Whoa, that’s a lot of interesting information.

Interesting that a whole bunch of people, linked to each other, seem to have come across this information at the same time and making a big deal about.

Delingpole’s claim is still not clear. He says ‘The Russians’ claim that the Hadley Centre ‘probably’ tampered with data. What does probably mean? Did they or not? Where’s the evidence?

Well researched Unity.

Also an interesting coincidence that the CRU leak came from the Soviet Union don’t you think?

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.

But at the end of the day a sceptic conspiracy is no more compelling in terms of the debate than is a warming conspiracy and this story is only of interest if the above facts are true.

If they are, what is the explanation and what does the missing data say?

Any ideas on these questions?

Pagar:

Sadly, the report is in Russian and the only current sources of info in English appear to be McIntyre and Id.

Once rebuttals start emerging from bona fide climate scientists, then I’ll be in a position to figure out exactly what’s going on.

$53,000 wow – that certainly puts CRU’s millions in the shade, never mind the overall global multi-billion climate research spend or the potential trillion dollar carbon trading market which Goldmans / Enron are / were so eager to see.

No vested interests there, no sirree…

You seem to be adhering to the old AGW believers’ policy of failing to debate the science and attacking the messenger instead. It would be laughable if we were not talking about such serious issues. I suggest that in the time the failure of Copenhagen has bought for us all you try to do some proper research into the reasons why scientists are increasingly adopting the skeptic’s point of view.
And by the way Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick will be recorded in history as two of the biggest heroes of the whole “unprecedented global warming” affair. The Hockey Stick was a statistical artifact and has been thoroughly discredited by every independent analyst that has bothered to look at it in detail. Even its creator Michael Mann appears to have recently rediscovered the Medieval Warm Period.

Unity has joined the tinfoil hat brigade.

Same tired old conspiracy-theorist trope:

So and so is linked to such and such – because he wrote an article for a magazine, was a visiting fellow, played at the same golf club etc.

Next – using the same six degrees of separation trick – you’ll no doubt discover they are all agents of Global Zionism, or the Vatican, Halliburton, the Bilderbergers, whatever.

Weak.

Time to place your bets on how this story will pan out once someone has access to info on it beyond ‘someone in Russia is saying something about weather stations’.

The tactical dynamics involved are this:

1. making up some plausible-sounding bullshit takes 2-3 weeks at most, but can be prepared in advance.

2. quickly debunking some bullshit takes a few days, but does have the risk of being wrong, or simply of coming over as knee-jerk dismissive.

3. fully scientifically investigating some claim takes 2-3 years

If you look at the things deniers are linking (and sceptics are reading) on any given day, they are most commonly things that are so recent they haven’t had the time to even be superficially analysed, the things that are really quite likely to be complete bullshit or fabrication. Sometimes they are ancient claims dating from 20-30 years ago. Hardly ever are they the most solid and reliable 3-5 year old info.

The trick is, if you have the money and funding, is to produce a continuous stream of such stories, a continuous human wave attack aimed at overwhelming the energy and ammunition of the defenders, and maybe get them to make a mistake.

While writing this post, it seems someone has looked at the data:

Judge for yourself.

See this link for the plots of the complete set of data, and the subset used by the met office.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/russian.jpeg

Since the biggest difference between the two lines is in the 19th century then it is clear that the issue is likely to be the difference in instrument changes which the IEA does not take into consideration at all. Since 1955 there is no substantive difference between the two curves and after which time temperature has risen most rapidly.

CRU temperature series, Darwin, New Zealand, and now Russia. The deniers keep finding irrelevant and unjustified examples of fraud by the climate scientists, and each time they prove nothing and at times demonstrate that if there is fraud it is on the deniers side.

Kevin

Since the economic think tanks have proved themselves as liars whilst shilling for the tobacco, and asbestos lobby, why would we assume that they wouldn’t for the Oil lobby. Just because a right wing think tank is Russian why would we assume it would behave any differently especially when it will no doubt be representing the interests of the Russian oil industry. Seems like a reasonable case for being skeptical about anything they put out. But the so called climate skeptics take on faith anything that fits there world view.

Kevin

Kevin,

The fraud and propoganda seems to me to be entirely on the side of the deniers and their proxy, poxy chums the sceptics.

Think tanks are merely PR for those with cash.

While we’re considering vested interests shall we discount Dr. Pachauri (Tata playing the EU and UN carbon credits schemes with aplomb) and Al Gore for their business connections?

Why is it such connections to Big Oil for one, are merrily discounted because you like the message those people are preaching?

I think the correct conclusion is that something is going on here but it is too early yet to say what it is.

On the one hand, the lack of divergence in the data trend since 1970 between the readings for all 476 stations compared to the subset of 121 that have been released by the Met Office hardly indicates a smoking gun. Over the 150 year period, the use of the subset does exaggerate warming quite considerably, but the AGW argument is really centred on what has happened over the last 50 years.

On the other hand, the Met Office have said that their selection of the data they have released (and which forms the subset) is based on the permissions they have received from the data collectors and this is where the story runs into problems. Because If that were true, it would be expected that all other statistics related to the selection would be random. And yet an analysis shows that-

1) The selection of weather stations was conducted in such a way as to result in complete lack of coverage across over 40% of the country’s territory.

2) Datasets with the longest continuous observation periods, which are the most valuable for the evaluation of temperature trends across 1.5 centuries, were used to far less than their full capacity.

3) While selecting the datasets, preference was given to datasets which were missing measurements.

4) While selecting the datasets, preference was given to stations whose location was changed, compared to stations whose location remained constant.

5) Preference was given to stations which were located close to population centers.

In other words, the allegation is that the Met Office systematically selected the data to release, giving preference to lower-quality datasets compared to higher-quality ones and to the data collected from stations that were moved around and/or located in areas with higher population density. They also are alleged to have intentionally discarded the data which characterises the temperature situation in approximately 40% of Russia.

Surprisingly, the Met Office do not divulge whether or not each piece of data they have released is “raw” or has had “value added” (been enhanced or adjusted) and the suspicion raised by the above is that the released data has not been selected on the basis of whether they have permission to do so, but is based on the ease with which manipulation could be justified..

As I say, I don’t think there is a smoking gun here. But there is plenty of smoke.

So do we have evidence of Tata or even say british banks funding carbon trading think tanks or even climate research.

I can’t see where funding for climate research can be linked to any think tanks. Think tanks typically put out propaganda without doing any peer reviewed research.

Al Gore’s business interests in climate change followed after he was convinced that climate change was a serious issue. The fact that he decided that we might need to start investing in climate change mitigation can be interpreted two ways. As an opportunist seeing possible business opportunities to make money from, or because he felt that climate change was such a critical issue that he should provide capital towards projects that might do something about it. I don’t know what his motivations are. But knowing that he became convinced by the scientists of climate change first is critically important in the way you interpret what Gore’s business interests mean.

Kevin

Neil Craig,

Please read Sorus’ post at 7 above.

The people who are scamming the system are people that believe an economic think tank has any credibility in climate science. You are being duped.

Interesting. I don’t know why being in a “right-wing think tank” is worse than being in a “left-wing think tank”, unless there’s a huge philosophical distinction that I’m missing. Surely a bad report is a bad report or a bad claim is a bad claim. So a criticism of the data or methodological argument would be better, if less emotive.

Unity has joined the tinfoil hat brigade.

Same tired old conspiracy-theorist trope:

Oh dear – we really are getting all the flat earther denier brigade here these days. Sorry, could you idiots please point to the definitive proof that data was manipulated by the Hadley Centre?

1) The selection of weather stations was conducted in such a way as to result in complete lack of coverage across over 40% of the country’s territory.

What does that even mean? How do you come up with the figure ‘40%’? Is it based on administrative regions, a fixed-size grid, something else?

Are permissions to release data given regionally, per-station, or something else?

If you knew that, then you could make some kind of assessment of whether the selection of released data was in some subtle way biased, maybe by as much as +/- 0.1 degree in some non-recent decade. No doubt someone will do all that work over the next few weeks.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any possible significance in that even if it was true. All that’s being talked about is a possible difference between the sub-set of the regional raw data the Met had permission to release, and the full set of regional raw data they had access to (but didn’t at the time have permission to release). Both match the released processed global results, and all three show the trends usually associated with AGW.

By which time, those posting links will have moved on, in their continued Sisyphean task of trying to use anomalies in regional population statistics to cast doubt on the existence of China.

@17

Are permissions to release data given regionally, per-station, or something else?

The Met Office haven’t said and nobody else seems to know. Some would have it that the Russian Federation have given a global permission.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any possible significance in that even if it was true. All that’s being talked about is a possible difference between the sub-set of the regional raw data the Met had permission to release, and the full set of regional raw data they had access to (but didn’t at the time have permission to release).

I think the point is that some of the data that has been released is raw and some is adjusted for one factor or another and the Met Office don’t flag up which is which (incredible as that may seem).

The allegation is that by selecting a higher proportion of datasets that require adjustment than those that don’t, they create the opportunity for statistical shenanigans. And overall the difference is about 0.7 of a degree which is significant.

What those making the allegation fail to rationalise is why, if the AGW community went to all that trouble to prevaricate and manipulate the data, there is no greater divergence in the results for the last 50 years- which is the critical period.

Your “connections” are vague and unsubstantiated insinuation. If you want much more solid connections, try the “Pachauri Connection”:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

Or perhaps you can explain just why even the remotest connection between a skeptic and an oil company or “think tank” invalidates any science that might come of the relationship, but connections between oil companies and “think tanks” and AGW alarmists are perfectly comfortable relationships and not worthy of comment. For example, from the CRU emails :

> Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont,
> joined a progressive new group, the Business Environmental Leadership
> Council, which says, “We accept the views of most scientists that enough is
> known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for
> us to take actions to address its consequences.”

You can find that passage here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php
Enter the email number 965750123.txt

For other references, try these email numbers: 968691929.txt and 962818260.txt

Perhaps you’d like to explain the contents of those documents?

Finally, the allegations of the Russians are verifiable, the CRU document dump is real and was neither “hacked” nor “stolen” by the deniers and the fraud of the hockey stick was obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history or archaeology from the first day it came to light (McIntyre simply confirmed the error of the mathematical/statistical method). ALL of which has nothing to do with the “connections”

And yes – I’d bet more than a donut and a cup of coffee that you don’t have the cojones to actually discuss this.

Sorry pagar – remind me again, why should this allegation be taken seriously?

The allegation is made by a right-wing RUSSIAN think-tank whose founder has close links to Putin and oil companies… especially given Russia has an interest in ensuring we don’t have energy security?

You people are so desperate to clutch at straws you want to start swallowing Russian propagdanda? What next? Taking up the Saudi Arabian cause?

You deniers really are like 9/11 Truthers – desperate to believe anything.

but connections between oil companies and “think tanks” and AGW alarmists are perfectly comfortable relationships and not worthy of comment. For example, from the CRU emails :

That the oil companies accept the consensus on climate change is not the same as funding research that hides its origin though, is it? Or do you like being deliberately obtuse?

Funding…agreeing… you see the difference?

“The CRU was founded in 1971 as part of the university’s School of Environmental Sciences. The establishment of the Unit owed much to the support of Sir Graham Sutton, a former Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Lord Solly Zuckerman, an adviser to the University, and Professors Keith Clayton and Brian Funnel, Deans of the School of Environmental Sciences in 1971 and 1972.[4][5] Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

BP and Shell….so now their cunning plan is clear….

Sorry pagar – remind me again, why should this allegation be taken seriously?

Because it is founded in statistical facts and therefore requires to be refuted by a repudiation or explanation of those facts. The source of the allegation and its motive is irrelevant- it exists and needs to be dealt with.

I don’t think I have given any indication in my comments that I have swallowed propaganda. Attempting to smear posters as deniers, truthers, contrarians or even racists does not help to progress the debate.

Presumably progress towards truth is the purpose of this kind of discussion?

The source of the allegation and its motive is irrelevant- it exists and needs to be dealt with.

Oh really? Yeah I’m sure you apply those standards in other cases too. Incidentally, you say ‘statistical fact’ – as if you’ve dealt with the same when it comes to other peer-reviewed articles which are for AGW.

Funny how you deniers suddenly start clutching for ‘facts must be repudiated’ when it suits you… but not the claims around AGW.

Attempting to smear posters as deniers, truthers, contrarians or even racists does not help to progress the debate.

I’m just calling a spade a spade.9/11 Truthers say the same things – doesn’t mean I take them any more seriously.

Presumably progress towards truth is the purpose of this kind of discussion?

Yeah, and there’s plenty of people who think “the truth” about who was really behind 9/11 also needs to be discussed.

The conspiracy is everywhere pagar and cjcjc! Watch out!

pagar…don’t forget that Sunny is of the left. Facts are irrelevant compared with theory. Remember all those leftists who used to extol the virtues of the USR in defiance of the facts. much the same process seems to be happening in AGW. a theory says x…therefore we will ignore any facts that say y.

Remember all those leftists who used to extol the virtues of the USR in defiance of the facts.

Yeah… and now you folks on the right are buying their propaganda.

I think the point is that some of the data that has been released is raw and some is adjusted for one factor or another and the Met Office don’t flag up which is which (incredible as that may seem).

If there were differences between the raw data for specific stations released by the Met, and the raw data for those same stations released by the Russians, do you maybe think the oil-company funded think-tank report would have mentioned them?

Just go to:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/
http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

Pick a month and a station (by WMO block and station number), and see if you can spot some mismatch that the think-tank missed, or decided not to mention.

If there is anyone still reading this who has the highest iota if interest in the truth, just go look at the graphs here. Just look at the three lines of all-Russian raw, Met Office sampled raw and CRU consolidated estimated global temperatures. See how none of them are (this century) ever more than a year or two ahead or behind the central trend.

There is an exercise I am sure they must teach in PR college: work out how, if you were being paid to misrepresent that info, you would go about it. How you can produce a non-false sound-bite of the form ‘X% of the Y are Z’ which backs the overall message you are being paid to push, while completely misrepresenting the picture shown by the data.

PR people can never resist a chance to do that, and the bigger the non-false lie they are telling, the smarter they feel, the more warm fuzzies they get about doing their job well and earning their no-doubt massive fee.

If there was money in it, they would try it with maps instead, and go round trying to persuade people that Russia is west of Poland, or Australia is bigger than Brazil…

The Cato Institute is like a railway station where many disparate train lines connect. The town of Crewe has a population of 68,000 but the station has 12 platforms. Similarly, the Cato Institute connects almost every right wing libertarian group on this planet.

So connections between Illiaronov/IEA and Cato are inevitable. The absence of a connection would be more evidential of conspiracy.

When investigating the past of Paul Staines, I observed that his Global Growth NGO used the Cato Institute as a contact point. It may have been a telephone number or DNS registration information, and the web site no longer exists. Traces of the web site may exist in archives, but the details are unimportant.

For me, the Cato Institute connection was a misleading alley. It didn’t lead to any new connections. It just happened that the Cato Institute is happy to provide a mail drop service to organisations with which it sympathises.

We should not be surprised that Illiaronov is involved with other lobbying groups (it is overgenerous to describe them as think tanks). Right wing libertarians are even more enthusiastic than their left equivalents to purchase posh stationery and an accommodation address in order to found an “Institute”. If you count the number of active members of these institutes, it hardly differs from the number of organisations.

The co-existence of these groups does not comprise conspiracy but merely reflects the desire to mutually masturbate.

The following may sound obvious, but the point appears to have been missed: if I was going to fund a conspiracy, the transaction would not be present in any company’s books. It would be like the CIA’s funding of Encounter magazine, but more secret.

@ 27 f there were differences between the raw data for specific stations released by the Met……..

But the data released by the Met is not raw data. That is the whole point.

Go to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

and click on Question 1

“Are the data that you are providing the “value-added” or the “underlying” data?”

and you get the answer

“The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods.”

But they don’t flag which ones they have adjusted.

If you are saying the Russian data is raw, how can it match the above that has been adjusted?

Sunny H said:
>Funding…agreeing… you see the difference?<

No, I'm neither obtuse nor stupid. But your words don't compute. And your point is not only obscure, but, I believe, non-existant.

One funds the things that one agrees with. And does NOT fund thoe thinks that one does not agree with. Or in the case of corporations/organizations/bureaucracies, they fund those entities that will aid in their survival/growth. When the question is in doubt, they very often fund both sides. As in American Presidential elections.

None of which has anything to do with the question I asked. The question is – why do you believe that an action (ANY action) is acceptable when it's "your" side that does it but not when the "other" side does exactly the same thing?

Specifically – if your side takes money from "any" entity, then crying foul about the "other" side taking money from the same entity is simply juvenile whining.

IOW – what makes you think you should be allowed to get away with that kind of double standard without being called on it?

And don't tell me it's because you're "right". Because on GW, you're provably wrong. And re: AGW, you have no more evidence than the scientists – and by their own admission they have none at all.

@29: because the Russian data, self-evidently, is one of the inputs to the value-added data. That Russian data is not entirely raw because it has had instrument calibrations applied, presumably by Russian, Soviet and probably pre-Soviet meteorologists.

There is no such thing as truly raw data, there is no device that can physically measure average annual temperature, let alone temperature anomaly. For any given measurement, there is always a hypothetical more-raw measurement that is the input to the process that produced it.

The Met, or at least the team producing the CRU global temperature dataset, won’t typically investigate the details of such per-station adjustments for the same reason a team producing a football almanac with a table of Premiership winners won’t normally go back and watch all the matches on video.

It would be interesting to start up a campaign to try and retroactively win an early Premiership by disputing the statistics. Produce witnesses who swore ‘well actually, Aston Villa did beat Ipswich that year’, find an old boot boy with memories of dodgy money changing hands, and so on. Sling as much mud as possible, and some of it will stick.

If you pumped enough money in, you might not actually get retrospectively given the trophy, but you could probably get a proportion of people to say ‘well, yeah, _officially_ Man U won, but…’

From memory Illarionov was the bloke who showed up Sir David King when he said that climate change was a bigger risk than terrorism.

However, Unity is (rarely for him) stretching things here. Remember 6 degrees of separation? The Kevin Bacon game? Once you’ve gone beyond two or three indirect associations you’re describing large portions of the planet.

For example, both Sunny and I have been paid by the Guardian. The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust which was specifically set up to avoid inheritance tax. Are we both therefore in favour of inheritance tax avoidance becasue we have been paid by The Guardian?

Or more pertinently here. I was paid for a few years by a website called Techcentralstation (now TCSDaily.com) for my scribblings. Some of the funding for that site came from Exxon through James Glassman.

Is Sunny now a paid agent for global warming denial because we both now get paid by The Guardian (and those who would argue that I am should perhaps go and read what I wrote for them which on this subject always contained roughly the line: it’s happening, we’re responsible, so, what do we do about it?)?

Sorry, but too many degrees of separatation there for the connection to be valid as with Unity’s thing up top.

@SunnyH

Sorry, could you idiots please point to the definitive proof that data was manipulated by the Hadley Centre?

Leaving out 40% of the Russian landmass from supposedly global temperature records is a bit iffy isn’t it? After all, that’s a big chunk of the world’s surface. And much of it tends to be a tad cooler than elsewhere.

Do you really get satisfaction from writing such blatant propaganda.

Talk about tenuous links, this is as bad as anything found on extreme denialist blogs.

go on Sunny…did people die in the Gulags building the Great Socialist future?

Is malaria a more real threat than AGW?

LOL!!!

So I won the bet – you didn’t have the balls to actually discuss the subject.

That’s at least part of the the Climategate flap was about – I was hoping for better from you.

Sunny H said: “That the oil companies accept the consensus on climate change is not the same as funding research that hides its origin though, is it? Or do you like being deliberately obtuse?

Funding…agreeing… you see the difference?”

I see hypocracy. A connection to corporations is apparently enough to put a sceptical opinion beyond consideration. Therefore to not be hypocrites you must apply the same criteria to people who have a pro-warmist bent. Either financial interests corrupt or they do not. You may not be aware that Dr. Pachauri was wrangled into position as head of the UNIPCC by the Bush Administration. I will guess your head is exploding about… now.

I see useful idiots blind to the situation around them. The green movement is a wholly reasonable one seeking a smaller footprint on the planet, making natural resources go futher, weening us off fossil fuels, etc. It does not require a nanny state. It would benefit from people leading by example which few who went to Copenhagen will ever do. It has also been sold by politicians to corporations. Banks and Big Oil are not interested in carbon trading to save the planet but to make a profit. Emissions trading will not solve the problem and even James Hansen thinks Copenhagen was a waste of time. It will be a levy on the world that goes into the pockets of traders.

This is a powerful vested interest that taints a number of high profile campaigners. Think about it; what came out of Copenhagen was nothing radical or constructive it was ‘steady as she goes’. Nothing was done to radically alter our consumption of stuff or change how we generate and consume energy. It could have been but then that would put at risk the expected vast market in emissions trading. Money isn’t being spent on clean energy just ‘less dirty’. Hundreds of £millions is currently being used to fund coal fired powerstations in developing nations.

Protestors in Copenhagen were disappointed for good reason. Hell, there wasn’t even a vocal campaign for free trade that would enable developing nations to prosper and afford their own solutions to climate change. Is there no one who sees value in paying your way any more?

The left has been bought lock, stock and barrel. Corporatism is what we have now. Look at house prices – the Government allowed them to explode but insisted developers build ‘affordable’ houses. What they could have done is keep interest rates higher to keep prices under control and as wages rose houses would become more affordable for everyone. They didn’t do that. Too much was at stake to do that. Instead they impoverished millions of people by increasing the cost of living, have made millions more reliant on handouts, decreased social mobility and increased inequality. And you think these kinds of brains are capable of finding a solution to man made climate change? They can’t even find the right room.

Tim Worrstal,

No Sunny can say what he likes, you on the other hand have made an idiot of yourself:

Or more pertinently here. I was paid for a few years by a website called Techcentralstation (now TCSDaily.com) for my scribblings. Some of the funding for that site came from Exxon through James Glassman.

For fucks sake Tim!

@30

The Met, or at least the team producing the CRU global temperature dataset, won’t typically investigate the details of such per-station adjustments

The point is not that they don’t investigate the calibration of the instruments that took the measurements but that, in producing the global temperature dataset, they further adjust some of the data- inserting assumed measurements where it is missing or changing the data where, for example, the station has moved geographically or the population has grown around it. And they don’t say where they have done it.

But what really doesn’t make sense about this story is this.

The subset of data used to assess Russian temperature change (the blue line on the graph) was the same subset of data released by the Met. But this data allegedly selected itself on the basis of whether or not the originator had authorised its release.

But why would they select the data to be used by the CRU according to whether or not they were able to release it?

Why not select the data according to its quality? Or why not use all the data available?

Are we really supposed to believe that the subset of data used by the CRU is coincidentally the same subset that the Met have permission to release?

That cannot be right.

There was no rationale for selecting the data on that basis as the furore over the non availability of the raw data to sceptics only blew up seriously after the CRU emails were leaked.

Though I am not a conspiracy theorist (honest) the only logical explanation I can think of for the above is that Hadley have permission to release all the data but, for some reason, they don’t want to do so.

I am kind of ambivalent about the original article here but I really cannot see any reason at all to take this claim by “the Russians” remotely seriously.

Some people with no apparent expertise in a complex scientific area claim something of dubious merit about some weather stations, with little in the way of evidence that anything serious is actually going on. There is no real substance to it at all. As far as I can see it is not much different from that muppet running around in Australia looking at weather stations and getting everything spectacularly wrong, except that there appear to be some people with real money behind this one.

We are in the middle of a kind of denialist hysteria at present, such that any claim, whatever it may be, is being given far more credence than it actually deserves. Once a person takes the reflexive position that “all those scientists are up to no good” then rational evaluation of the situation becomes impossible. I think a few people in this thread have fallen into such a mindset.

Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, politely wrote to Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for? the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

This must be the most anti-scientific statement ever made!

Maybe Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline should use the same response to Regulators?

Why not select the data according to its quality? Or why not use all the data available?.

On the web-site listing the station data they say:

‘This is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the station data was given to us under conditions that don’t allow us to redistribute it; but the CLIMAT reports have no such restriction. ‘

So they do use al the data available, they just don’t redistribute the input station data they didn’t have explicit permission to.

If they hadn’t, you’d probably get the headline: ClimateFraudgate IV – scoff-law researchers used illegal data to push global warming myth…

This is all pretty straightforward to follow if you start from A-level science, you spend a bit of time digging, and, crucially, you don’t have someone spewing carefully crafted disinformation at you. I started this thread knowing nothing specific abut this area, and now I know:

1. the CRU is a best-estimate global historical temperature record, which has various kinds of processing and statistics applied to it, including the calculations that produce the error bars on the central trend line. Of the three main such global temperature estimates, the CRU does the least such processing, and so has the widest error bars, However, all three match.

2. the input to that is the station data, which mostly comes from national meteorology agencies, who retain the copyright, and also commonly make that data available independently.

3. noone has yet found a case of the same data from different sources not matching, or found a different plausible way of calculating an average over a different subset of the data that gives a markedly different result.

Things make a lot more sense once you realise that just because a source of disinformation is shouting something at maximum volume, then they may be right or they may be wrong, but the volume they use is in no way proportionate to how right they are, or how significant any of it is.

This is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the station data was given to us under conditions that don’t allow us to redistribute it; but the CLIMAT reports have no such restriction. ‘

So they do use all the data available

Errr…..no. That is not what they have said, although that is the conclusion they would like you to draw from the wording.

The whole point of the IEA report is that Hadley CRU did not use all the available data.

Otherwise the graphs cited earlier would not diverge.

Tremendous post, excellent research, well done indeed!

Delingpole is such an obvious crook, but it is admirable that you have made the effort to investigate the sources of his ludicrous propaganda. Thanks.

As I said before, climate disinformation is genocide. This is why James Delingpole should be placed beyond the pale of public debate.

The whole point of the IEA report is that Hadley CRU did not use all the available data.

You are making the basic assumption that they had a valid point.

Otherwise the graphs cited earlier would not diverge.

The two station data graphs diverge slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because they are different subsets of the Russian data.

The processed regional data diverges slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because it _contains data from outside Russia_.

@SunnyH

Sorry, could you idiots please point to the definitive proof that data was manipulated by the Hadley Centre?

Harry_Read_Me.txt

Manipulated? More like mugged,robbed and left for dead.

@44

The two station data graphs diverge slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because they are different subsets of the Russian data.

The graph tracing the results from the 121 stations selected by Hadley CRU shows warming of 0.7 of a degree less than does the graph giving the results from all 476 stations.

Whatever way you want to spin it that is a significant difference in result.

And you still haven’t answered my central point.

The subset of data used to assess Russian temperature change (the blue line on the graph) was the same subset of data released by the Met. But this data allegedly selected itself on the basis of whether or not the originator had authorised its release.

But why would they select the data to be used by the CRU according to whether or not they were able to release it?

Why not select the data according to its quality? Or why not use all the data available?

Those are the scary questions.

As someone with absolutely no idea what to make of this whole Global warming issue but rather suspicious of any proponent of a scientific hypothesis that claims to be so absolutely certain that it is beyond debate I read the Russian report. It made jawdropping reading I must say.

Are there any actual scientific refutations of the allegations made in the report and if so could you point me in that direction.

I must also say that the tone of almost screeching, hysterical, intolerance, displayed by some posters on this site, toward any views contrary to the orthodoxy of human caused global warming, are in rather stark contrast to the more measured tone on the sceptical sites I have visited. This rabid sense of righteous, self-certainty is the kind of thing you expect to find on sites of religious fanatics not people who profess to base their views on science.