Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Russia affected by Climategate


The Russians apparently don’t know when to just play ball with these Climatologists who manipulate data attempting to evidence Global Warming. It seems that the tribalism of Climatologists, the political motivation desperate to prove Anthropogenic Global Warming,  is lost on them. An article at RIONOVOSTI rep0rts that the Russians are also claiming that UK Climatologists have manipulated their climate data.

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.

James Delingpole also reports at Telegraph on this issue:

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

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.



Cheers for you Phil, way to control and manipulate data while rejecting dissent, Cheers.

Better than words:
Yes it is. Thanks for posting that video. Clive Hayden
A couple of points that often get lost in the excitement. HADCRUT is by no means the only global temperature record and others show much the same pattern e.g. GISTEMP http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ As far as I know noone has established what the "incriminating" code was used for. It might well have been someone just playing. See this comment by a climate sceptic: http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2009/12/cru-code-not-smoking-gun.html It is worth reading this commentary for a different view of what's going on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones Mark Frank
Better than words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI JGuy
Hm. The IEA analysis confirms the rise in temperatures since the 1950s. The comment about rejection could be because both papers were so awful - this does happen. Would it be wrong to reject dissent if it was nonsense? I obviously don't know if these papers were bad, but I don't see any reason to automatically assume the worst. Heinrich
PZ Meyers berating an AGW skeptic: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/say_it_aint_so_randi.php So, apparently, PZ is also just another hyterical AGW bandwagoner fanatic.... a 'chicken little' lemming. JGuy

Leave a Reply