So tell us, Algore, are you feeling it yet?
(It’s at the bottom section of the article, but here are a few excerpts with our highlights added. Do read the rest, though)
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.
The deuce you say? And thank you for, correctly, adding the “anthropogenic” bit. If only the hysterics of the Church of Gore had the honesty to say that instead of calling it
Global Warming Climate Change so they can get their jollies from calling people questioning the man-made component of warming “climate deniers/denialists/Nazis/evil elves/whatever”.
Yeah, we’re “denying the climate”, that’s for sure. Earth never had one and it never changed. Careful with that strawman, lest it catches fire and increases your carbon footprint.
But we digress…
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.
We can’t possibly imagine what those “other reasons” might have been. Dog ate them? They accidentally flew into the shredder, carried by a freak gust of wind?
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.
Is that so? That sounds an awful lot like cherry-picking to us but, then again, we’re not impeccably credentialed scientists like Chuckles Johnson who, by the way, would like you to know that Amazon has such a deal on barely used bicycle seats and, of course, Kindles.
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.
No, no, no, NOOOOOOOO! The Science Is SETTLED!!!™
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.
But, but, but why on Earth would they do that?
Somewhere, Chuckles is sucking on his Phony Tail while desperately putting up six dozen “excellent videos” of compromised “scientists” “brilliantly debunking” every single suggestion that they’ve ever done anything wrong. Scout’s honor. Really. Would we lie to you?
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Maybe this time we can get somebody who aren’t interested in only one outcome to do the calculations?
Just a thought.
You know, the way science used to be practiced before the advent of NuScience.