Integrity of Climate "Science" in Tatters

A Bigger Meltdown Than Chernobyl

The Russian bear is growling. It seems that Russia is annoyed to discover that the infamous pseudo-scientists at the Climactic Research Unit ("CRU") have distorted and misused and misrepresented temperature data from Russia.

Now, we think that Russia is being a bit precious over this. It is becoming more and more obvious that these wretched so-called scientists at the CRU have distorted, adjusted, skewed and misused temperature data from all over the world--so why would the Russians expect to be treated any differently? Do they think they are special, or something?

OK, so what is their beef? A Russian news outlet is suggestingthat the CRU tampered with Russian climate data.

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.

Data tampering. Now that's a scientific no-no. But it's deja-vu, right? It turns out that CRU was sent the complete Russian temperature data set, then proceeded to cherry pick those temperature stations which showed warming, ignoring 75% of the rest of the weather and temperature stations. Surprise, surprise!

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. (Emphasis, ours)

Not only that, it seems as if the clever chaps at CRU preferred to use temperature stations which had an incomplete data set over those that had a complete set of results over the long term.

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.

However, not only did they have a distinct cherry picking bias for stations with incomplete data sets, the clever folks at CRU also preferred those temperature stations which were closest to urban areas, which are likely affected by Urban Heat Inversion. In other words, as a city grows, temperature stations placed within the city are likely to record warmer temperatures over time.

Now, it's Russia, right? Not really important in the great global scheme of things, right? Wrong. Because Russia is so vast in terms of land area, it has a weighting of 12.5% in the global temperature data set. If Russian data has been skewed, it will skew the global temperature trend.

James Delingpole rings the changes on this latest development in the scandal.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.