sherri wrote on Jun 22
nd, 2014 at 8:34am:
This is just a random thought, but I was wondering what happens if we take it back eg to 17 years and 10 months, does that change the picture at all?
The exact numbers in the title have me intrigued, see.
A STORY OF INTRIGUE, DECEPTION AND SECRECY
On November 17, 2009 some 3,000 e-mails, software files, and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were covertly released onto the Internet.
In his November 28, 2009 telegraph.co.uk article "Climate Change: This is the Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation," Christopher Booker summarized the far-reaching ramifications of what was
exposed in these documents:
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely - not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's
"hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves
"the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the
entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the
"Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, esponsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into
scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. [16]
Writing in The Atlantic, Clive Crook is more candid: "In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual
corruption is overpowering." [159]
As Charlie Martin explained in "Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean," the e-mails suggested:
1) [T]he authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming or man-made global warming] were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to 'discipline' scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
2) [T]he authors manipulated and 'massaged' the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
3) [T]he authors co-operated (perhaps the word is 'conspired') to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK. [17]
Forum
Pages: 
NO global warming for 17 years 9 months (Read 14141 times)
