gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
Prior to the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (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:
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, 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.
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?
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 is based on a debunked temperature
reconstruction.
Source.
Furthermore:
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!
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
lol:
