The right wing has become commie apologists, red China bitches...
No wonder we are screwed...
No wonder we are screwed...
Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global
- Thread starter jficquette
- Start date
Nope, in fact it would be impossible for anyone to "exclude" data in some kind of secret way, since the weather station data is all online.
well now I am suspicious of your non answer.
shall we try again. Respond to this:
"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 countryâs 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."
Or do you prefer to continue with your line of bullshit and pretend you made a substantive and specific answer?
Two statistical studies find no evidence that the CRU data was falsified:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
What is more, anybody with a fairly elementary knowledge of statistics can perform this analysis for themselves. Excel would be good enough.
There is even R source code (R is free open source statistics software package) here:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/#comment-383
So, lets hear it from the deniers. The ball is in your court if you want to show falsification. Bet you cannot.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/
What is more, anybody with a fairly elementary knowledge of statistics can perform this analysis for themselves. Excel would be good enough.
There is even R source code (R is free open source statistics software package) here:
http://www.gilestro.tk/2009/lots-of-smoke-hardly-any-gun-do-climatologists-falsify-data/#comment-383
So, lets hear it from the deniers. The ball is in your court if you want to show falsification. Bet you cannot.
They admitted cooking the data in emails. Why is that lost on those defending Global Warming?
I watch the hearings 3 years ago where the testimony was that the methods they used were unsound. Besides, if the data is wrong the method used isn't going to make it "right".
This Global Warming has been a known scam among many for years. It's just now we have the proof.
Read this and you'll then understand what the "trick" is:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...warming-and-the-tree-rings-divergence-problem
I'd like you to post a specific accusation -- which weather station data was secretly and surreptitiously hidden and changed?
Then we'll just look it up. It's very easy to do.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/01/the_inquisition_of_global_warming_99346.html
Really?
"This just in from the Times of London: After the leak of highly embarrassing e-mail messages from the University of East Anglia's influential Climatic Research Unit, CRU has been forced to admit that it dumped "the original raw" climate data used to bolster the case for human-caused global warming, while retaining only the "value-added" -- read: massaged -- data.
In short, the CRU dumped the scientific data, but archived information that supports its conclusions. "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years," wrote Times environment editor Jonathan Leake."
Why did they dump the raw data Dave?