back to article 'CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data', says Russian

A prominent Russian climate sceptic and free-market economist says that the British HadCRUT global temperature database - much of which has now been released to the public following the "climategate" email scandal - has been manipulated to show greater warming in Russia than is actually the case. Andrei Illarionov, a former …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Joke

It's All Fake!

Let's get back to polluting!!!

1
3
Black Helicopters

Russia also source of CRU emails?

ISTR that the hacked emails were apparently hacked from or at least initally hosted on a Russian server - I wonder what they're up to? Worried that there'll be no market for their oil & gas?

2
4
WTF?

Ouch

The report makes a very damning reading indeed (to put it most politely).

However, the report _DOES_ _NOT_ make the "hockey stick" observation in the last 30 years invalid - it is mostly correct (graphs towards the end). The differences are predominantly up to the 1940-es. The data from that period as per the russian analysis shows that there was no significant warming outside major population centers.

However, the data makes an even more interesting interpretation from the perspective of global "soot warming"/"dimming" vs "greenhouse warming". There is one big spike besides the recent years and it is guess when - during those 5 years when most of the earth was being set on fire. There are a few other bits in there that fit that fairly well as well.

0
3
Flame

What a hypocrite

"he has travelled to the UK for the purpose of joining protests against new power plants"

By canoe, one assumes, otherwise he would be responsible for releasing large amounts of hot air. Well, more than usual anyway.

4
1

What?!

Hypocrisy?! Amongs the alleged intelligentsia living off taxpayer money?!?! I am shocked, *SHOCKED*, I say, to hear this! Why, you'll be claiming the ocean is damp, next!

2
0
FAIL

more stupidity from The Register and Richard 102

Seems reality is what the TheRegister is sorely lacking. The reality is that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis said nothing of the sort. Delingpole claims that CRU only 121 of the 476 stations possible. Not only is that false but if you overlay on the same graph the 121 stations Delingpole claims and the total 476 stations there is no difference in the graphs. SImply put Delingpole is trying to grab his 15 minutes of fame by stretching the facts so far out of shape they no longer have any connection with reality

2
1

not long now...

before some takes this sick pony out back and shoots it. Maybe then we can get some sensible debate and proper open access to all the data. no more of these cosy little clubs guarding data that rightly belongs to all of us.

4
2

Derren Brown

I'm a fence sitter but these guys at CRU really aren't helping the credibility of the UK science community. I hear that the IPCC is going to be employing Derren Brown soon to help with persauding gouberments that there friends with millions of pounds of grants on the line (although the recent summit has proven that they still believe) deserve there money.

Might be better to all sit around and discuss it like adults such things as yes climate change due to civilisation (The human population), population growth, resources ie chopping down all the trees to make bio fuel and meat and energy resources such as distribution around the world, trust me people in cold countrys generally need more energy than people that live in hot countries.

But i believe that some god type creation is going to come down and intevene and that we're here all on our own and the human race has to deal with these issues.

2
1
Flame

It is "Not another old university in Cambridge"

One that can supply 4 graduates that are so incompetent that they cannot even assemble a f*** improvised incendiary device.

Nuff said...

0
0
Silver badge
Headmaster

"climate sceptic and free-market economist"

It's funny how these two types are correlated. Guess it's something to do with "what must not be true cannot be true". If the edge of the free-market playground comes into sight, how are we gonna play "I buy, you buy, we all buy together - and resources are free and plentiful"

Not that I have anything against freemarketeers, on the contrary.

2
2
Boffin

His credentials are non-issue here

Frankly, his credentials are a non-issue here.

Just read the report. It makes a very interesting reading.

1
0
Stop

What? No, you need to check credentials.

If you ignore credentials, then the Reg article title is 100% true: a [random] russian claims CRU data are false.

1
0

Show us the data

``Just read the report. It makes a very interesting reading''

Could you provide a translation for the non-Russian speakers? Or cut to the important bit - where's the link to the data that's apparently been excluded from all the publically available sets listed on http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ ?

0
0
FAIL

Emails and software

I've read elsewhere about the various dodgy fiddle factors being found in the leaked model code. While I can't comment one way or the other (I've not looked into it that deeply), it does annoy me that the apparent skewing of the model data is being COMPLETELY ignored by the mainstream press.

The mainstream press have only ever mentioned the emails which seems to be only a small part of the whole story and inevitable leads into a totally irrelevant argument about privacy.

I can only imagine that this is down to the irritating dumbing-down of our news; talking about the actual model data wouldn't mean much and would confuse most people. Email? Everyone knows what email is! The annoying outcome of this is that most people have no idea that the model data was even leaked, never mind that it seems to contain questionable data.

7
3

This post has been deleted by a moderator

FAIL

On the contary

It just goes to show why the general media shouldn't be reporting it, passing at best ill-informed, at worst woefully inaccurate judgements on highly complex, widely disputed, cutting edge research, when most people will never be able to distil the complexities into a usefully relevant or informed opinion.

For all the fhe facts as complex as they are, the consequences are simple - adjust our behaviour and learn to live more in balance with the world around us, or suffer the ( in many cases unknown ) consequences.

You don't have unqualified people passing judgements on the validity of data as to whether super symmetry exists in the latest string theory models, why should you on climate change?

Science is not about what you think or what you believe, it's about what you can prove, and until the majority of (qualified) scientists tell me otherwise, I am a polluter, an energy waster and am risking the stability of future human habitation on this planet as a consequence of my behaviour.

Climate it science it maybe - but rocket science it ain't.

1
3
FAIL

I'd heard that too

from a man in the pub.

Apparently his girlfriend's brother knows someone who walks one of the East Anglia University reasearcher's wife's cousin's dog, and she said it's all crap.

So it must be true.

1
2

No? SO have a look at this

This is a very small portion of the terrible code:

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0., 0., 0., 0., 0., -0.1, -0.25, -0.3, 0., -0.1 , 0.3, 0.8, 1.2, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6, $2.6, 2.6, 2.6]*0.75; fudge factor

1
2

Re: Code Sample

The code sample above seems to indicate (once the fact that Scientists created it is factored in), that the correct is not artificial at all, and there is no fudge factor.

You see, when scientists write programs, the nearly always end up writing code that contradicts their stated intentions in the comments.

In this case, it appears that the coder intended to apply an artificial correction, using a fudge factor, thus, they must not have.

0
1
Thumb Down

I took a look

But all I see are some variable declarations. What about including the bits of code where these variables are used? Let's see...

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Right, we use these to interpolate the value of another variable, lets keep track of that one too...

;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow

;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20

;

Ha, I found it, it's all clear now! Clearly the e-mail leak was an inside job. Why else would a programmer insert artificial data into code, and then comment it out? Oh wait, maybe they were testing something? It can't be, they're too stupid for that! Or maybe this is all part of the conspiracy... they knew the e-mails would be leaked, and wanted to make me look stupid on the interweb.

1
0
Flame

No, no, no

Cherrypicked? The greenies? Never! All they did was "normalise" and "calibrate" the data (as claimed by a commentard a few days ago). This is a SCIENCE dammit! You don't just pick the results you like and massage until you get the answer you want in science!

Unless, of course, it's just greenies forcing their unsupportable dogma down our throats again.

9
8

err...

Don't let not understanding large datasets collected over extended periods prevent you from commenting on how to process them, eh?

I suppose if the evidence produced supported your unsupportable dogma it would be ok though?

0
1
B 9

What?

Maybe you had a point in there, I can't tell. Perhaps you should learn to command the English language before you go on a rant about how stupid someone else is?

1
0
FAIL

FFS

cherrypicking == (normalising || calibrating) FALSE

cherrypicking == lying TRUE

I hope this simple guide helps

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Is that it?

So they used data from stations covering 74% of the weather stations, and some of them weren't spread out enough if he lays a set of even spaced cells over them, some of those cells contain 8 stations and some none at all (see page 7 of the pdf, the blue dots are poor coverage areas). And Russian is 12.5% of the worlds land mass, i.e. 3,75% of the worlds surface.

Keep tight hold of those straws boys.

1
1
Alien

greenies just won't listen

... and why would they? they accuse any sceptic opinion as coming from oil-funded vested interests, but what bigger vested interest than to be an IPCC 'scientis' or an NGO or any other of the myriad of wasteful eaters gathered at Copenhagen. We are all 'deniers', 'morins' or even - as I heard quoted today - 'neanderthals'. Some chance of reasoned debate.

BTW, a new expression in the ever changing lexicon of the greenies - after global warming then climate change, and heard today by the BBC correspondent 'climate risk' - you heard it here first.

3
2
Pirate

"reasoned debate"

"Reasoned debate"?

In this argument, there is one group producing peer-reviewed evidence and making both the data and their conclusions public. The opposing view has it's fingers in it's ears saying "la la la can't hear you' but occasionally pulls them out to say "but you put petrol in your car - you're a hypocrite".

That side IS NOT denying the evidence & conclusions but are trying to manipulate public opinion using groups such as the 'Advancement of Sound Science Coalition'.

Amongst the scientific community there is wide consensus. Unfortunately reputable news media attempt to be 'fair' rather than truthful, if someone says the earth is round they have to have someone on to say it's flat.

That the overwhelming evidence has been widely ignored and Faux News et al reports problems with minutae (someone said in 1997 that you can't measure sea level rises of 1.8 mm/p.a.) rather than the big picture (sea levels are rising - and can be accurately measured, at a faster rate than predicted) guess who the drones believe?

2
1

Science by Consensus

Once upon a time, there was a vast consensus of opinion that said the Earth is the center of the universe and shaped like a pancake. There was considerably more debate on whether the flat earth was held up in space by resting on the backs of giant turtles, elephants, or on elephants who were in turn standing upon giant turtles. This third opinion being, of course, the compromise consensus.

0
0

Its the deniers' terminology

"BTW, a new expression in the ever changing lexicon of the greenies - after global warming then climate change, and heard today by the BBC correspondent 'climate risk' - you heard it here first."

Sorry to pop your bubble, but this change in terminology was due to the cynical activities of the deniers' lobby. The expression "global warming" was thought to be too alarming, so interfering deniers pushed for a change in terminology to "climate change" in official reports. It would not surprise me in the least if the term "climate risk" is again attempt by the well-funded deniers lobby to water-down terminology even further, with the nu-speak removing any suggestion that the climate is actually changing at all, let alone warming.

By the way, you might want to check how many US politicians receive funding from climate scientists, and compare it with the number receiving six-figure sums from the fossil fuel lobby and others. A clue, one of these numbers is 0, the other is most definitely not. It is worth also trying to find the figures invested in lobbying journalists. Essentially, it seems to be a replay of the dispute between scientists and the tobacco lobby, but over something even more critical, with no second chances.

1
1
Gold badge
Coat

It's not really one question.

Does global warming exist?

Do humans cause it?

Can humans stop it happening?

If we can (or cannot) *what* can we do about mitigating the effects?

If the first is untrue the rest are redundant.

But if it *is* true it's cause helps the blame game and indirectly who *should* pick up the bill but question 4 is the big one.

But if it's true anyway we'd better start damage limitation regardless of who did what. NB The Nile delta is starting to get a bit seawater logged and The netherlands is 2/3 reclaimed North Sea.

For people who don't think much can be done remember the Netherlands. 2/3 of the country created out of nothing by a system of dams, canals and wind driven pumps. No CAD tools for the layout, no gas or electric pumps. Just wind and 300 years of work.

Not quite as pretty as the Pyramids of Egypt or as long lived but a hell of a site more useful. The Incan farming methods (using ditches between small fields to act as solar stores during the night) might also be worth a look.

BTW I;m still doubtful on the hacker angle. My gut feeling (just on the developer notes) is that someone decided they had had enough of this amateur grade software and data management BS. It'll will probably be like the identity of the Watergate source, Deep Throat.

I'm off to lunch. See you.

1
0

WW2 --> Cold-war --> Al-qaeda --> Global Warming/Climate Change --> Next!!!

Does global warming exist?

Yes, but nothing to be alarmed with, it is absolutely normal… and even the Evangelicals of the Climate Change acknowledged that existed far worst temperatures during large periods in the past history of Earth… Beside there are a lot of far worst things to worry humanity from which there are no escape/solutions (Meteors for example)

Do humans cause it?

NOT at all! There are in world far worst natural polluters (if they can be seen as polluting something) such as volcanoes which releases to atmosphere large quantities of gases including CO2. However this is not accounted into the Climate change Evangelicals meddled raw data.

Can humans stop it happening?

Stop volcanoes from erupting? Definitly YES! If we throw all greenies into volcano’s throat it would stop expel the gases such as CO2. The other advantage is that Earth and rest of humanity would definitely benefit by simply stopping the CO2 nonsense.

That would also put a stop on wasted fuel and CO2 production from travel to nonsense UN conferences and stop wasting transforming oxygen in carbon dioxide on pointless scary words that we are all doomed just to get the billions to secure jobs of just a few false prophets.

Lets recap the last 60 years...

Pos WW2 was (cold-war thanks to Russians)

Pos cold-war was (al-qaeda thanks to Yankees)

Pos al-qaeda is (Global warming and climate change, thanks to Yankees and Brits)

Pos Global Warming it will be something else invented by some political nutter just to make the population to live in fear and to blindly sight whatever new measures they dictate.

Humanity has endured allot of “climate changes” in the past and we survived, we are resilient specie to survive in any environment (exception nukes aftermath but even so not everyone would be killed if WW3 happened) and it wont be just 1 or 3 degrees temperature that will kill all… just adapt is what we all have been doing since the times that we all didn’t run to the trees.

Now, if one day you look at sky and you see a large flaming object approaching… then don’t even bother running… we will be doomed simply as that… so far worst that a pity global warming/climate change scam.

Beside - it won't be bad a couple more degrees in the summer for sure ;)

3
1

A couple of more questions

I would subsitute "climate change" in place of "global warming", as this would include changes in precipitation, winds, storms, etc. Changes in the other aspects of climate could be even more disruptive locally than changes in temperature.

I would also add as the third question, "If humans do cause climate change, what activities are responsible and how are those activities causing the change?" The AGW crowd is starting to acknowledge the roles of soot and other particulates.

Mitigating the effects of climate change presupposes that the causes are well known.

1
0

A case for transparency, not against the ACCH

The various errors are stronger evidence yet of the case for full transparency in scholarship. No reputable journal should ever publish a paper without linking to the full raw data, in every discipline not just climate science.

But do they amount to evidence against the ACCH (anthropogenic climate change hypothesis)? no, not one bit. They may weaken the evidence for the hypothesis, but that's a long way from being evidence against it.

From what I've seen, the most convincing evidence is in the Greenland icecore series, which show a strong, lagging correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures (the latter inferred in the icecore from markers such as the species mix in pollen). On that timescale (0.5mya), vulcanism was the main contributor to CO2. But we now have rising CO2 concentrations, similar to those shown in the Greenland data, and it's clear that these rises are anthropogenic, with deforestation the largest contributor. What's much less clear is whether these rising CO2 concentrations have yet had a significant impact on climate. Hansen's latest view is that the current indicators, such as the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, may well be due more to other pollutants, in particular soot - again, mostly coming from deforestation.

0
0
Alien

Isn't it strange...

That as this Climate conference in Denmark is drawing to a close,and agreements are starting to be signed, that there are more and more doubts being cast upon the 'solid scientific data' they claim to be using for their figures.

As Benjamin Disraeli (and later attributed to Mark Twain) commented 'There are Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics' - never a truer word spoken.

Unfortunately by the time the real figures are released and published, all the governments will have agreed deals between themselves and locked us into paying a fortune to reduce CO2 with no way of getting out of it. Half of them know they aren't going to get re-elected anyway so they don't care anymore.

{Alien icon 'cos I want off this rock. The climate's OK, just the other inhabitants that bother me.}

3
3
Alien

Let's go to the off world colonies!

I'm with ya brother. The locals are getting strange around here.

0
0
FAIL

No, neither strrange nor true.

Not more, just the same old same old being repeated.

0
0

strange if they weren't

@Tim Schomer

Have you been paying attention to the news?

If any treaty is signed at all, at the moment there is doubt of that, it will be entirely toothless platitudes. And even if it weren't, nations are NEVER "locked in" to treaties. They just ignore them if they become inconvenient, as most countries did with Kyoto. As Bush f***ed the Geneva Convention, if you want another example.

And of course it isn't "strange" that "doubt is being cast" now. Climate change is in the news, so the deniers are making the most of it.

0
0
JHD

Ah, Science

The CRU apparently (and in my opinion, stupidly) wanted to keep data out of the hands of the idiot denier industry to avoid more of the fake controversies that are ginned up out of anything these folks either don’t understand (a lot of it, it seems) or are willing to misrepresent (all the rest).

Remember the kerfluffle that temperatures are decreasing because if you pick the (rather recent) warmest year and then the subsequent few the “trend” is down? Demonstrates a rather childish confusion between weather and climate, but it gets headlines--and confuses folks, halting action of any kind.

Which datasets are included in any analysis is a matter of judgment. There are many legitimate reasons to decide not to include data--suspect collection or incompatible metrics, for a start. A free market economist from Cato, or the Viscount of Fiddlesticks, are unlikely to be able to make informed judgments about this sort of thing, and certainly not without study.

I fall on the warming is real, human caused, and a problem side of the question. One of the things I find curious is that many of the mitigating measures are desirable ithout considering warming but are opposed anyway--you’d think the US right wing would be all for decreasing their cash transfers to the non-christian middle east, but it seems the invisible hand outranks the god of the scriptures.

1
4

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Vested interest

And researchers being funded by governments have a vested interest in ensuring that their funding keeps coming in.

I'm skeptical, for one reason: until they can show me within a midge's minum of certainty that the variations in temperature are more than can be explained by non-human phenomena (the sun's variations, volcano emissions, variations in ocean currents, etc), I'm going to be skeptical ... particularly considering how cold North America and Europe have gotten since the sunspots have become so rare.

1
0

Yeah, but

The researchers tend to move around on a 3 year or so basis. They write up their results at the end of each piece of research and it's published in a peer reviewed journal. They then need to move to another research post for another few years, it's not a constant stream of research like a full time job. You don't get another research post by fiddling your stats to show a desired result, because you'll get cought out, your work won't stand up and you'll not be offered another position.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that everyone involved in climate science is in on a massive worldwide conspiracy to keep themselfs in predominantly low paid jobs?

0
1
Thumb Down

What do you expect!

It seems to me that these climatologists are trying to protect their gravy train. If a research student put in for a grant to study squirrels in the New forest it would far more likely be accepted if it was reworded to 'The affects of climate change on squirrels in the new forest'. Then if no evidence is found are they likely to be given another grant in the future. So it is in their own interest to try to find a link either by fair means or foul.

Why don't they openly provide their raw data? The obvious reason is that they are hiding something.

As to computer models, I have played with computer models of chaos systems in the past, I found it surprising how a very small tweak here and there can make enormous difference to the final result

Can anyone think of another reason why 'the climatologists were extremely keen to push that case and to suppress scientific dissent on the matter'

5
1

Data

Why dont' they provide their own data? There is another obvious answer: It doesn't belong to them.

Ask the met office for their data, or the ESA for their data and you'll probably have to pay. However, all the NASA data are available online, for free.

0
1
Happy

I for one..

want to be warm

0
0
Silver badge

model data is being COMPLETELY ignored by the mainstream press

That's because the loudest voices (the denialist's) are having trouble finding anything substantially wrong in the data to spin a story around. They also seem to be having trouble convincing the rest of the world their conspiracy theories have legs - it's a whacko red flag saying 'ignore me' to even Sun readers.

All that's left is the denialist's own creation, years of abusing normal scientific process purely to delay and harass. When denialists are intent on playing the game but ignoring the rules its easy to see why the modellers don't want to play. Easy to paint that as something more sinister.

And those 'dodgy fiddle factors': sadly that's because modelling isn't pure science, its experimental - trial and error looking for the most accurate approximation. And sadly that means the denialists can lie & distort to a public that doesn't understand. And boy have they gone to town on it...

0
2

No, no, /you're/ in denial.

I think if you'll look more carefully, you'll see the "denialists" have been steadily gaining momentum for the past four or five years, though they might never have been heard over the hue and cry of the "alarmists" had it not been for the leak of the CRU data and emails.

Data and emails which has really thrown open the question of just who has "years of abusing normal scientific process purely to delay and harass."

At this point in time, it seems like the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming has a lot in common with the Emperor's New Clothes. Can't you see the hockey stick? All the smart and worthy of funding scientists can see it, can't they?

3
0
WTF?

when, exactly, did the scientific method die?

Greetings and Salutations.

My father was a Microbiologist, and, spent most of his professional life researching yeasts and molds. His method was to gather as much data as possible, and see what results stemmed from it. I believe he would be shocked and dismayed to see this widespread tendency to come up with a conclusion, then, find the data that supports it.

Those so-called scientists who are doing this, either to push a personal agenda or to ensure the continuation of grant money should be ashamed of themselves, and, should either clean up their act, or get drummed out of the scientific community!

This sort of activity not only wastes huge amounts of resources, but, what is worse, undercuts the credibility of the scientific community, making it far harder for the good scientists who are following good protocols and producing good results to be believed.

I observed elsewhere that it appears that the entire world is falling into a pit of hair-trigger, paranoid madness. This example, sadly, supports that belief. I hope I am wrong, but, I fear I am not...

Pleasant Dreams

Dave Mundt

4
1

..and nothing at all...

... to do with any governments 'stimulus' package? no - there's no global warming, nothing to see here, just carry on with your usual habit citizens, the economy and short term gain is much important than the survival of the species!

0
1
Bronze badge
Grenade

I for one am a sceptic

I do not believe there is a significant global warming because of man-made CO2.

However, I do believe that overpopulation and deforestation are the two most serious problems we have to deal with. If there is climate change, it may or may not be anthropogenic. But we as a species must learn to cope with it, the same as we must learn to cope with our other challenges.

And I am afraid that we in the developed world have no moral right to stop the rest of the world from developing the same way we did. Which seems to be our main objective in Copenhagen this week.

2
0
FAIL

whoopy doo

whoopy doo, some blogger / oil-industry nutter [delete as applicable] struggles to cope with data which is beyond their professional understanding. And "publishes" a "piece" about it.

Wake me up when he gets it into a peer-reviewed climate journal.

0
2

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums