Russians Attack Climategate Scientists

[eagleseven]

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.:

"Climategate has already affected Russia. 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 Russians are accusing the British of modifying Russian datasets...it will be interesting to see where this leads.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Hey, look over here! Nevermind the missile, scientists are evil!

 

[Old Rocks]

And who modified the Japanese data sets, the American data sets, the Chinese data sets, the Canadian data sets ......... and so on. They all show the same thing. A rapid warming since 1850, with major effects in the Arctic in the last decade.

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails « Climate Progress

This is reposted from the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming Blog. Another good, detailed debunking can be found at the Pew Center for Global Climate Change.

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light over the past two weeks. Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have concluded that while the emails “do raise some valid concerns about scientific integrity, they do not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised.”

UCS’s analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity.

 

[Oddball]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

They are scientists and not dimbulbs like you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths « Climate Progress

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths
Earth "CSI's" -- Climate Science Investigators -- Have Publicly Proven Global Warming is Unequivocal
December 12, 2009
“Global warming has been proven real beyond any reasonable doubt,” said Chairman Markey. “Unless, of course, that last remaining doubt is completely manufactured by the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo. That is the case with these stolen climate emails.”

That is from a news release on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

 

[elvis]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

They are scientists and not dimbulbs like you.

Irony's a bitch, isn't it, daft ****?

 

[code1211]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

Anything quoted in the union weekly newsletter must be accurate.

 

[code1211]

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths « Climate Progress

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths
Earth "CSI's" -- Climate Science Investigators -- Have Publicly Proven Global Warming is Unequivocal
December 12, 2009
“Global warming has been proven real beyond any reasonable doubt,” said Chairman Markey. “Unless, of course, that last remaining doubt is completely manufactured by the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo. That is the case with these stolen climate emails.”

That is from a news release on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Well, okay, if a politician said it, it must be true. After all, they were right about ethanol.

 

[edthecynic]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

Gee, if only they were as trustworthy as the Russians.

 

[Old Rocks]

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths « Climate Progress

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths
Earth "CSI's" -- Climate Science Investigators -- Have Publicly Proven Global Warming is Unequivocal
December 12, 2009
“Global warming has been proven real beyond any reasonable doubt,” said Chairman Markey. “Unless, of course, that last remaining doubt is completely manufactured by the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo. That is the case with these stolen climate emails.”

That is from a news release on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Well, okay, if a politician said it, it must be true. After all, they were right about ethanol.

Code, after reading your misleading posts, I think that you are a politician. You certainly know how to spin a lie to sound reasonable.

 

[Modbert]

Hey, look over here! Nevermind the missile, scientists are evil!

Do not look at the man behind the curtain!

 

[Oddball]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

They are scientists.....

So are Roy Spencer, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick and a slew of other skeptics.

But since political hack sites like Center for American Progress don't pimp them out, they don't count, huh?

 

[elvis]

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths « Climate Progress

Select Committee Staff Analysis debunks stolen climate email myths
Earth "CSI's" -- Climate Science Investigators -- Have Publicly Proven Global Warming is Unequivocal
December 12, 2009
“Global warming has been proven real beyond any reasonable doubt,” said Chairman Markey. “Unless, of course, that last remaining doubt is completely manufactured by the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo. That is the case with these stolen climate emails.”

That is from a news release on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website.

A new analysis debunks two of the principal myths generated by the manufactured scandal surrounding stolen climate science emails from the University of East Anglia. The staff analysis, written by the majority staff to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, explains how two of the key phrases used by climate deniers to trumpet their views have previously been explained in publicly-available, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Well, okay, if a politician said it, it must be true. After all, they were right about ethanol.

Code, after reading your misleading posts, I think that you are a politician. You certainly know how to spin a lie to sound reasonable.

Got anything else from those fraudulent scientists you defended, you fuckstain?

 

[Annie]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

So cynical:

An Introduction to Climate Progress « Climate Progress

An Introduction to Climate Progress
March 28, 2009
For any first time visitors here because of Tom Friedman’s column in the Sunday New York Times, “Mother Nature’s Dow,” this post is intended as an introduction to Climate Progress. [I will blog later Sunday about the column itself.] Tom described me in an earlier column as

Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org.

U.S. News & World Report features me in their April issue as one of five “key players” who are “Driving Public Policy in Washington,” writing:


In terms of his cachet in the blogosphere, Joe Romm is something like the climate change equivalent of economist (and New York Times columnist) Paul Krugman.

Rolling Stone has a list of 100 Agents of Change of which I’m #88. The RS tagline for me is “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger lets it rip.”

And in 2008, TIME magazine named Climate Progress one of the “Top 15 Green Websites.”

I am a Senior Fellow at the Washington, DC think-and-act tank run by John Podesta, the Center for American Progress, whose Action Fund sponsors this blog. You can read a longer bio here.

I try to inform and entertain here — and be a one-stop-shop for anyone who wants the inside view on climate science, solutions, and politics. A key goal is to save readers’ time, save you from wading through the sea of irrelevant information — or outright disinformation — on climate and energy that pervades the media and blogosphere.

I write from what I call a climate realist perspective — the emerging scientific view that on our current greenhouse gas emissions path we will will destroy the livability of the climate for 1,000 years. Two posts that lay out that case are:

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water
NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe...

Totally scientific.

 

[Old Rocks]

As compared to the majority of scientists? No, of those you listed, only Spencer has any standing in the scientific community.

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans
mongabay.com
January 22, 2009



A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

 

[elvis]

As compared to the majority of scientists? No, of those you listed, only Spencer has any standing in the scientific community.

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans
mongabay.com
January 22, 2009



A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change.

Oh but Jones and Mann do, right you deceitful little ****?

 

[Oddball]

Is this one something like the AMA (who comprise fewer than 1/3 of all MDs) endorsing socialized medicine?

 

[Old Rocks]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

So cynical:

An Introduction to Climate Progress « Climate Progress

An Introduction to Climate Progress
March 28, 2009
For any first time visitors here because of Tom Friedman’s column in the Sunday New York Times, “Mother Nature’s Dow,” this post is intended as an introduction to Climate Progress. [I will blog later Sunday about the column itself.] Tom described me in an earlier column as

Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org.

U.S. News & World Report features me in their April issue as one of five “key players” who are “Driving Public Policy in Washington,” writing:


In terms of his cachet in the blogosphere, Joe Romm is something like the climate change equivalent of economist (and New York Times columnist) Paul Krugman.

Rolling Stone has a list of 100 Agents of Change of which I’m #88. The RS tagline for me is “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger lets it rip.”

And in 2008, TIME magazine named Climate Progress one of the “Top 15 Green Websites.”

I am a Senior Fellow at the Washington, DC think-and-act tank run by John Podesta, the Center for American Progress, whose Action Fund sponsors this blog. You can read a longer bio here.

I try to inform and entertain here — and be a one-stop-shop for anyone who wants the inside view on climate science, solutions, and politics. A key goal is to save readers’ time, save you from wading through the sea of irrelevant information — or outright disinformation — on climate and energy that pervades the media and blogosphere.

I write from what I call a climate realist perspective — the emerging scientific view that on our current greenhouse gas emissions path we will will destroy the livability of the climate for 1,000 years. Two posts that lay out that case are:

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water
NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe...

Totally scientific.

Well, Annie, from what I have read, we will see definate indications within the next five years that we passed the tipping point already.

There, see, I made a definate prediction that you can call me on. We will see the arctic ice pack go down to less than half the present volume in that time. We will see a major increase in the CH4 emissions, both from permafrost and yedoma, and from the arctic ocean clathrates.

Now Annie, I have made definate predictions. Since you believe them to be bunkem, why don't you tell me what you expect to happen. A real test of whose view of reality most conforms to reality.

 

[elvis]

Center for American Progress and Union of Concerned Scientists....Good thing that they're completely non-partisan and have funding sources are beyond reproach, huh?

So cynical:

An Introduction to Climate Progress « Climate Progress

An Introduction to Climate Progress
March 28, 2009
For any first time visitors here because of Tom Friedman’s column in the Sunday New York Times, “Mother Nature’s Dow,” this post is intended as an introduction to Climate Progress. [I will blog later Sunday about the column itself.] Tom described me in an earlier column as

Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org.

U.S. News & World Report features me in their April issue as one of five “key players” who are “Driving Public Policy in Washington,” writing:


In terms of his cachet in the blogosphere, Joe Romm is something like the climate change equivalent of economist (and New York Times columnist) Paul Krugman.

Rolling Stone has a list of 100 Agents of Change of which I’m #88. The RS tagline for me is “America’s fiercest climate-change activist-blogger lets it rip.”

And in 2008, TIME magazine named Climate Progress one of the “Top 15 Green Websites.”

I am a Senior Fellow at the Washington, DC think-and-act tank run by John Podesta, the Center for American Progress, whose Action Fund sponsors this blog. You can read a longer bio here.

I try to inform and entertain here — and be a one-stop-shop for anyone who wants the inside view on climate science, solutions, and politics. A key goal is to save readers’ time, save you from wading through the sea of irrelevant information — or outright disinformation — on climate and energy that pervades the media and blogosphere.

I write from what I call a climate realist perspective — the emerging scientific view that on our current greenhouse gas emissions path we will will destroy the livability of the climate for 1,000 years. Two posts that lay out that case are:

An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water
NOAA stunner: Climate change “largely irreversible for 1000 years,” with permanent Dust Bowls in Southwest and around the globe...

Totally scientific.

Well, Annie, from what I have read, we will see definate indications within the next five years that we passed the tipping point already.

There, see, I made a definate prediction that you can call me on. We will see the arctic ice pack go down to less than half the present volume in that time. We will see a major increase in the CH4 emissions, both from permafrost and yedoma, and from the arctic ocean clathrates.

Now Annie, I have made definate predictions. Since you believe them to be bunkem, why don't you tell me what you expect to happen. A real test of whose view of reality most conforms to reality.

Hey dipshit,
what the fuck does "definate" mean?