It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by heyo
Russians confirm that UK scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.
Thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were first published on a small server in the city of Tomsk in Siberia.
So-called ‘patriot hackers’ from Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service, the FSB, to attack websites disliked by the Kremlin, such as the “denial of service” campaign launched against the Kavkaz-Tsentr website, over its reports about the war in Chechnya, in 2002.
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?
The main objectives of IEA are:
• содействие развитию экономических и социальных наук;
• to promote economic and social sciences;
• изучение и обогащение российского и зарубежного опыта разработки и осуществления экономической политики, теории и практики рыночной экономики и экономической реформы;
• study and enrichment of Russia and foreign experience in developing and implementing economic policy, theory and practice of market economy and economic reform;
• оказание содействия российским государственным органам, общественным организациям, а также иным физическим и юридическим лицам при разработке и осуществлении экономической и социальной политики;
• Assisting Russia's state organs, public organizations, as well as other individuals and entities in the development and implementation of economic and social policies;
• расширение внутрироссийского и международного обмена фундаментальными и прикладными знаниями, научными идеями.
• Increased domestic and international exchange of basic and applied knowledge, scientific ideas.
ИЭА поддерживает интенсивный творческий обмен с ведущими российскими и зарубежными научными и образовательными центрами - Российской экономической школой, Высшей школой экономики, Институтом Катона.
IEA maintains intensive creative exchange with leading Russia's and foreign scientific and educational centers - the New Economic School, Higher School of Economics, the Cato Institute.
Материалы ИЭА по проблемам экономического развития и экономической политики регулярно публикуются в средствах массовой информации, журнале "Вопросы экономики", представляются на конференциях и пресс-конференциях.
Materials IEA on economic development and economic policies are regularly published in the media, the journal "Economic Issues", presented at conferences and press conferences.
Основным направлением исследований ИЭА является взаимосвязь экономического роста, экономической свободы и политической свободы.
The main direction of research IEA is the relationship of economic growth, economic freedom and political freedom.
Originally posted by melatonin
I'll get in before the potential lock to say that Dellingpole is a serial BSer, for sure.
Has anyone actually bothered to look at the IEA report?
Go have a look-see. All they point out is that there are a large number of stations in Russia that are not included in the CRU dataset. Not surprising since the CRU have been collecting this data for decades and Russia hasn't always been the most open source of information. Anyways, once included in the data, the early period around 1850-1900 was (significantly) not as cold as with the more restricted data. Cool. If the data is fine we should use it.
However, it shows little difference during most the 20th century and into the 21st. Minimal. Nothing of note.
Dellingpole is a BSer.
www.iea.ru...
Page 20 compares the 152 station Russian dataset with the 90 station dataset (which CRU have been using).
One of the long-term criticisms of HADCRUT in general is that it doesn't cover large sections of the earth (the poles), so this is nothing new. GISS does though.
The research of the Department of «Chemical Technology of Oil and Gas» involve such themes as «Oil and Petroleum Residue Deep Refining» (Prof. A. K. Manovan, Prof.G.V.Tarakanov) and «Exposure of Liquid Systems to Magnetic Field and Increase of Technological Process Efficiency» (Assistant-Professor N. A. Pivovarova)
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?
This calls into question the integrity of data collected, at the very least. One could also ask, "who is reporting the warming?", oh wait the guys whose livelihoods depend on it.
Originally posted by maybereal11
Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?
Again you are confused. I am not declaring Russia's claims valid or invalid...I am saying they have a history of propigating falsehoods to further their own interests and that means ....I don't take their word for it.
Originally posted by maybereal11
I want to hear what the IPCC says about Russia's claims...I also want someone other than the IPCC to examine the evidence...but just because Russia says something you WANT to hear...does not make it true or false.
Originally posted by maybereal11
Given that they were behind the hacking of the emails...and thier dependance on oil for money...and vested interest in delaying any global actions that would curtail their oil profits...and their established history of propaganda ...
Originally posted by maybereal11
this latest bit speaks loudly of agenda and warrants viewing thier claims skeptically...whether they are being accurate in the claim is another matter...get it?
Is independant thinking that hard to do?
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by heyo
This calls into question the integrity of data collected, at the very least. One could also ask, "who is reporting the warming?", oh wait the guys whose livelihoods depend on it.
Of all the objections to the idea of human caused climate change, this is the most bizarrely twisted.
Scientists livelihoods depend on doing GOOD SCIENCE. Period.
If it happened that GOOD SCIENCE were saying that the earth is cooling then any scientist who falsified science and said it was warming would quite rightly take damage to their livelihood.
But the reverse is happening: GOOD SCIENCE is saying the earth is warming and those scientists who are falsifying science and saying it is cooling are prospering under the wing of vested interests.
"Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.
Computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service (FSB) to shut websites which promote views disliked by Moscow. Such arrangements provide the Russian government with plausible deniability while using so-called ‘hacker patriots’ to shut down websites Russia is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and lags behind many Western countries in greening its industry.
However, its emissions plunged in the Nineties as its economy collapsed and it now sits on a treasure trove of unused carbon emission permits that could be sold to other countries. These are due to expire in 2012 with the Kyoto Treaty. The Kremlin wants these to be rolled forward and last week signalled they would not sign a new deal without this, threatening the whole Copenhagen summit."