HOCKEY STICK CREATED WARMING
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.
Mann deletes MWP & LIA from IPC reports
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.
Mann Versus Ball
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.
Rico Act 1978 Against Mafia
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 Climate Accountability Institute he was a director! Link to video below:
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.
Medieval Warm Period
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.
Thames River Fair during The Little Ice Age
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.
8 Comments
I have asked the same question time and time again. Was it hotter during the MWP?
The official response is yes but only in certain parts of the world! Which is ridiculous when you consider we are talking about average global temperatures.
?? Why would it be ridiculous for certain parts of the world (in particular the oceans south of China) to be much colder than they are now during the MWP?
We have the technology and the resources to conduct experiments into the science rather than relying on questionable data. I also have concerns about the theory that a trace gas could have such an impact on world weather when there is so very little of it and we don’t have reliable temperature data before 1900.
The final scientific draft of the IPCC’s 1995 Third Assessment Report, submitted by hundreds of participating scientists, had concluded five times that no man made warming influence is yet discernible:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes.”
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions for which there is little justification.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate change be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’”
The IPCC did not want any of these things said. It asked a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, to rewrite the already-concluded final draft to remove all five statements shown above, and to replace them with: “The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.“However, the “body of evidence” in the temperature record showed no such thing.
Michael Mann does not impress me and I am at a loss to understand why the ABC had him on.
He is supposed to be an expert on global warming etc.. but refuses to publish his Hockey Stick data. His credibility appears even more shaky after his response to questions at the congressional hearing.
He has indicated he will not pay the legal costs, as directed by the court after his defamation action against Tim Ball, and says he intends to appeal. Which is unlikely to be successful if he won’t release his data.
Much depends on is hockey stick to keep the global warming/climate change theory afloat but might also be, in the long run, the cause of its sinking at least while he is at the helm.
.
What about the other 39 Hockey Sticks, all using different methodologies that have been published since, many of them going back 10,000 years, not 1000 as Mann’s did?
There is now no controversy over the hockey stick.
“WE need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago, the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause. Hysterical op-ed’s lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. – Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer