![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anillarionovWill Heaven
Climategate: Why those Russian 'experts' might not have our best interests at heart
1. Who are these Russian ‘experts’?
Will Stewart didn’t properly answer this question in his Daily Express story, but just read what his Daily Mail version of the article says. The headline is slightly different, for a start: “Met Office ‘manipulated climate change figures’ says Russian think tank linked to President Putin.”
So, it’s a think tank rather than a reputable body of Russian scientists. The Global Development Network informs us that it’s an “independent, non-governmental, non-political and non-commercial organisation” founded in 1994. And it was founded, Stewart reports, by “a former adviser to Vladimir Putin”, a man called Andrey Illarionov.
Let’s hear a bit more about Andrey Illarionov, shall we? Well, according to his Wikipedia entry he’s a Russian libertarian economist and a former economic policy advisor to Putin. But he’s also one of Russia’s leading climate change sceptics: he was a highly critical of the Kyoto Protocol and even submitted a paper to the 2003 World Climate Change Conference entitled “Anthropogenic Factors in Global Warming: Some Questions” (all ten questions were answered by climatologists). In a BBC interview with Jeremy Paxman in 2004, he said: “No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change”.
It’s overwhelmingly clear, then: the Russian “experts” are no such thing. They represent a think tank founded by a former adviser to Putin who is a libertarian and a well known manmade global warming sceptic. All of this is fine, of course, unless you’re trying to present his views as particularly ground-breaking (Climategate “goes SERIAL”, “just got much, much bigger” etc etc).
...
Verdict
So, Putin’s old colleague reckons global warming isn’t manmade – but he’s always thought this, most likely for fairly predictable reasons i.e. it was his job to safeguard Russia’s oil and gas-dependent economy. His think tank issues a statement saying as much, based on a misunderstanding of how the Hadley Centre selects its data. The release is translated from Russian into English and is leapt upon by a few bloggers and two newspapers, all of whom have given a classically biased account of the story.
No, Russian economists loyal to Vladimir Putin don’t have our best interests at heart. And no, this doesn’t disprove the fact that manmade greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Next?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020210/climategate-why-the-russians-experts-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/
Comments to the article
Chestnut on Dec 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Will, you are presenting yourself as a complete idiot, alleginig that Illarionov is a loyal economist of Putin — he is one of the most adamant critics of the current Russian regime (look up his blog, for example)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020210/climategate-why-the-russians-experts-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/
За получение награды, данной неведомым мне Chestnut в комментариях к статье в Дейли Телеграф, и процитированной в заголовке этого поста, борется, похоже, не только Will Heaven.
Climategate: Why those Russian 'experts' might not have our best interests at heart
1. Who are these Russian ‘experts’?
Will Stewart didn’t properly answer this question in his Daily Express story, but just read what his Daily Mail version of the article says. The headline is slightly different, for a start: “Met Office ‘manipulated climate change figures’ says Russian think tank linked to President Putin.”
So, it’s a think tank rather than a reputable body of Russian scientists. The Global Development Network informs us that it’s an “independent, non-governmental, non-political and non-commercial organisation” founded in 1994. And it was founded, Stewart reports, by “a former adviser to Vladimir Putin”, a man called Andrey Illarionov.
Let’s hear a bit more about Andrey Illarionov, shall we? Well, according to his Wikipedia entry he’s a Russian libertarian economist and a former economic policy advisor to Putin. But he’s also one of Russia’s leading climate change sceptics: he was a highly critical of the Kyoto Protocol and even submitted a paper to the 2003 World Climate Change Conference entitled “Anthropogenic Factors in Global Warming: Some Questions” (all ten questions were answered by climatologists). In a BBC interview with Jeremy Paxman in 2004, he said: “No link has been established between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change”.
It’s overwhelmingly clear, then: the Russian “experts” are no such thing. They represent a think tank founded by a former adviser to Putin who is a libertarian and a well known manmade global warming sceptic. All of this is fine, of course, unless you’re trying to present his views as particularly ground-breaking (Climategate “goes SERIAL”, “just got much, much bigger” etc etc).
...
Verdict
So, Putin’s old colleague reckons global warming isn’t manmade – but he’s always thought this, most likely for fairly predictable reasons i.e. it was his job to safeguard Russia’s oil and gas-dependent economy. His think tank issues a statement saying as much, based on a misunderstanding of how the Hadley Centre selects its data. The release is translated from Russian into English and is leapt upon by a few bloggers and two newspapers, all of whom have given a classically biased account of the story.
No, Russian economists loyal to Vladimir Putin don’t have our best interests at heart. And no, this doesn’t disprove the fact that manmade greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Next?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020210/climategate-why-the-russians-experts-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/
Comments to the article
Chestnut on Dec 18th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Will, you are presenting yourself as a complete idiot, alleginig that Illarionov is a loyal economist of Putin — he is one of the most adamant critics of the current Russian regime (look up his blog, for example)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100020210/climategate-why-the-russians-experts-might-not-have-our-best-interests-at-heart/
За получение награды, данной неведомым мне Chestnut в комментариях к статье в Дейли Телеграф, и процитированной в заголовке этого поста, борется, похоже, не только Will Heaven.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Testimony of Andrei Illarionov to US Congress, 2009
Date: 2009-12-19 01:50 am (UTC)http://www.scribd.com/doc/17575383/Russia-is-ruled-by-crime-syndicate-Illarionov-testimony-to-US-Congress
Senior Fellow of the Cato Institute, Washington, DC,
and the President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow,
before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
at the hearing "From Competition to Collaboration:
Strengthening the U.S.-Russia Relationship",
February 25, 2009.
2009. The central place in the Russian
political system is occupied by the Corporation of the secret police.
The Corporation of Secret Police.
The personnel of Federal Security Service â both in active service as well as retired persone1 â form a special type of unity (non-necessarily institutionalized) that can be called brotherhood, order, or corporation.
The Corporation of the secret police operatives (CSP) includes first of all acting and former officers of the FSB (former KGB), and to a lesser extent FSO and Prosecutor General Office.
Officers of GRU and SVR do also play some role.
The members of the Corporation do share strong allegiance to their respective organizations, strict codes of conduct and of honor, basic principles of behavior, including among others the principle of mutual support to each other in any circumstances and the principle of omerta.
Since the Corporation preserves traditions, hierarchies, codes and habits of secret police and intelligence services, its members show high degree of obedience to the current leadership, strong loyalty to each other, rather strict discipline.
There are both formal and informal means of enforcing these norms.
Violators of the code of conduct are subject to the harshest forms of punishment, including murder.
CSP and the Russian society.
Members of the CSP are specially trained, strongly motivated and mentally oriented
to use force against other people and in this regard differ substantially from civilians.
The important distinction of enforcement in todayâs Russia from enforcement in rule-based nations is that in the former case it doesnât necessarily imply enforcement of Law.
It means solely enforcement of Power and Force regardless of Law, quite often against Law. Members of the Corporation are trained and inspired with the superiority complex over the rest of the population.
Members of the Corporation exude a sense of being the bosses that superior to
other people who are not members of the CSP.
They are equipped with membership perks, including two most tangible instruments conferring real power over the rest of population in todayâs Russia â
the FSB IDs
and the right to carry and use weapons.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 02:53 am (UTC)http://www.sysecol.ethz.ch/Articles_Reports/Illarionov_QandA_WCCC_2003.pdf
Ñ Ð¾ÑелоÑÑ Ð±Ñ ÑÑавниÑÑ
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 02:54 am (UTC)100 млÑд. доллаÑов на поддеÑÐ¶ÐºÑ Ð±Ð¾ÑÑÐ±Ñ Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ñеплением в ÑазвиваÑÑÐ¸Ñ ÑÑ ÑÑÑÐ°Ð½Ð°Ñ !
ÐÑеÑÐµÐ´Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð±ÐµÐ´Ð° бабла над здÑавÑм ÑмÑÑлом ?
no subject
Date: 2009-12-20 08:50 am (UTC)ÐÐ¾Ñ Ð¸Ð½ÑеÑеÑÐ½Ð°Ñ ÑÑÑлка из Ñог
Date: 2009-12-19 04:38 am (UTC)http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34884
Re: ÐÐ¾Ñ Ð¸Ð½ÑеÑеÑÐ½Ð°Ñ ÑÑÑлка из Ñо
Date: 2009-12-19 05:14 am (UTC)Ñ Ð¾ÑелоÑÑ-Ð±Ñ ÑÑоÑниÑÑ:
Date: 2009-12-19 04:52 am (UTC)2) как именно на Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð¾ÑвеÑили алаÑмиÑÑÑ.
ÐÐÐÐÐТ, ÐÐ»Ñ Ð.ÐÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐÐ
Date: 2009-12-19 05:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 06:58 am (UTC)ÐÑоÑÑо пÑедположение.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 07:47 am (UTC)Ðа как они ÑмеÑÑ! :))))
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 09:55 am (UTC)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/13/frigid-folly-uhi-siting-issues-and-adjustments-in-antarctic-ghcn-data/
Ðа ÑÑого неÑÑаÑÑного коÑÑеÑ
Date: 2009-12-19 10:08 am (UTC)Ðне понÑавилÑÑ ÑÑÐ¾Ñ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑ.
Will,
Imagine if you can, that you are a young climate scientist just starting your PhD in the late 1970s. Let us suppose that you were presented with the data on average global temperatures in the preceding years, (I am talking about the raw data such as that from the USHCN, available on: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif ).
If you were to examine this data, you would see that a plot of average global temperatures against time would look very spiky. Some years the temperature is abnormally high, yet in the following years it might be abnormally low and vice versa. However, you would also notice that this spikiness was much less in the years 1956 â 1972. Indeed, even to the naked eye, it would be obvious to you that there was a more or less steady decline in global average temperatures during this period. Indeed, if you were statistically minded, you might attempt to find the best straight line fit for this data. You would find, (as I have done), that the best fit of this sort would show temperature dropping by about 0.057 degrees F each year. You would also find that the correlation coefficient for this relationship was â0.7921, which is very respectable.
In such circumstances, you would probably imagine that the Earth was heading for a new ice age â and indeed there were many scare stories to this effect during the 1970s. Your colleagues would tell you that this cooling could not be easily explained by the natural causes as they understood them at that time. They would therefore suggest that man might be having some influence on the climate. This is exactly what happened. The cooling was blamed on industrial pollution, both particulate and SO2, causing the sunâs radiation to be blocked out.
Now imagine, if you can, that you are an even younger climate scientist beginning his PhD in the late 1990s. Again, looking at the raw USHCN data you would notice the spikiness, but would probably be unable, with the naked eye, to determine any trend. So you would be forced to do some statistical work to identify any such trend. Now, if you were very naughty, and picked 1979 as your start date and 1998 as your end date in your analysis, you would conclude that the Earth had been warming by 0.037 degrees F each year. You would also find that the correlation coefficeint for this relationship was +0.2536.
You will note that the degree of warming, and the statistical significance of that warming are both less than that for the earlier cooling period. This is despite the fact that I deliberately chose to start the series at the coldest year and finish it on the warmest! If I had been being equally naughty, I could just as well have chosen the series to run from 1981 â 1996. In this case, I would have found a small, but statistically insignificant, cooling!
If we examine the whole run of this data, i.e. from 1900 â 1999, we find that the best straight line fit gives a warming of just 0.0016 degress F per annum. The correlation coefficient is just 0.0602. This means that there is no statistically significant trend.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-19 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-24 03:59 am (UTC)Ðа ÑÑом ÑÑÑоиÑÑÑ Ð²ÑÑÐºÐ°Ñ ÐºÐ»ÐµÐ²ÐµÑа: ÑказаÑÑ ÐºÑÑпиÑÑ Ð¿ÑавдÑ, пÑипÑавленнÑÑ Ð¸Ð·ÑÑднÑм колиÑеÑÑвом лжи.