December 17, 2009
It Is Time To Treat Climategate As A Crime
A Russian claim that the Hadley Center for Climate Change tampered with Russian climate data—which would gut the validity of the data provided by the CRU and NOAA/NASA, which was used in turn by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change—was released during a most contentious time during the Copenhagen conference, with the obvious intent of causing the widest possible damage.
That doesn't mean in any way that the claim is anything other than accurate.
...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 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 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.
In short, the Russians are claiming that the Hadley CRU cherry-picked and manipulated data, essentially faking the appearance of temperature change across Russian territory.
This seems entirely consistent with previous revelations discovered when the East Anglia CRU hack triggered Climategate by showing behind the scenes attempts by climatologists and their computer programmers to manipulate data and then cover up both their manipulations and real but conflicting data.
If the Russia's can prove their claims, then this will be another compelling argument that the climatological community is part of the largest scientific fraud in human history. It would also mean that these same untrustworthy scientists have destroyed the credibility of the scientific community, and no doubt severely undercut what we know or think we know about climate change.
Quite simply, we can't trust any of their claims at this point. It seems the claim that man is responsible for global warming or climate change is utterly without credible scientific merit at this point because of the politicization of the process. We simply don't know—can't know—what our impact is on the climate because of their corruption of the data.
I have yet to find anyone with a solid idea of how long it will take to regenerate accurate, scientifically-valid data, and once that data is compiled, it is going to now be a very difficult sell to a world that has seen the scientific community destroy their credibility.
James Delingpole notes that if the Russians are right, "the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock."
Thanks to significant willful fraud, we know know that billions"perhaps trillions—of dollars wee about to we wasted, the economies of nations crippled, and the freedoms of billions of people usurped or curtailed.
This apparently widespread fraud, collusion, attempted coverup and attempts at political manipulation should be regarded and legally viewed as treason. If it can be proven that any individual scientist or group of scientists willfully corrupted the data, they should face jail time up to and including life in prison. If they willfully corrupted the data and then took steps in a conspiracy to hide their manipulation, up to or including destroying the real data, the doctored data, or their models, they should face the possibility of execution. Any politician, policymaker, or advocate that was privy to these schemes should also face the same, sobering sentences.
I'm not overstating the seriousness of these crimes. The climate change community attempted to make victims out of the entire human race.
It's time to begin the criminal investigations that will be needed to put them on trial.
Criminal offense? By American criminal law requirements for prosecution, yes. It's certainly a form of fraud, with the motive of personal financial gain.
However, I hope you don't expect the DOJ to do anything more than a lip-service style investigation and come up with "no crime committed".
Posted by: Dell at December 17, 2009 11:01 AMIn unrelated news, the Gore Effect rears it's ugly head again.
Current Weather Conditions:
Koebenhavn / Kastrup, Denmark
(EKCH) 55-37N 012-39E 5M
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditions at Dec 17, 2009 1550 UTC
Wind from the NE (040 degrees) at 22 MPH
Visibility greater than 7 mile(s)
Sky conditions mostly clear
Weather Low drifting snow
Temperature 23 F (-5 C)
Windchill 6 F (-14 C)
Dew Point 19 F (-7 C)
Relative Humidity 85%
Pressure (altimeter) 29.97 in. Hg (1015 hPa)
ob EKCH 171550Z 04019KT 9999 DRSN FEW014 M05/M07 Q1015 04990258 54950261 12990224 NOSIG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the sum total of your argument is, "The Russians are claiming ...", your argument isn't worth much.
Posted by: beet at December 17, 2009 01:01 PMScientists aren't all angels.
Why else is it always the "evil" or "mad" scientist that trys to take over the world?
Trust, but verify.
The first clue that a scam was happening was when Hansen wouldn't release the source code for his climate modelling software. Without that, how can it be "peer" reviewed? Without a complete release of the source data, how can the "settled" science be replicated by anyone, anywhere, anytime?
After all, isn't that what "pure" science invites? Proof and replication - confirmation?
Hollywood may have it right. The power mad scientist bent on using his scientific find and knowledge to take over the word and control the idiot people that aren't smart enough to clean dog crap of his shoes and need a powerful, all controlling genius to guide them.
Posted by: SouthernRoots at December 17, 2009 01:18 PMWell, if Beet doesn't like it, then that's a strong indicator that you're right.
Posted by: brando at December 17, 2009 01:49 PMWhen the sum total of your argument is, "The Russians are claiming..."
It was the other guys who deleted their evidence. Try and keep up.
When the sum total of your argument is, "The Russians are claiming ...", your argument isn't worth much. Posted by beet at December 17, 2009 01:01 PM
but their data was ok when it supported AGW? Now that their data doesn't support AGW the argument against AGW isn't very valuable?
Don't need DOJ, just some enterprising legal beagles familiar with the Federal False Claims Act. That could and should provide a good start to some healthy claims recovery against these frauds, which should then trigger some much-needed prosecutions.
Posted by: Earl T at December 18, 2009 09:40 AMWe need no attorneys. Just torches, pitchforks, hot tar, feathers and a splintery rail out of town. Let the people take it into their own hands. We will sooner or latter. I hope sooner. While we still have television. The vulgate need the bread and circus. I am Vulgatus Maximus. I own the land and politicians and governments stand or fall at my will. I hunger for their humiliation for their lying greed.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at December 18, 2009 11:05 AMMost of the data is crap anyway. The majority of monitors that collect ambient temperature data are located in or near heat sinks, e.g., parking lots, roof tops, industrial areas, urban areas. Coupled with the fact that a number of monitors are moved from one location to another over their life span, the data from these monitors shoul be called into question.
Tarheel Repub Out!
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at December 18, 2009 01:01 PMOne question I've always had is that, if most of these stations have been corrupted by heat caused by urbanization, shouldn't the "corrections" have been made DOWNWARD? If you look at the raw data and imagine that 90% of those points should be adjusted LOWER than they are registering, just where does that put us? Should the hockey stick be pointing DOWN? Are those idiots covering up Global Cooling? Just asking....
Posted by: Barney at December 18, 2009 01:23 PMWhen it gets to the point that it's so ridiculous that even the ChiComs walk out, thus preventing Western Capitalism from self immolation, well, something is very, very messed up.
Al Gore should spend a significant amount of time in a SuperMax for crimes against humanity.
Posted by: Wind Rider at December 18, 2009 01:23 PMThe main countries that deny global climate change are Iran Saudi Arabia and Venezuala The US Navy says that the Arctic ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 and subs will not bve able to hide from surface ships.
Posted by: John Ryan at December 19, 2009 05:03 PMSo, John Ryan, just because one doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming you think they're ushering in the end of life as we know it on earth?
What about some of us backwoods knuckledraggers who believe the earth goes through cycles and happens to be in a downward cycle right now, having finished off an upward cycle in the nineties? And that, previous to that upward cycle, there was a cooling trend? Does that mean mankind had no effect on the weather during the downward years, but is responsible for the upward trends?
I would be more than happy if someone with verifiable data could give irrefutable, replicable evidence of man's causation of the globe we call home warming, but so far I've seen none, and worse, what has been presented as "irrefutable" has been shown not only suspect but contrived and fraudulent.
Get back to us when you've got the data.
Posted by: Carlos at December 19, 2009 05:54 PMJohn,
As an obvious proponent of the "science" of global warming, could you answer a few questions that have been bothering me?
Why does the climate data have the be manipulated? A number of people have discussed this with me and these people routinely write scientific papers. They present raw data. To present data in any other form is to introduce prejudice. That is completely contray to the scientific method.
Why is it necessary to remove the debate from the peer review process? Editors have lost their jobs and reputations just for asking for the most elementary of justification of the presumptions being made. The emails that discussed this clearly refute the concept of warming as they have violated the basic principals of scientific discussion.
How is CO2 a greenhouse gas? How does it get to the upper atmosphere? CO2 is heavier than air, it sinks. So to say it is high concentrations in the atmosphere from our activity means that CO2 is at very high levels at our level. Has this been extablished? How does CO2 enhance temperature and who established this concept? I can't find it.
Posted by: David at December 19, 2009 08:55 PM"The US Navy says that the Arctic ocean will be ice free in the summer by 2030 and subs will not bve able to hide from surface ships."
John Ryan - You are very big on telling us what the US Navy supposedly says but I can't remember you ever backing it up with a link.
2030 seems like a pretty definitive prediction.
Although the Arctic is the earth's shallowest ocean, it does have an average depth of over 1,000 meters. Has the US Navy publicly said no subs, including our own, can hide in water that shallow? REALLY?
