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."
Kind of sucks for AGW proponents when "sabotage" is revealing what you said and the data you use!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Interesting how the argument in favor of AGW has evolved.
First we had "They science is settled. The scientific community agrees about man-made global warming (cause we won't let contrary views get published). Besides anyone who denies it is a stupid poopy-head!".
Then when the climate-gate memos came out we had "No smoking gun. It's all taken out of context. Nothing to see here, move along".
Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".
Bernie Madoff was an amateur.
[Insert pithy quote here]
"Peer review is useful but should never be an argument ender."
Just over a century ago, the peers said "There are only two questions left to answer in physics, the nature of the photoelectric effect, and results of the Michelson-Morely experiment." They were really right about that one.
Peer review turned into a religious ordination. Science faded into the background, as people who were convinced they were right, (and might actually be) decided they had a calling to save the world, and that the ends therefore justified the means.
key takeaways; Science and religion do not mix, and religions do not require a God.
And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media? With appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and bluster.
The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster. They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions. Instead, they seek to replace one belief with another. When this is how you approach your audience, it doesn't matter whether what you teach is true or false, it is indoctrination, not education.
How should they handle it in the media? They should spend 4 hours in primetime, instead of Dances with Fucktards, walk the public through the data, walk the public through the methods, examine the claim being made here, and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions. You know. EDUCATE. Not pontificate. Not intimidate.
Given the credentials of the original press release (really that's all it was), my response was more scientific than the denialist's article.
Since CO2 is not a pollutant, according to you, then why don't you prove it to us. Why don't you live in a pure CO2 atmosphere for a few hours, then tell us how things are working for you. I am sure you're plants would love it, so take them with you.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
It's a privately funded free-market "think tank" that is based in Russia.
So since when did it matter who was making a counter-claim, I thought we were talking about science.
After all, with "real" science you'd simply point to the data they are using and show why the results are correct.
But instead we find that the CRU tried to block real scientists from saying the same thing.
But I guess all results that use private funding are inherently invalid, only agencies with government supplied funding can be trusted to always tell the truth, like the CIA for example.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's all about economics and ideology. Nothing can stand in the way of the "Free Market". (btw TANSTAAFM). They're afraid it's going to hurt their pocketbooks and don't realize how much worse they'll be hurting if we don't do something about it. They reject the science because of their ideology and accuse the scientists of being ideologues instead. Isn't that called projection? I'm doing it so the other guys must be to?
Get off my lawn!
And importantly in the analogy when you get a second opinion you go to another doctor, not some nut-case.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Still wrong.
Clearly there's too much for plants to absorb anyway, since we know CO2 levels are increasing; we're not just getting more plants.
Yes we are, the Earth's biosphere is booming and has been for the last decades. Up more than 6% in total. Plants are currently CO2 starved, most become increasingly happy up to 1000ppm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
And, of course, the acidification of the oceans is also a huge problem.
No, it's not. CO2 in the atmosphere has been more than a magnitude higher before in history without the oceans having gone acidic. They're at PH>7 and will stay so. Any slight changes are easily coped with by creatures who've lived through much largers changes before - they've evolved to handle them. Some even grow better with increased levels of CO2.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
Why don't you like science?
it's in my head
[ citation needed ] you lying sack of shit.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I said not just getting more plants; CO2 levels are increasing so clearly the plants aren't absorbing it all.
*shrugs* - we have no idea what the possible lag times on this are. I've never seen plants sprout _instantly_ :)
The oceans are already more acidic. This is not opinion, it's fact. It's been measured. It's in the article you yourself linked to.
Chemistry lesson. pH less than 7 = acidic. pH 7 = neutral. pH > 7 basic.
The oceans are pH>7 and the slight change measured (and some of the early measurements we know have enormous error bars) is nowhere near making the oceans neutral or acid. They're basic and will stay basic.
Again, we know this since CO2-levels have been much, much, much, much higher before.
it's in my head