tainted.

They now believe that the Hadley Center for Climate Change in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data and that Russian meteorological station data does not substantiate the anthropogenic global warming theory.

In summary -

1) Russia is needlessly under represented in the HadCRUT analysis.
2) Temperature data for 40% of the Russian land mass was ignored
3) Many of the longest temperature records were ignored
4) A preference for incomplete data series was demonstrated
5) A preference for stations that changed locations was demonstrated
6) A preference for stations in cities was demonstrated
7) Collectively this resulted in a 0.64C exaggeration of the Russian temperature rise compared to using all data with no filtering.

http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

The full report (in Russian):

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED! Why would 'scientists' do such a thing?!?!?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED! Why would 'scientists' do such a thing?!?!?

I'm shocked I tell you... SHOCKED that a right wing think tank would release such a report. Why would an 'ideological organization' do such a thing!?!?!?!

Why don't we wait until a legitimate source investigates this?

 

[PJABBER]

I'm shocked I tell you...SHOCKED! Why would 'scientists' do such a thing?!?!?

Graphs are very helpful in illustrating trendlines. Here is an animated GIF that shows the effect of using "massaged" data -

http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/temperature_adjustments1.gif

I am no longer spending much time looking at all of the confirming information that temperature data has been cherry picked to validate AGW.

For those still requiring more confirmation, there is a running summary of these discoveries here -

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/are_we_feeling_warmer_yet/

And an excellent and exhaustive review of all of the global data broken down by countries and regions here -

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

I consider most of the published research based on such flawed or cherry picked data sets to now be worthless. Yet you can bet that US and international policy will still be based on this worthless research.

 

[IGBT]

The die hard eco-KOOK crowd will dismiss this, too. The KOOKS would rather be beaten to death with the truth than to admit they fell for a lie. No one likes to admit he was suckered, and many of the loudest eco-KOOKS seem so convinced of their own intellectual superiority to all those lowly "deniers", that the thought of being wrong probably isn't even a consideration. How many days before this shows up in America's "free" press? I'm sure the New York Times is all over this one.

 

[PJABBER]

On the political front, it looks like Secretary of State Clinton has announced in Copenhagen that the U.S. is going to pay into a $100 BILLION A YEAR international climate slush fund for developing nations.

In 2008, TOTAL United States overseas development aid was $26 billion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html

How about it Democrat Congress? You going to back up the Big O with this new spending, too?

 

[spidey07]

On the political front, it looks like Secretary of State Clinton has announced in Copenhagen that the U.S. is going to pay into a $100 BILLION A YEAR international climate slush fund for developing nations.

In 2008, TOTAL United States overseas development aid was $26 billion.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html

How about it Democrat Congress? You going to back up the Big O with this new spending, too?

I wonder what that works out to be PER TAX PAYER (those that actually pay taxes), per year? A few thousand bucks?

Talk about redistribution of wealth. This is a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[monovillage]

I'm shocked I tell you... SHOCKED that a right wing think tank would release such a report. Why would an 'ideological organization' do such a thing!?!?!?!

Why don't we wait until a legitimate source investigates this?

Who would be the "legitimate source" ? CRU? IPCC? EPA? Real Climate? Mann? Jones?

 

[fskimospy]

Who would be the "legitimate source" ? CRU? IPCC? EPA? Real Climate? Mann? Jones?

How about an independant scientific source that isn't a 'free market think tank' for one.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

fail. You're missing out on a huge industry. Luckily for you, other americans will be doing it anyway, addressing the issue, creating jobs, and making $billions.

wow!