If the following is true, it may be more explosive than the already damaging email and data leak that has shown manipulation of data, buggy and “fudged” programming and partisan distortion of the peer review process. The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) has leveled charges that the Hadley Centre manipulated temperature data from Russia.
The following is alleged:
Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included…
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
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.
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.
See here for more details and links to other commentary.
A guest post at Watts Up With That? notes how serious the claim of tampering could be:
This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets. (source)
The IEA study used all the stations available and the results were 1.4 degrees Celsius of warming since 1870 rather than the larger 2.0 degrees Celsius warming used in official reports by the IPCC. While that is a significant difference, if one were to adjust for the urban heat island affect, or leave out urban stations all together, the level of warming would be even less.
The state of these claims is rather up in the air at the moment because we do not have the raw, unadjusted data to compare to what is presented by the IEA. And that is part of the problem. The leading scientists have for some time resisted releasing data, programs and methods and yet have expected us to just trust them. But then how many people were informed of their hiding data and refusing to respond to FOI requests? If you only received your news from the MSM, you probably heard nothing of these long simmering controversies.
We have long had enough reason to distrust the science. With this new series of allegations, even if eventually proven to be in error, it is demonstrated again that there is a need for full disclosure. Without it a breeding ground for conspiracies and speculation is created. With trillions in economic activity being toyed with, we must be certain of what the truths are regarding the global temperature trend and the actual extent of man’s impact on it. It is far past time for these scientists to expect anyone to accept what they say merely because they say “trust us”.