Slashdot Mirror
Russians Claim More Climate Data Was Manipulated
DustyShadow writes "On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change 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 CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century."
> And we're supposed to trust experts right?
No! You are only supposed to trust the work of peer reviewed climate scientists. And only known trusted warmers can peer review the climate change data. It's circular you see.
If anyone had any doubt the recent bad behavior should have dispelled it. Watching the warming side circle the wagons and attempt to shout down any disent with the same "peer reviewed science" is the gold standard, if you aren't in the peer reviewed literature you need to STFU! When the peer review process being corrupted was one of the key charges being leveled.
Besides the corruption, I tend to suspect the whole "if you aren't peer reviewed you aren't allowed to have an opinion" line of argument to be just a dressed up appeal to authority. Peer review is useful but should never be an argument ender. And then they go back to the appeal to authority well and try to say anyone who isn't a degreed climatalogist you can't have an opinion. Nope, just another appeal to authority.
Democrat delenda est
Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA's dirty climate laundry.
We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive.
Comply with FOIA
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
.Grow up. Your faux apathy rhetoric is amusing after I listen to you accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
I love it when people criticize ad hominem attacks and then proceed to create an ad hominem attack themself.
+1 Hypocrite.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
OK, let me explain to you simply the climate science behind global warming.
And you are ...? Permission denied.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
This will be easily verified. Bloggers are now, as we speak, trying to find and looking at the various issues with the stations removed from the analysis. It's interesting to note that the scientists aren't! The story so far shows that many stations that had no siting issues or problems whatsoever were removed from the analysis. This is the important point (it wouldn't be a story otherwise).
It's funny, but I was pretty indifferent to global warming, figuring there was probably something to it, until I had occasion to work with a group of environmental scientists back in grad school. I have never met a more rabid group of millennialist nutballs in my life (and I've worked with hardcore traditionalist Mormons before). At the slightest provocation, they could preach a fire-and-brimstone end of the world sermon better than the most wild-eyed street preacher I've ever seen. From that point forward, I've been sxtremely skeptical of global warming.
Now admittedly, that's certainly not scientific reasoning for sure. But there was just something about the groupthink in those people that went way beyond anything I've ever seen in normal academia. There is some degree of groupthink in all academic circles, of course. Grad students almost always agree with their mentors. Certain ideas become fads and suddenly every grad student in the department is parroting this popular-idea-of-the-moment (and incorporating it into their work). But I've never seen anyone literally scream at someone for expressing doubt about their pet idea, as I did with one of these environmental scientists (when a colleague of mine questioned him about the "global cooling" phenomenon in the 70's). That was just freaky.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Interesting. Uninformed, but interesting.
Slavery was economically dead from the moment the cotton gin was introduced. Instead of requiring hundreds of workers to pick cotton a machine was used which did it better, faster, and cheaper. There might have been some cultural reasons for slavery, but the handwriting was on the wall. Pretty much the era of the slave ended by 1825 in the South. Sure there were slaves after that, but it wasn't economical to use them for picking cotton or much of anything else.
The sacrifices being talked about today in the name of "preserving the climate" will pretty much put the finishing touches on the end of the middle class in the US and Western Europe. Instead of addressing real problems, the idea of "saving the planet" will simply place most goods and services out of the reach of the middle class because of increased costs and simple abandonment. It is awfully hard to purchase stuff when the maker(s) have decided it is no longer economically viable to produce them.
Sure, a cap and trade scheme might reduce carbon emissions. But it is far more likely that the emissions will simply continue at a higher cost. In the US there is no vast network of non-polluting transit. We have quite intentionally built cities around the idea of personal transportation and we are a long, long way from being able to transition to personal transportation that doesn't run on gasoline. So while the rich can buy Tesla Roadsters, the middle class will simply be paying $10 a gallon for gasoline for commuting.
Same thing with electricity. Nobody is going to build the nuclear plants that would be required to eliminate coal-fired generation. Solar and wind are interesting, but it doesn't work to power the electric range at 7:00 PM or the TV at 8:00 PM. So we are going to just pay more for coal-fired generation.
Same thing with virtually every product and service you see today. Everything will just cost more and some things will be priced out of their market. This will be a sharp economic contraction because the workers making and selling products that have no market will be unemployed.
It has nothing to do with polluting. If leaders of the world wanted to reduce emissions we would stop the emissions at the source rather than playing economic games. You want to cut 30% of the carbon emissions made globally in 10 minutes? End passenger air travel. You want to cut some more? Make it illegal to drive gasoline powered private vehicles within the city limits of the larger cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. None of these things are going to be done because it would not change the distribution of wealth and power. So instead we are being controlled and scammed.
I have nothing against reducing pollution, but let's get real. Nothing being discussed today is in any way "real". It is all about the politics, power and wealth. The current goal is to push the US and Western Europe down while lifting India and China up. The result will be huge numbers of people unemployed and increased costs for everything. The result will be that multinational companies with operations in India and China are doing really, really well. But small companies in the US will be broke.