🚀 go-pugleaf

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3416142133_5456915
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit

On 3/31/12 7:18 PM, in article CB9D0904.268F7%leonard78sp@primus.ca,
"Leonard" <leonard78sp@primus.ca> wrote:

> Abracadabra,  No More Medi�val Warm Period!
> The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick
> 
> October 5 2009
> 
> QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader
> dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately
> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant
> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!
> 
> QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on
> what caused modern warming.
> 
> � They can not agree because the Industrial Age
>    (now ended) was the 4th cycle en route to
>     reglaciation.
> 
> QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced
> that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the
> missing hot spot,  laughably  mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2
> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly
> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.
> 
> � Too much propaganda has been semenated in
>    schools and colleges by Algores propaganda flik.
> 
> For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the
> majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and
> regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.
> 
> But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those
> who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and
> manipulating data have been right all along.
> 
> This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite
> propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous "Hockey
> Stick Graph."
> 
> The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's
> global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has
> been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented
> and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).
> 
> Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to
> languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as
> gospel by all manner of proselytizers.
> 
> In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN
> compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that
> promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.
> 
> And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but
> also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders and
> leading UN sponsors.
> 
> But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is
> in order.
> 
> The Real Inconvenient Truth
> 
> Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depiction
> of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990
> maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated
> drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c,
> clearly demonstrates the IPCC "consensus" of the time:
> 
> 
> And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice
> cores and historic documents bear that position out.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended,
> over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century
> swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable
> rapidity.
> 
> And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past
> millennium.
> 
> 
> The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP),
> as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the
> previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than
> today.
> 
> A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850.
> This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures,
> corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest
> temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum
> 1645-1710.
> 
> And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientists
> believe ended with the millennium itself.
> 
> Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not
> surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of
> warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.
> 
> And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent
> on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2
> increases.
> 
> Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was
> unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,
> specifically -- the "Greenhouse Effect."
> 
> And something was.
> 
> 
> The End of a Warming Era
> 
> During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
> Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma
> geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled "an astonishing email from a major
> researcher in the area of climate change" who told him that "we have to get
> rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
> 
> In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as
> 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate
> Change Impacts in the United States report.
> 
> Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't
> deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead
> author.
> 
> So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed "get
> rid of the Medieval Warm Period," was featured prominently in the subsequent
> 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the
> highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political
> attention.
> 
> This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was
> derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm
> K. Hughes (MBH98).
> 
> It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical
> analysis methodology.
> 
> Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- Stephen McIntyre
> and Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting
> hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data
> defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal component
> analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists
> tendered a handful of supporting studies.
> 
> 
> 
> Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or
> supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the "Hockey Team."
> 
> 
> 
> And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith
> Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,
> derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as
> supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century
> warming.
> 
> While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published,
> congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupported
> by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.
> 
> Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on
> principle.
> 
> Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:
> 
> By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria
> in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient
> Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof
> of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of
> science.
> 
> Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
> (AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as
> lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from the
> SPM?
> 
> It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.
> 
> That is -- for the moment.
> 
> Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions
> 
> Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that
> the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the
> "most important issue facing the country right now."
> 
> Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas
> Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government control
> than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate
> Summit on deck.
> 
> Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stoke
> the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its
> Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.
> 
> 
> The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:
> 
> 
> "The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is
> happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see
> catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,
> and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species."
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to
> blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states "that climate change
> is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by
> scientists."
> 
> It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new
> millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.
> 
> Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S.
> Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino
> come true.
> 
> So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on
> only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.
> 
> 
> The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature
> and CO2.  As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2
> concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.
> 
> Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?
> Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bit
> of a makeover.
> 
> Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC
> assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.
> 
> No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno
> Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist.  Sandvik cited two data sources for
> his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no more
> MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, "instrumental records published
> on the web" by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.
> 
> So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -�C connection to
> an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknown
> biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based on
> a debunked temperature reconstruction.
> 
> It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.
> 
> Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also
> from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past
> 2000 years.
> 
> This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko,
> Karl�n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different picture.
> Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?
> 
> Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his
> temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?
> 
> I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentially
> that same question.
> 
> He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had
> "no idea which graphics they may have chosen."  He also pointed out that
> while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a
> point well taken,  however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet
> remarkably resembles the Mann "global" data Sandvik used.
> 
> Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both
> reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern
> hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?
> 
> Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?
> 
> 
> Not Man Made -- Mann Made
> 
> One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was
> Mann's refusal to provide his data, methods and source code.
> 
> The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the
> same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal
> measurement data.    This, despite the fact that HS-defending papers relying
> solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.
> 
> But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the
> Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.
> 
> As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre
> convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released.  And late
> last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.
> 
> Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that
> Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omitting
> records not friendly to their position.
> 
> In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader
> dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately
> dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant
> trend in the 20th century whatsoever!
> 
> In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry
> picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural
> dataset.
> 
> Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?
> 
> 
> Inhofe was right
> 
> 
> The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of
> geophysics or thermodynamics.
> 
> Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read by
> few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a
> new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every
> facet of human life.
> 
> Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what
> caused modern warming.
> 
> � Try natural process in the progress toward the next glaciation
> 
> But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that
> warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the
> missing hot spot,  laughably  mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2
> /Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly
> obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.
> 
> And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century
> warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those of
> used car salesmen.
> 
> Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd
> premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either
> direction.
> 
> So they cheat.
> 
> And they lie.
> 
> And they have from the very beginning.
> 
> 
> In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:
> 
> "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary
> scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any
> doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between
> being effective, and being honest."
> 
> Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same
> UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.
> 
> In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre
> whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-related
> scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:
> 
> 
> "The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which
> environmental activists and government representatives are setting the
> agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging
> protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign
> barrow."
> 
> 
> 
> Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)
> rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the "greatest hoax
> ever perpetrated on the American people."
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_climate_reports_they_lie.html
> 
> 
> 




--B_3416142133_5456915
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: The Mann and the Hockey Stick</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>On 3/31/12=
 7:18 PM, in article CB9D0904.268F7%leonard78sp@primus.ca, &quot;Leonard&quo=
t; &lt;leonard78sp@primus.ca&gt; wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'fo=
nt-size:14.0px'>Abracadabra, &nbsp;No More Medi&aelig;val Warm Period!<BR>
The lies behind the failed Hockey Stick<BR>
<BR>
October 5 2009<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR>
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <=
BR>
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <=
BR>
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: Let's get real - even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on =
<BR>
what caused modern warming.<BR>
<BR>
&oslash; They can not agree because the Industrial Age<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;(now ended) was the 4th cycle en route to<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;reglaciation.<BR>
<BR>
QUOTE: alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced <=
BR>
that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the=
 <BR>
missing hot spot, &nbsp;laughably &nbsp;mistaken climate models, 800 year C=
O2 <BR>
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR>
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR>
<BR>
&oslash; Too much propaganda has been semenated in<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;schools and colleges by Algores propaganda flik.<BR>
<BR>
For years, claims that UN climate reports represent the consensus of the <B=
R>
majority of international scientists have been mindlessly accepted and <BR>
regurgitated by left-leaning policy makers and the media at large.<BR>
<BR>
But in the past week or so, it's become more apparent than ever that those =
<BR>
who've accused the international organization of politicizing science and <=
BR>
manipulating data have been right all along.<BR>
<BR>
This latest disclosure again concerns what has become the favorite <BR>
propaganda propagation tool of climate activists -- the infamous &quot;Hock=
ey <BR>
Stick Graph.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
The familiar reconstruction, which deceitfully depicts last millennium's <B=
R>
global temperatures as flat prior to a dramatic upturn last century, has <B=
R>
been displayed and touted ad nauseum as irrefutable proof of unprecedented =
<BR>
and, therefore, anthropogenic, global warming (AGW).<BR>
<BR>
Despite its previous debunking, the embattled AGW poster-child continues to=
 <BR>
languish in UN climate reports, which are unduly revered and quoted as <BR>
gospel by all manner of proselytizers.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, just last week it had the bad timing to show up in a desperate UN =
<BR>
compendium, released just days before Climate Audit published facts that <B=
R>
promise to be the Hockey Stick's (HS) long overdue epitaph.<BR>
<BR>
And those facts not only assuage any doubt of the chart's fraudulence, but =
<BR>
also of the deliberate and devious complicity of its creators, defenders an=
d <BR>
leading UN sponsors.<BR>
<BR>
But before delving into the sordid details, perhaps a little background is =
<BR>
in order.<BR>
<BR>
The Real Inconvenient Truth<BR>
<BR>
Prior to the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the accepted depictio=
n <BR>
of the prior millennium's warmth was that published in the panel's 1990 <BR=
>
maiden assessment. Specifically -- global temperatures had fluctuated <BR>
drastically over the period. This schematic, taken from IPCC 1990 Figure 7c=
, <BR>
clearly demonstrates the IPCC &quot;consensus&quot; of the time:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And data derived from sources including tree-rings, lake sediments, ice <BR=
>
cores and historic documents bear that position out.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, it's abundantly evident that since the last glacial period ended, <=
BR>
over 14,000 years ago, the Earth's climate has undergone multi-century <BR>
swings from warming to cooling that occur often and with remarkable <BR>
rapidity.<BR>
<BR>
And not one but three such radical shifts occurred within the past <BR>
millennium.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The years 900-1300 AD have been labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), =
<BR>
as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the <BR>
previous epoch -- the Dark Ages -- to levels several degrees warmer than <B=
R>
today.<BR>
<BR>
A sudden period of cooling then followed and lasted until the year 1850. <B=
R>
This Little Ice Age (LIA) brought on extremely cold temperatures, <BR>
corresponding with three periods of protracted solar inactivity, the lowest=
 <BR>
temperatures coinciding with the quietest of the three, The Maunder Minimum=
 <BR>
1645-1710.<BR>
<BR>
And then began the modern warming period, which, by the way, many scientist=
s <BR>
believe ended with the millennium itself.<BR>
<BR>
Given these natural shifts over the past 1000 years, it's certainly not <BR=
>
surprising that after a period of cooling, which followed a period of <BR>
warming, we'd again enter a period of warming.<BR>
<BR>
And that, of course, presented quite the quandary to opportunists hell-bent=
 <BR>
on blaming warming on industrial revolution-triggered atmospheric CO2 <BR>
increases.<BR>
<BR>
Something had to be done to convince the world that modern warming was <BR>
unprecedented and could therefore only be explained by something unnatural,=
 <BR>
specifically -- the &quot;Greenhouse Effect.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
And something was.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The End of a Warming Era<BR>
<BR>
During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment &amp; Public Wo=
rks <BR>
Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma <BR=
>
geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled &quot;an astonishing email from a ma=
jor <BR>
researcher in the area of climate change&quot; who told him that &quot;we h=
ave to get <BR>
rid of the Medieval Warm Period.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
In June of this year, piece, Deming identified the year of that email as <B=
R>
1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month's Global Climate <B=
R>
Change Impacts in the United States report.<BR>
<BR>
Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck - which Prof. Deming didn't <=
BR>
deny in an email response -- who would later also serve as an IPCC lead <BR=
>
author.<BR>
<BR>
So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed &quot=
;get <BR>
rid of the Medieval Warm Period,&quot; was featured prominently in the subs=
equent <BR>
2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the <BR>
highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political =
<BR>
attention.<BR>
<BR>
This, the original and by far most ubiquitous version of the HS graph, was =
<BR>
derived from a 1998 paper by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcol=
m <BR>
K. Hughes (MBH98).<BR>
<BR>
It was promptly met with challenges to both its proxy data and statistical =
<BR>
analysis methodology.<BR>
<BR>
Of these, various papers by two Canadians -- Stephen McIntyre <BR>
and Ross McKitrick -- stood out in dispelling the AGW-supporting <BR>
hockey-stick shape arrived at by MBH, claiming it the result of severe data=
 <BR>
defects and flawed calculations, particularly an invalid principal componen=
t <BR>
analysis.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a coordinated effort to defend the refuted thesis, alarmed alarmists <BR=
>
tendered a handful of supporting studies.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Mann himself cheered those either attacking McIntyre and McKitrick or <BR>
supporting his own reconstruction and dubbed them the &quot;Hockey Team.&qu=
ot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
And the position of team forward and co-captain was bestowed upon Keith <BR=
>
Briffa of Britain's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), whose temperature graphs,=
 <BR>
derived from Yamal, Russia tree ring data were heavily cited by the IPCC as=
 <BR>
supporting evidence of MBH's assertion of unprecedented 20th century <BR>
warming.<BR>
<BR>
While studies reaffirming both the MWP and LIA continued to be published, <=
BR>
congressional hearings and expert panels found MBH to be largely unsupporte=
d <BR>
by studies relying on legitimate proxy data other than Briffa's.<BR>
<BR>
Still, most alarmists continued (and continue) to defend the HS on <BR>
principle.<BR>
<BR>
Which in no way dilutes this plain truth:<BR>
<BR>
By the time most Americans received their first lesson in climate hysteria =
<BR>
in the Albert Gore lecture hall that was the 2006 film An Inconvenient <BR>
Truth, the MBH chart the nutty professor stood before and offered as proof =
<BR>
of impending doom was already held in disrepute by most serious persons of =
<BR>
science.<BR>
<BR>
Lest there be any doubt, why else would the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report <=
BR>
(AR4) -- notwithstanding the appointments of both Briffa and Overpeck as <B=
R>
lead authors - give the graph short mention and exclude it entirely from th=
e <BR>
SPM?<BR>
<BR>
It appeared the Hockey Team was being sent back to the minors.<BR>
<BR>
That is -- for the moment.<BR>
<BR>
Desperate Times Call For Disparate Actions<BR>
<BR>
Given the current economic and political climate, it's not surprising that =
<BR>
the globe's climate ranks dead last when Americans are asked to name the <B=
R>
&quot;most important issue facing the country right now.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Needless to say, that's an uncomfortable position for the Greenhouse Gas <B=
R>
Team, what with a Senate Climate Bill promising even more government contro=
l <BR>
than its House counterpart at the plate and the December Copenhagen Climate=
 <BR>
Summit on deck.<BR>
<BR>
Accordingly, on September 24th, in a transparently desperate effort to stok=
e <BR>
the coals, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its <BR=
>
Climate Change Science Compendium 2009.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The eco-plea opens with these words from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:<=
BR>
<BR>
<BR>
&quot;The science has become more irrevocable than ever: Climate change is =
<BR>
happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see <B=
R>
catastrophic consequences including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine,=
 <BR>
and the loss of up to a third of the world's plant and animal species.&quot=
;<BR>
<BR>
Amazing.<BR>
<BR>
But the frantic hype of this call-to-pointless-action quickly segues to <BR=
>
blatant lies just three sentences later when Ban states &quot;that climate =
change <BR>
is accelerating at a much faster pace than was previously thought by <BR>
scientists.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
It would appear the Sec-Gen believes that the cooling temperatures the new =
<BR>
millennium issued in have somehow escaped everyone's notice.<BR>
<BR>
Imagine the uphill battle he'll face should predictions of the U.S. <BR>
Northeast suffering its coldest winter in a decade due to a weak El Nino <B=
R>
come true.<BR>
<BR>
So it wasn't all that shocking to spot this undeniably dramatic graph on <B=
R>
only the fifth of this end-is-near report's 75 pages.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The striking chart is marked as Figure 1.3: Correlation between temperature=
 <BR>
and CO2. &nbsp;As its title suggests, it attempts to plot atmospheric CO2 <=
BR>
concentrations and mean global temperature during the past millennium.<BR>
<BR>
Notice anything vaguely familiar about the temperature plot in red?<BR>
Why, it's our old friend, Mr. Hockey Stick - apparently having sat for a bi=
t <BR>
of a makeover.<BR>
<BR>
Interestingly enough, this reconstruction wasn't lifted from prior IPCC <BR=
>
assessments, or, for that matter, any UN entity at all.<BR>
<BR>
No, the source was actually a graphic posted to Wikimedia in 2005 by Hanno =
<BR>
Sandvik, a Norwegian research biologist. &nbsp;Sandvik cited two data sourc=
es for <BR>
his temperature plot - a 2004 paper by Jones and Mann (abracadabra - no mor=
e <BR>
MWP) for 1000-1880, and, for the remainder, &quot;instrumental records publ=
ished <BR>
on the web&quot; by Jones, Parker, Osborn and - wait for it .. Briffa.<BR>
<BR>
So the chart the UN climate experts used to sell the CO2 -&deg;C connection=
 to <BR>
an increasingly skeptical public was pulled from Wiki, crafted by an unknow=
n <BR>
biologist, conveniently ends about the same year warming ended, and based o=
n <BR>
a debunked temperature reconstruction.<BR>
<BR>
It would therefore appear they consider Sanvik quite the unsung authority.<=
BR>
<BR>
Yet I wonder whether these geniuses are aware of this 2006 graphic, also <B=
R>
from Sandvik, and plotting northern hemisphere temperatures over the past <=
BR>
2000 years.<BR>
<BR>
This one cites 2005 data published by Moberg, Sonechkin, Holmgren, Datsenko=
, <BR>
Karl&eacute;n, and Lauritzen as its source and paints a somewhat different =
picture. <BR>
Hello MWP and LIA, where've you been?<BR>
<BR>
Any guesses whether or not UNEP would have used Sandvik's chart had his <BR=
>
temperature dataset been from Moberg et al. rather than Mann et al.?<BR>
<BR>
I contacted Hanno Sandvik a week ago last Saturday and asked him essentiall=
y <BR>
that same question.<BR>
<BR>
He responded that he was unaware of the UNEP Compendium and therefore had <=
BR>
&quot;no idea which graphics they may have chosen.&quot; &nbsp;He also poin=
ted out that <BR>
while Mann's was global data, Mobergs was northern hemisphere only -- a <BR=
>
point well taken, &nbsp;however MHB98 was also derived from NH data yet <BR=
>
remarkably resembles the Mann &quot;global&quot; data Sandvik used.<BR>
<BR>
Also -- Take a look at the period between 1000 and 1800 in both <BR>
reconstructions. Is it even the least bit feasible that averaging southern =
<BR>
hemisphere data into the latter would produce the former?<BR>
<BR>
Or that UNEP strived to present the facts honestly?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Not Man Made -- Mann Made<BR>
<BR>
One of McIntyre's chief complaints when auditing MHB98 was <BR>
Mann's refusal to provide his data, methods and source code.<BR>
<BR>
The Hockey Team's most dreaded opposing goaltender has been reporting the <=
BR>
same deceptiveness from Briffa, who for years refused to release his Yamal =
<BR>
measurement data. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This, despite the fact that HS-defendin=
g papers relying <BR>
solely on Yamal continued to be published in major science journals.<BR>
<BR>
But last year, Briffa used the data in a paper he published in the <BR>
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Journal.<BR>
<BR>
As the journal adheres to its strict data archiving rules, McIntyre <BR>
convinced one of its editors to help get Briffa's data released. &nbsp;And =
late <BR>
last month, the data was indeed published at CRU.<BR>
<BR>
Last week, McIntyre analyzed the CRU archive Yamal data and proved that <BR=
>
Briffa et al. had cherry-picked and manipulated data, intentionally omittin=
g <BR>
records not friendly to their position.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, when Briffa's hand-selected figures were replaced by a broader <BR=
>
dataset for the same Polar Ural region (much of which he had deliberately <=
BR>
dropped), the Hockey-Stick suddenly disappeared, revealing no significant <=
BR>
trend in the 20th century whatsoever!<BR>
<BR>
In Steve's new graph, below, the Red represents the original 12 cherry <BR>
picked Yamal trees, while the Black incorporates the broader Polar Ural <BR=
>
dataset.<BR>
<BR>
Any questions whether or not global warming is Mann made?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Inhofe was right<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The public's belief in manmade climate change doesn't hang on its grasp of =
<BR>
geophysics or thermodynamics.<BR>
<BR>
Technical explanations of positive feedbacks and radiative forcings, read b=
y <BR>
few and understand by fewer still, aren't likely to foster acceptance of a =
<BR>
new energy tax that will dramatically raise the price of literally every <B=
R>
facet of human life.<BR>
<BR>
Let's get real -- even experts on the subject can't seem to agree on what <=
BR>
caused modern warming.<BR>
<BR>
&oslash; Try natural process in the progress toward the next glaciation<BR>
<BR>
But alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that=
 <BR>
warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the <BR>
missing hot spot, &nbsp;laughably &nbsp;mistaken climate models, 800 year C=
O2 <BR>
/Temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly <BR>
obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies.<BR>
<BR>
And without the Hockey Stick's counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century=
 <BR>
warming, climate crisis peddlers' credibility levels are reduced to those o=
f <BR>
used car salesmen.<BR>
<BR>
Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd <BR>
premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either <B=
R>
direction.<BR>
<BR>
So they cheat.<BR>
<BR>
And they lie.<BR>
<BR>
And they have from the very beginning.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In 1989, climate scientist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine:<BR>
<BR>
&quot;To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary <BR=
>
scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any <B=
R>
doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between <=
BR>
being effective, and being honest.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
Twelve years later, Schneider was a lead author of the IPCC's TAR, the same=
 <BR>
UN report that formally introduced the delusory Hockey Stick Graph.<BR>
<BR>
In his masterpiece work, Heaven and Earth, Ian Plimer assessed the cadre <B=
R>
whose own assessments form the foundation of virtually every climate-relate=
d <BR>
scheme, law, tax, regulation and treaty throughout the globe thusly:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
&quot;The IPCC is clearly an ascientific political organization in which <B=
R>
environmental activists and government representatives are setting the <BR>
agenda for a variety of reasons including boosting trade, encouraging <BR>
protectionism, adding costs to competitors and pushing their own sovereign =
<BR>
barrow.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Add lying perpetrators of fraud, and I'd say that about sums it up.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Speaking on the Senate floor in July of 2003, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla)=
 <BR>
rightly called the threat of catastrophic global warming the &quot;greatest=
 hoax <BR>
ever perpetrated on the American people.&quot;<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Let's make damned sure it doesn't become the most expensive.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF"><U><a href=3D"http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un=
_climate_reports_they_lie.html">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_cl=
imate_reports_they_lie.html</a><BR>
</U></FONT><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Baskerville Old Face"><SPAN STYLE=3D'f=
ont-size:14.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>


--B_3416142133_5456915--