Are there any actual scientific refutations of the allegations made in the report and if so could you point me in that direction.

I must also say that the tone of almost screeching, hysterical, intolerance, displayed by some posters on this site, toward any views contrary to the orthodoxy of human caused global warming, are in rather stark contrast to the more measured tone on the sceptical sites I have visited. This rabid sense of righteous, self-certainty is the kind of thing you expect to find on sites of religious fanatics not people who profess to base their views on science.

The two station data graphs diverge slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because they are different subsets of the Russian data.

The graph tracing the results from the 121 stations selected by Hadley CRU shows warming of 0.7 of a degree less than does the graph giving the results from all 476 stations.

Whatever way you want to spin it that is a significant difference in result.

And you still haven’t answered my central point.

The subset of data used to assess Russian temperature change (the blue line on the graph) was the same subset of data released by the Met. But this data allegedly selected itself on the basis of whether or not the originator had authorised its release.

Why not select the data according to its quality? Or why not use all the data available?

Those are the scary questions.

Sorry, could you idiots please point to the definitive proof that data was manipulated by the Hadley Centre?

Harry_Read_Me.txt

Manipulated? More like mugged,robbed and left for dead.

You are making the basic assumption that they had a valid point.

Otherwise the graphs cited earlier would not diverge.

The two station data graphs diverge slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because they are different subsets of the Russian data.

The processed regional data diverges slightly, while keeping the same overall shape, because it _contains data from outside Russia_.

Delingpole is such an obvious crook, but it is admirable that you have made the effort to investigate the sources of his ludicrous propaganda. Thanks.

As I said before, climate disinformation is genocide. This is why James Delingpole should be placed beyond the pale of public debate.

So they do use all the data available

Errr…..no. That is not what they have said, although that is the conclusion they would like you to draw from the wording.

The whole point of the IEA report is that Hadley CRU did not use all the available data.

Otherwise the graphs cited earlier would not diverge.

On the web-site listing the station data they say:

‘This is not all the station data used in CRUTEM3. Most of the station data was given to us under conditions that don’t allow us to redistribute it; but the CLIMAT reports have no such restriction. ‘

So they do use al the data available, they just don’t redistribute the input station data they didn’t have explicit permission to.

If they hadn’t, you’d probably get the headline: ClimateFraudgate IV – scoff-law researchers used illegal data to push global warming myth…

This is all pretty straightforward to follow if you start from A-level science, you spend a bit of time digging, and, crucially, you don’t have someone spewing carefully crafted disinformation at you. I started this thread knowing nothing specific abut this area, and now I know:

1. the CRU is a best-estimate global historical temperature record, which has various kinds of processing and statistics applied to it, including the calculations that produce the error bars on the central trend line. Of the three main such global temperature estimates, the CRU does the least such processing, and so has the widest error bars, However, all three match.

2. the input to that is the station data, which mostly comes from national meteorology agencies, who retain the copyright, and also commonly make that data available independently.

3. noone has yet found a case of the same data from different sources not matching, or found a different plausible way of calculating an average over a different subset of the data that gives a markedly different result.

Things make a lot more sense once you realise that just because a source of disinformation is shouting something at maximum volume, then they may be right or they may be wrong, but the volume they use is in no way proportionate to how right they are, or how significant any of it is.

This must be the most anti-scientific statement ever made!

Maybe Pfizer or GlaxoSmithKline should use the same response to Regulators?

Some people with no apparent expertise in a complex scientific area claim something of dubious merit about some weather stations, with little in the way of evidence that anything serious is actually going on. There is no real substance to it at all. As far as I can see it is not much different from that muppet running around in Australia looking at weather stations and getting everything spectacularly wrong, except that there appear to be some people with real money behind this one.

We are in the middle of a kind of denialist hysteria at present, such that any claim, whatever it may be, is being given far more credence than it actually deserves. Once a person takes the reflexive position that “all those scientists are up to no good” then rational evaluation of the situation becomes impossible. I think a few people in this thread have fallen into such a mindset.

The Met, or at least the team producing the CRU global temperature dataset, won’t typically investigate the details of such per-station adjustments

The point is not that they don’t investigate the calibration of the instruments that took the measurements but that, in producing the global temperature dataset, they further adjust some of the data- inserting assumed measurements where it is missing or changing the data where, for example, the station has moved geographically or the population has grown around it. And they don’t say where they have done it.

But what really doesn’t make sense about this story is this.

The subset of data used to assess Russian temperature change (the blue line on the graph) was the same subset of data released by the Met. But this data allegedly selected itself on the basis of whether or not the originator had authorised its release.

But why would they select the data to be used by the CRU according to whether or not they were able to release it?

Why not select the data according to its quality? Or why not use all the data available?

Are we really supposed to believe that the subset of data used by the CRU is coincidentally the same subset that the Met have permission to release?

That cannot be right.

There was no rationale for selecting the data on that basis as the furore over the non availability of the raw data to sceptics only blew up seriously after the CRU emails were leaked.

Though I am not a conspiracy theorist (honest) the only logical explanation I can think of for the above is that Hadley have permission to release all the data but, for some reason, they don’t want to do so.

No Sunny can say what he likes, you on the other hand have made an idiot of yourself:

Or more pertinently here. I was paid for a few years by a website called Techcentralstation (now TCSDaily.com) for my scribblings. Some of the funding for that site came from Exxon through James Glassman.

For fucks sake Tim!

Funding…agreeing… you see the difference?”

I see hypocracy. A connection to corporations is apparently enough to put a sceptical opinion beyond consideration. Therefore to not be hypocrites you must apply the same criteria to people who have a pro-warmist bent. Either financial interests corrupt or they do not. You may not be aware that Dr. Pachauri was wrangled into position as head of the UNIPCC by the Bush Administration. I will guess your head is exploding about… now.

I see useful idiots blind to the situation around them. The green movement is a wholly reasonable one seeking a smaller footprint on the planet, making natural resources go futher, weening us off fossil fuels, etc. It does not require a nanny state. It would benefit from people leading by example which few who went to Copenhagen will ever do. It has also been sold by politicians to corporations. Banks and Big Oil are not interested in carbon trading to save the planet but to make a profit. Emissions trading will not solve the problem and even James Hansen thinks Copenhagen was a waste of time. It will be a levy on the world that goes into the pockets of traders.

This is a powerful vested interest that taints a number of high profile campaigners. Think about it; what came out of Copenhagen was nothing radical or constructive it was ‘steady as she goes’. Nothing was done to radically alter our consumption of stuff or change how we generate and consume energy. It could have been but then that would put at risk the expected vast market in emissions trading. Money isn’t being spent on clean energy just ‘less dirty’. Hundreds of £millions is currently being used to fund coal fired powerstations in developing nations.

Protestors in Copenhagen were disappointed for good reason. Hell, there wasn’t even a vocal campaign for free trade that would enable developing nations to prosper and afford their own solutions to climate change. Is there no one who sees value in paying your way any more?

The left has been bought lock, stock and barrel. Corporatism is what we have now. Look at house prices – the Government allowed them to explode but insisted developers build ‘affordable’ houses. What they could have done is keep interest rates higher to keep prices under control and as wages rose houses would become more affordable for everyone. They didn’t do that. Too much was at stake to do that. Instead they impoverished millions of people by increasing the cost of living, have made millions more reliant on handouts, decreased social mobility and increased inequality. And you think these kinds of brains are capable of finding a solution to man made climate change? They can’t even find the right room.

So I won the bet – you didn’t have the balls to actually discuss the subject.

That’s at least part of the the Climategate flap was about – I was hoping for better from you.

Is malaria a more real threat than AGW?

Talk about tenuous links, this is as bad as anything found on extreme denialist blogs.

Sorry, could you idiots please point to the definitive proof that data was manipulated by the Hadley Centre?

Leaving out 40% of the Russian landmass from supposedly global temperature records is a bit iffy isn’t it? After all, that’s a big chunk of the world’s surface. And much of it tends to be a tad cooler than elsewhere.

However, Unity is (rarely for him) stretching things here. Remember 6 degrees of separation? The Kevin Bacon game? Once you’ve gone beyond two or three indirect associations you’re describing large portions of the planet.

For example, both Sunny and I have been paid by the Guardian. The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust which was specifically set up to avoid inheritance tax. Are we both therefore in favour of inheritance tax avoidance becasue we have been paid by The Guardian?

Or more pertinently here. I was paid for a few years by a website called Techcentralstation (now TCSDaily.com) for my scribblings. Some of the funding for that site came from Exxon through James Glassman.

Is Sunny now a paid agent for global warming denial because we both now get paid by The Guardian (and those who would argue that I am should perhaps go and read what I wrote for them which on this subject always contained roughly the line: it’s happening, we’re responsible, so, what do we do about it?)?

Sorry, but too many degrees of separatation there for the connection to be valid as with Unity’s thing up top.

There is no such thing as truly raw data, there is no device that can physically measure average annual temperature, let alone temperature anomaly. For any given measurement, there is always a hypothetical more-raw measurement that is the input to the process that produced it.

The Met, or at least the team producing the CRU global temperature dataset, won’t typically investigate the details of such per-station adjustments for the same reason a team producing a football almanac with a table of Premiership winners won’t normally go back and watch all the matches on video.

It would be interesting to start up a campaign to try and retroactively win an early Premiership by disputing the statistics. Produce witnesses who swore ‘well actually, Aston Villa did beat Ipswich that year’, find an old boot boy with memories of dodgy money changing hands, and so on. Sling as much mud as possible, and some of it will stick.

If you pumped enough money in, you might not actually get retrospectively given the trophy, but you could probably get a proportion of people to say ‘well, yeah, _officially_ Man U won, but…’

No, I'm neither obtuse nor stupid. But your words don't compute. And your point is not only obscure, but, I believe, non-existant.

One funds the things that one agrees with. And does NOT fund thoe thinks that one does not agree with. Or in the case of corporations/organizations/bureaucracies, they fund those entities that will aid in their survival/growth. When the question is in doubt, they very often fund both sides. As in American Presidential elections.

None of which has anything to do with the question I asked. The question is – why do you believe that an action (ANY action) is acceptable when it's "your" side that does it but not when the "other" side does exactly the same thing?

Specifically – if your side takes money from "any" entity, then crying foul about the "other" side taking money from the same entity is simply juvenile whining.

IOW – what makes you think you should be allowed to get away with that kind of double standard without being called on it?

And don't tell me it's because you're "right". Because on GW, you're provably wrong. And re: AGW, you have no more evidence than the scientists – and by their own admission they have none at all.

But the data released by the Met is not raw data. That is the whole point.

Go to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

and click on Question 1

“Are the data that you are providing the “value-added” or the “underlying” data?”

and you get the answer

“The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods.”

But they don’t flag which ones they have adjusted.

If you are saying the Russian data is raw, how can it match the above that has been adjusted?

So connections between Illiaronov/IEA and Cato are inevitable. The absence of a connection would be more evidential of conspiracy.

When investigating the past of Paul Staines, I observed that his Global Growth NGO used the Cato Institute as a contact point. It may have been a telephone number or DNS registration information, and the web site no longer exists. Traces of the web site may exist in archives, but the details are unimportant.

For me, the Cato Institute connection was a misleading alley. It didn’t lead to any new connections. It just happened that the Cato Institute is happy to provide a mail drop service to organisations with which it sympathises.

We should not be surprised that Illiaronov is involved with other lobbying groups (it is overgenerous to describe them as think tanks). Right wing libertarians are even more enthusiastic than their left equivalents to purchase posh stationery and an accommodation address in order to found an “Institute”. If you count the number of active members of these institutes, it hardly differs from the number of organisations.

The co-existence of these groups does not comprise conspiracy but merely reflects the desire to mutually masturbate.

The following may sound obvious, but the point appears to have been missed: if I was going to fund a conspiracy, the transaction would not be present in any company’s books. It would be like the CIA’s funding of Encounter magazine, but more secret.

If there were differences between the raw data for specific stations released by the Met, and the raw data for those same stations released by the Russians, do you maybe think the oil-company funded think-tank report would have mentioned them?

Just go to:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/data/station_updates/
http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

Pick a month and a station (by WMO block and station number), and see if you can spot some mismatch that the think-tank missed, or decided not to mention.

If there is anyone still reading this who has the highest iota if interest in the truth, just go look at the graphs here. Just look at the three lines of all-Russian raw, Met Office sampled raw and CRU consolidated estimated global temperatures. See how none of them are (this century) ever more than a year or two ahead or behind the central trend.

There is an exercise I am sure they must teach in PR college: work out how, if you were being paid to misrepresent that info, you would go about it. How you can produce a non-false sound-bite of the form ‘X% of the Y are Z’ which backs the overall message you are being paid to push, while completely misrepresenting the picture shown by the data.

PR people can never resist a chance to do that, and the bigger the non-false lie they are telling, the smarter they feel, the more warm fuzzies they get about doing their job well and earning their no-doubt massive fee.

If there was money in it, they would try it with maps instead, and go round trying to persuade people that Russia is west of Poland, or Australia is bigger than Brazil…

Yeah… and now you folks on the right are buying their propaganda.