The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in November 1988, One of the most important role of the IPCC was to determine the global climate development over the last 1000 years in order to see if the warming of the last century was “unique” and to see if today’s supposed manmade warming was a threat.

An examination of the 3 IPCC reports published reveals a remarkable scientific reversal.


In the First Assessment Report of 1990, page 202 depicts the following chart:



2nd Assessment Report, 1995



And instead of showing the last 1000 years, as the section title states, the chart starts only in the 15th century, i.e. exactly at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. And there’s another oddity that stands out: The drawn mean curve does not match the depicted temperature curve.

3rd Assessment Report, 2001 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)



4th Assessment Report, 2007 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)



New temperature reconstructions depict once again more or less a pronounced Medieval Warm Period.

5th Assessment Report, 2013 (“also known as apart of the Hockey Stick charts”)



In a single stroke the Medieval Warm Period gets deleted altogether. The chart shows a relatively stable climate all the way up to 1900 with an overall slight cooling tendency. This then gets followed by a dramatic temperature increase.

The problem is the methodology which is employed by lead author Michael Mann. The methodology produced a hockey stick (a dramatic increase in temperature) no matter what data were input.

Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve of 1999 is not the only climate curve that has disappeared from the 5th Assessment Report. Also Keith Briffa’s curve from 2000 and 2001 have disappeared. The following may be the reason they have disappeared.

Most reconstructions do not extend all the way to the present even though they provide enough data to do so in most cases. The reason for this is because the curve designers do not want to deal with the gaping differences between the values derived from the proxy reconstructions and the values recorded by modern instruments. So they simply truncate the proxy reconstructed values where a divergence between the two datasets begins. The discarded proxy reconstruction data are then simply replaced by the instrumental data obtained from the weather stations.

But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isnt the only ones manipulate data.

NOAA quietly revises website after it was getting caught in global warming lie, finally admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012: http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_noaa.html#

and with NASA
"Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_627-jun-22-21-18.gifw=640&h=453

Right after the year 2000, NASA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The image below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.



Just about every major source of Climate Change data outlet has been caught manipulating the data.

I'm a skeptic and contrarian by nature. I just tend not to believe what the majority does.

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 6:03am:


The last couple of years we have seen a cooling, as indicated with non manipulated data.

Also there has never been more ice at the poles

lee wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:


I have an Paper somewhere outlining how Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences also manipulating data like the NOAA has done in my OP post.

<smirk  >

Pantheon wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 3:50pm:


From the same paper above -

'When NASA launched Nimbus-1 50 years ago, the agency’s key goals were to test instruments that could capture images of clouds and other meteorological features, Gallaher said.

The Nimbus satellites dished up such excellent observations, NASA eventually handed over key technologies to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for use in weather forecasting, including hurricane forecasts.

But even with such success, data tapes and film that recorded Nimbus observations slipped through the cracks.'

So CIRES, NOOA, NSIDC ad NASA all intricately intertwined.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 11:03pm:



I've highlighted the last piece of the quote just for you, seeing as you seem to like crack.

Good to see science carrying on and readjusting when better models are discovered and applied (also known as manipulating the data)

** chaching