MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD AND THE LITTLE ICE AGE HAD TO GO
The problem for the Climate Scientists, the IPCC and the supporters of AGW, was that they they had to prove that the current phase of warming was unnatural, unique and unprecedented. If a similar or greater warming period had occurred in the past such as during the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), then clearly any such recent warming must have been natural and not the result of human activities.
Too prove their theory climate history had to be changed which is what happened when IPCC removed the MWP and the Little Ice Age recorded on page 202 of 1990 IPCC report below.
Professor Tim Ball, who was sued by Michael Mann for defamation regarding comments he made about the integrity of the Hockey Stick Graph, has succeeded in having the case thrown out and Mann ordered to pay costs. He had failed to comply with a court order that he produce his Hockey Stick Data! The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced evidence in the form of Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph, in their 2001 report, published eleven years after the ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report (1) 1990 showing the MWP and the Littel Ice Age had been removed!
Proponents of the IPCC hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming were mainly connected with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Leaked CRU emails, beginning with 1000 in late 2009, exposed the corruption of climate science of the IPCC. CRU people controlled critical portions of IPCC Working Group I.
They set up procedures to control the peer-review process, control data, and attack any who challenged, especially if it was with contradictory evidence. This was necessary because they deliberately thwarted the scientific method by presenting an hypothesis and blocking normal and essential skepticism. They determined to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis. As Richard Lindzen correctly observed decades ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Evidence emerged, despite their efforts, so they created pseudo scientific vehicles to counterattack.
Michael Mann, who appeared on ABC Q&A and Channel Nine Sixty Minutes last week, was asked by Congress if he was connected to a group called the Union Of Concerned Scientists who wrote to the president asking that deniers be prosecuted using the RICO statute. For those who are not familiar with Corrupt Organization Act – RICO – 1970, it was used to rein in the Mafia.
He denied he was in affiliated but according to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists he was a director! Link to video below: https://ruclip.com/video/S3f42t4C7XU/climate-scientist-michael-mann-tells-whopper-at-congressional-science-hearing.html
Keith Briffa, Mann’s fellow climate scientist at East Anglia CRU wrote that he was concerned that Mann’s tree ring proxy data did not match the current warming.
The web site, RealClimate, was another major vehicle created by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who invented the name. Another is skepticalscience.com which belies its name and responds to any comments questioning the theory. According to its critics it is managed by the same people responsible for the bogus study which showed that 97% scientists etc.. etc.. A group of scientists established themselves as the palace guard for the gang at the CRU. Mann and Schmidt led and quickly earned reputations for aggressive, assertive, replies to challenges. They saw them as threats rather than contributions. It was the attitude that if you are not with me you must be against me.
On December 10, 2004 Schmidt set the tone when he wrote:
“Colleagues, No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days:
It sounds innocent but was used in a very different manner. Schmidt’ phraseology is revealing.
The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.
The phrase “working climate scientists” was used frequently as a put down, such as by Andrew Weaver in his public attacks against Tim Ball. Unless you are one, you have no credibility or right to an opinion. It reflected concern about the growing group of qualified, but older climate experts, speaking out about what the IPCC was doing. It was a deliberate attempt to marginalize.
What is a “bombshell” paper? Invariably, it was one that contradicted their claims. Normally, these were ones that showed current climate is well within natural variability and not linked to human activity. The fundamental objective of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is to show human behavior and particularly industrial development is unnatural and creating unnatural changes. This illusion allows them to point to any natural event and imply it is unnatural. Skeptical evidence consistently showed it was not, but most people didn’t know, so, sadly, it was effective.