In Copenhagen the gathering of the International Church of Global Warming Moonbats is ignoring the Climategate scandal as they do their best to pass their agenda of transferring of income from the developed to the undeveloped world.
While the Moonbats were playing a denial Climategate got much, much bigger. The Russians just dropped this huge bombshell just as the world’s big-shots are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing the developed world back into the stone-age. What the Russians found out is that Dr, Jones and the folks at CPU weren’t using all the data from Siberia. In fact they threw out all of the Russian Data except for the 25% that helped them prove their case.Read this from the RIA Novisti Newswire (H/T James Delingpole)
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.
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.
Oh how does it tie in to climate-gate? Read this Email from the Climategate files, Doctor Jones suppressed the data:
From: Phil Jones To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: have you seen this?
Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004
Yes, but not had a chance to read it yet. Too much else going on. Ed has a paper
reworking Esper et al. as you’ll know. If you’re going to Tucson, I suggest you talk to
Keith about it then – don’t email him as he’s too busy preparing to go and marking essays.
Jan is in one of our EU projects. Seems that Keith thinks Jan is reinventing a lot of
Keith’s work, renamed the RCS method and much more. Jan doesn’t always take in what is in the literature even though he purports to read it. He’s now looking at homogenization
techniques for temperature to check the Siberian temperature data. We keep telling him the decline is also in N. Europe, N. America (where we use all the recently homogenized Canadian data). The decline may be slightly larger in Siberia, but it is elsewhere as well. Also Siberia is one of the worst places to look at homogeneity, as the stations aren’t that close together (as they are in Fennoscandia and most of Canada) and also the temperature varies an awful lot from year to year.
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.
At 11:20 30/03/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Have you seen this piece of crap by Esper?
The JGR paper, which Scott is supposed to be finalizing, demonstrates quite convincingly
that the greater amplitude of Esper et al is due to spatial and seasonal sampling,
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: [email protected] Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [email protected]
This is as close to a smoking gun as we have so far.