The RT does it again with another article questioning man-made climate change.

The Head of National Energy Security Fund Konstantin Simonov told RT:

“The global warming theme is a fine opportunity to sell goods with an ecological margin. I mean you come to a shop and see expensive merchandise. You ask: Why so expensive? They reply: Friend, it’s ecologically clean merchandize. Purchase it and you will save the planet. And this sort of thing is happening everywhere.”

and on greenhouse gas:

“Take the US position: We have a new administration and we will work for ecology. Where is it? Have they joined the Kyoto Protocol? No. Did they save the Copenhagen summit? No. Obama took the PR cream off, but the paper remained unsigned.”

We love this quote from Valery Kokorin, WWF representative, who disagrees:

“The temperature is just a symptom of illness. The main reason is CO2 concentration; the anthropogenic increase of CO2 concentration. It is completely proven!”

As Ronald Reagan would say, there you go again with the science is settled bit.

But, the Russians are a bit smarter than those in the Western countries (although we seem to be catching on). Russian TV producer Sergey Nadezhdin explains:

“Russia is not an environmentally friendly country at all. Polls have shown that most people – 60% – agree with us, which means it’s important to understand that every environmental initiative has a price. I asked whether they are ready to pay, let’s say a thousand dollars a year for a better environment, and most people say no.”

Say what you want about the Russians, but you gotta love their common sense.

Source: RT

Were the University of East Anglia emails hacked or the result of inside leak? The UK Telegraph reports that Sir David King, who for seven years was Tony Blair’s foremost scientific adviser, said the “extraordinarily sophisticated” hacking job was most likely an intelligence operation by foreign spies. Not only that, he says the most likely culprit is the Russians…and the Americans…he guesses.

In his interview with the UK’s Independent, King “guesses” that “If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency. ”

But that’s not all–he also guesses that the American lobby system was a “very likely source of finance” for the hack and that “the finger must point to them.”

While we believe the Russians are technically and organizationally capable of pulling this off, we doubt the American intelligence system that has been pussified by the democrats over the years could do anything like this, unless perhaps stimulus money was involved, or course.

As I sat snug eating my morning toast I scrolled through the list of news channels before happening on ‘Russia Today’ to see what their take was on these matters. Across the bottom of the screen a ticker tape scroll left me in no doubt. There was utter condemnation of the UK Met Office and the data fudging of the Climategate scandal. It was very evident that the Russian mood was just as icy as that in Copenhagen or London. With an area of 17,075,400 square kilometres (6,592,800 sq mi) Russia is by far the largest country in the world. It has got lots of climate data and accounts for the most important ‘signal’ on the warmist’s temperature chart. For it is in this vast region that American and British Climategate scientists had identified the largest rise in temperatures in the last fifty years.

But since that epoch-changing moment of November 19th 2009, Russian climate scientists have looked very closely at the ‘homogenized’ climate numbers and are baffled as to how the now discredited CRU Climategate Centre managed to ‘overlook’ a vast swath of Russian measurements. To the Copenhagen Summit delegates this is the kind of detail not on their agenda.

The Russian team from Moscow’s Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA), looked at the data from 121 monitoring sites that Climategate scientists had used and compared them with the 355 sites that were not used. After plotting the data the Russians found that the 121 sites gave mostly warmer weather reports than the 355 unused sites. A clear case of cherry picking as anyone can see from the graphs in this PDF (in Russian).

(translated: It is easy to see that the meteorological station located on the territory Russia is not entirely uniform, and their concentration significantly and predictably higher in western and southern parts of the country, while in the north and east - notably below.)

Do the Russians have some ulterior motive in all this? Unlikely. The Russian delegate’s position in the Copenhagen talks has always been rather relaxed as Russia was always in a ‘win-win’ position whatever happened. Their country was set to benefit either way with tens of billions in carbon credits for unused fossil fuel reserves if they agreed not to sell their fossil fuels on the world’s markets.

The reasonable suspicion by the Moscow scientists of some sort of grand ideological conspiracy is supported by examination of the leaked Climategate emails, one of which dated March 2004, is by former CRU boss Phil Jones to Michael Mann, American climatologist at Penn State. Right there we see the evidence:

“Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both (peer) reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers, Phil.”

It seems when voices of concern rose over the dodgy Russian data sets the alarmist trick of pulling the strings of the peer-reviewers again raised its ugly head. Supporters of global warming were swift to counter the Russian claims but the Russians had further proof to support their position. They cited those well-preserved data sets from measuring centres inexplicably dumped by CRU without any explanation.

Weather centres with records going back into the 19th Century were ignored, in some cases, in favour of monitoring stations with less data, but which pointed to warming. The IEA team questioned the motives of the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann thus:

“Weather station Uchur has a long and almost continuous series of meteorological observations from 1940; the station Toko – an intermittent series of observations from 1946 and continuous only since 1957; however, the trend towards warming in the 20th Century was more pronounced according to the station Toko. In the calculations of global temperature, HadCRUT predictably uses the data solely from the station Toko.”

The Russians revelations quickly silenced pro-warming apologists seeking to smooth over the Climategate irregularities. The world now can see clearly how the green brigade were chopping out temperature data sets that would have disproved their man made global warming scam if it ever had been published. A careful reading of the IEA reports shows a highly biased and savage censoring of data by the likes of Professor Jones and Michael Mann, all to hide cooling and exaggerate warming. “Only one tenth of meteorological sites with complete temperature series are used,“ says the Moscow team.

In one example, the CRU grossly reduced the temperature data series for the station Sortavala, provided by Roshydromet, the report found. When the Russian experts attempted to reproduce HadCRUT’s conclusions they couldn’t, but instead found a consistently lower set of temperature values a full 0.6 degree Centigrade – far, far lower that the doomsaying British and American climatologists. If this level of inaccuracy were repeated across the entire spectrum of world temperature sets it would wipe out the entire man made warming effect claimed by the likes of Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC quango.

Judging by the view from where I’m sitting we’re all going to need a substantial pinch of salt to melt through that sorry winter pile.

Acknowledgement: RT: Climate scandal: new evidence of dubious research

Ho boy. The Russian-climate-gate issue is gaining traction in the media. If you haven’t heard about this yet, the story is that a leading Russian think-tank claims the British meteorological office has been misrepresenting Russian weather data to manupulate the results and suggest rising temperature trends. The Moscow Institute of Economic Analysis alleges the Hadley Center for Climate Change used only a quarter of the data provided by Russia. Analysts for the agency imply that climate experts selectively used incomplete reporting that emphasized a warming effect.

The FSB – formerly the KGB – confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible…

Full story:  Mail Online Discuss: here

Full story: Big Government Discuss: here