Climategate - updates (5)

How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus por Patrick J. Michaels:

Few people understand the real significance of Climategate, the now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).

But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate scientists, .... that will have consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a "pollutant."

Técnicos rusos prueban que el CRU elevó artificialmente las temperaturas:

El Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) ruso no deja lugar a la duda: la unidad de investigación climática (Climate Research Unit) manipuló los registros de Rusia para avalar el cambio climático. Los datos de las estaciones no muestran un calentamiento en el último siglo ni el presente.

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

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.