IPCC references – I’m checking them out

I did it!

I signed up to be a part of the group of ordinary citizens which does some due diligence on the IPCC 4th report’s references!

We’ve been bombarded with assertions that the IPCC review is based on ‘solid, scientific studies which were published in reputable scientific journals after undergoing a thorough peer-review which ensured only ‘sound’ science gets published.

Right.

Yet, it is exactly this claim that the IPCC review is using peer-reviewed (peer-review is ‘quality control’ in scientific studies) – and therefore high-quality and somehow ‘unassailable’ scientific studies – it is this claim that is being widely used as a shield to any criticism of the report and the political policies it is attempting to mandate.  In short, the IPCC ‘crowd’ is deriving the authoritativeness of their report from the claim they used peer-reviewed science!

And – even after their earlier predictions have clearly not come true (their own top scientists have testified that there has been NO statistically significant WARMING in the last 14 years – and the total warmingfrom 150 years ago to-date just over 1/2 degree Celsius:  well within the ‘noise’ one would expect due to natural variation) and every respectable scientist would admit their hypothesis is faulty, these people are still claiming that the IPCC report is accurate ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and that we should all approve shady schemes which will make them rich!

So, we are checking nothing but the veracity of this claim – just how much of the report is based on solid science and how much is based on ‘gray literature’ !

Volunteers who sign up  each take a chapter and see which references are actually peer-reviewed scientific studies.  Each chapter’s references will be reviewed by at least 3 different volunteers, to minimize errors….and if there is any doubt as to the count of ‘peer-reviewed’ versus ‘other’ references, the number most favourable to the IPCC will be used.

And, we’re not even digging into the whole ‘pal-review’ instead of ‘peer review’ – all we are ‘tagging’ are references to government policy reports, WWF publications (yes, I HAVE come across one of these in the first 100 references I checked), random websites (yes, I saw one of them, too), self-references, EU or UN press releases, various government policy statements (yes, I saw many of these, too), and so on.

This project is not ‘examining the validity of the science’ – that is complex and people who are imminently qualified are already doing a great job doing that.

Nor are we taking a look at ‘what studies were included’ versus ‘what studies were available’.  That is, we are not checking if the report is based on ‘cherry-picked’ studies – ones that only show one side of the issue – also a very important factor which could be a source of a bias.

No – not going there.

In other words, we are not auditing the science in the IPCC report.

Instead, we are testing the assertion – nay, claim! – that the IPCC report is based on peer-reviewed, scientific studies published in reputable scientific journals!

That is all!

Still, it is a big task:  the chapter I am checking has over 600 references…. it takes time to check them!

But, it is a little ‘walk-on-part’ in this war of scientific skepticism against politicized subversion of science….and that is important.

Once the good folks (Donna and her helpers) from NOconsensus.org get all the well documented results and meld them together, they will let us know just how much the IPCC report is based on scientific studies vs. ‘gray literature’!

Stay tuned….

Seeking volunteers for Crowdreview of IPCC’s references!

Donna Lafromboise of ‘There is No Frakking “Scientific Concensus” on Global Warming’ is seeking volunteers who are willing to spend 3-10 hours in reviewing the IPCC’s references – simply to check (and count) the number of ‘peer-reviewed’ references versus ‘other’ sources (like, say, an ad by WWF, a press release, a guess in an obscure non-scientific magazine, and so on).

The reason?

Most of our policymakers (worldwide) are pretending (acting as if) the 2007 IPCC report were the absolute truth, represented a 100% scientific consensus (you know – anyone who disagrees is automatically defined as a non-scientist, or worse – a denialist!).

One of the reasons most often cited for considering this to be THE authoritative last word that we, pesky humans are boiling poor Mother Earth do death is that the IPCC report is based on solid scientific evidence. All the IPCC evidence, the warm-mongers claim, is based on scientific studies which were peer-reviewed and published in reputable scientific journals.

‘Peer-review’ is what makes a scientific study ‘respectable’.  It is a process in which other respected scientists (ones who are not connected with the people who did the original work and who wrote it up for publication) read the original study, examine how the data was collected, how it was manipulated, how the study analyzed the data and whether the data supported the conclusions which the authors of the study made.  In other words, it’s like having a teacher mark your homework…..  If it is ‘good’ – it passes the ‘peer-review’ and the scientific journal can publish the study with the knowledge that their reputation will not be tarnished by doing so.

This, of course, puts great pressure on the scientists reviewing the study.  No, they are not expected to re-create the experiment, but, they are responsible for making sure that good scientific methodology was followed, that the data collected actually measured what the original scientists thought it measured (THIS is where MORE mistakes in scientific studies happen than most people – including scientists – are aware of), that the statistical analysis used was appropriate for the data, and so on.  It is a big responsibility – with the greatest asset a scientist has on the line:  their reputation!

That is why ‘peer-review’ is considered to be an assurance of ‘good, sound science’.

And THAT is why the IPCC and its supporters argue that since the IPCC is based on ‘peer-reviewed’ scientific studies, it is above reproach!

OK….

For the sake of the argument, let us set aside any claims that the IPCC-associated scientists turned ‘peer-review’ into ‘pal-review’ and actually check to see just how accurate the claim that the IPCC used only scientific studies which were ‘peer-reviewed’ and published in reputable scientific journals.

In her post, Donna says:

‘How much of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is based on peer-reviewed literature? Recent examinations of two random chapters found only 24 percent and 58 percent of the sources cited were peer-reviewed journal articles.’ ‘

So, she has decided to put the whole thing to the test!

But, that is a lot of checking….  Therefore, she is looking for volunteers who would be willing to share the load:

‘The goal of this project is for each chapter to be counted thrice, by three volunteers working independently of one another. In the event that tallies differ dramatically, further examination will occur. Should they differ only marginally, the count that is most favourable to the IPCC will be used.’

So, if you have a bit of time and are willing, head on to her site and get counting!

Knowledge Drift: Physicist vs. Climatologist

OK – this is funny.

Except that it is so serious.

Still, it is illuminating – and fun!

Copenhagen Treaty vs. Liberty

Whatever we may or may not think (or believe or disbelieve) about the role humans may or may not have played in the warming the Earth has experienced, or the rise in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, we should all learn all we can about the Copenhagen Treaty.

Why?

Because if it is signed, what it says will become the ‘top law’ in the countries that sign it.  (Even if it is not signed – that it got ‘this close’ means that its content is significant – and likely to come up again in another form.)

In a democratic country, passing a new law is a long and arduous process:  there are all kinds of checks and balances in place in order to make sure that the lawmakers (and the people they represent – and who can vote them out if they misbehave) know what the law says and how it will impact society.

Typically, ‘a bill’ (a proposed law) has to pass a number of public readings (transparency – so ‘everyone’, in theory, is aware of what it says), where the different elected representatives are supposed to examine all its aspects in a thorough and objective (ideally) way, point out any of its potential pitfalls or shortcomings, take account of the public debate about it, suggest amendments and all that.  Only after this long process (which OUGHT NOT be shortened, for any reason, not even if Obama says so), if most of the elected representatives think that supporting it is more likely to get them re-elected than not (i.e. the will of ‘the people’) does this ‘bill’ become a ‘law’.

This is really, really important.

Yes, it is annoying and tedious, but important because it is the only mechanism through which the citizens of a democratic can assert their will on what laws govern their land.  (Legally, that is…)

Contrast that with the ‘Copenhagen Treaty’.

It is a whole set of laws, rules and regulations which we are told are necessary to ‘slow down the build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere’.

Because the atmosphere is shared by all the people on Earth, any rules or regulations to effectively deal with problems with it must be global.  Makes sense, when put that way…

So, the rules and regulations in the Copenhagen Treaty over-rule any laws or constitutions of the countries that sign it.  Because these are now ‘global rules’, and take precedence over ‘national laws’.

A country may not opt out (once in), unless the majority of the signatory countries agree to let them.

So, what exactly ARE these laws, rules and regulation?

Unlike the process for passing laws in democratic countries which I described above, a system where the content of a proposed law is open for examination and subject to public debate and scrutiny, we don’t really know the details of this whole set of powerful rules and regulations!

Yesterday, some leaked bits of it showed that it would permit ‘developed’ nations to emit something like twice the CO2 per person than ‘developing’ nations:  in other words, ‘developing’ nations would have their development arrested!

They would NOT be allowed to develop! To provide medicine to their people!  To build up their civilizations and raise their people’s standard of living!

NOT ALLOWED!

People in the ‘developed nations’ would have to pay huge amounts of money in taxes.  These taxes would then be used to keep ‘developing nations’ in a state of perpetual poverty and dependence on the ‘developed nations’!

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty would force them to be the new slave-class.

So poor, they will be grateful for the little bit of medicine, they’ll readily agree to be part of a new vaccination or new medication study.

So hungry, they will accept any crop-seed – happy to get it and let the agro-businesses collect decades of data on its safety.

And – as horrible as this proposition is – it is just the tip of the proverbial ice-berg.

The even bigger issue is that the only way all the representatives found out about it was THROUGH A LEAK!!!

And, we do NOT KNOW what ELSE is there, that was not leaked…

In other words, the Copenhagen Treaty is a pig-in-a-poke – a pig-in-a-poke that will have the power to over-ride our Constitution and any rights and freedoms it guarantees us.

Regardless of your views on Global Warming:  is this a good idea?

Do the ends ever justify the means?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

‘The data is posted’ excuse by IPCC fraudsters

Yesterday, Dr. Phil Jones – perhaps the most influential ‘Climate Alarmist’ scientist who headed up THE centre of ACC research, resigned.  At least, he has stepped down temporarily (original report by AP, corrected with actual facts here), while there is a fraud investigation into his and his team’s  treatment of the very data on which the IPCC reports (and the trillions of dollars in spending by the politicians – and setting up a ‘World Government’) is based.

Not mistakes, not errors – fraud!

And, unless a person is plugged into the blogosphere,  they would be unlikely to hear about it. The mainstream media seems to think this is not worth reporting….

This whole ‘ClimateGate’ (oh, how I hate that term) is being swept under the carpet and whitewashed by those who are guilty, their friends, and journalists who don’t want to reveal (or, in many instances, don’t want to admit to themselves) just how deeply they failed to do their job and check the ‘facts’ they ‘reported’ with an impartial source and how easily they allowed themselves to be manipulated into reporting only one side of the ACC debate.

And, since only one side of the scientific debate was being reported, it was easy to pretend that there is a ‘consensus’ and that the ‘debate is settled’

It does not help that a lot of the things that are at the heart of the scandal are not easily understandable by people who are not used to the ‘scientific method’ or the language used to describe ‘stuff’ when scientists talk amongst themselves.  It seems that every field of human specialization develops its own jargon, as much to prove that the ‘insiders’ are ‘in’ as to elevate themselves (in their own eyes) above ‘the outsiders’.  It’s human nature.

Here, this ‘jargon’ and ‘specific methodology’ makes it very difficult for the ‘outsider’ to understand exactly how rude and contemptuous some of the communication – published in the leaked (and, latest evidence available now suggests it was leaked by a whistle-blower and not illegally hacked by an outsider) emails – truly is.

I am referring to the ‘Accees to Information’ thread – specifically, to the one described by the ‘requestee’ himself, Willis Eschenbach.

OK – I will do my best to explain the depth of disrespect, arrogance and {insert expletive of your choice} attitude the CRU team in East Anglia has demonstrated.

Point #1.

Lots and lots of ‘surface temperature data’ has been collected. That is true.

Point #2

Most of this data is openly published at all kinds of official websites.  That is also true.

Point #3

Some of this data is of poor quality – for all kinds of reasons. Anthony Watts has demonstrated this, through his photographic documentation as well as analysis of the ‘surface stations’, where he showed some of these were placed next to barbecues and heat vents…  The Phil Jones and his team also admit there are problems with some of the stations:  that is why they had only decided to use data from some stations, rejecting others.

Point #4

In order to re-produce the results that Dr. Phil and his team got – an integral part of the scientific peer-review process – Willis Eschenbach needed to know which of the stations were used in Dr. Phil’s CRU studies, and which were excluded.

In an ideal world, the CRU team would release openly not only the list of the stations whose data they actually used, they would also publish their selection criteria and the reasons for it.  (That is, ‘only data from stations that are not located within 100m of artificial heat sources was used’, or ‘stations which have been re-located more than 5 times are excluded’ etc.) After all, scrutinizing the reasoning for including and excluding some data is very important, as it double checking that the ‘mechanics’ of including/excluding was done without errors.

The original FoI request:

In his original FoI request (September 2006), Willis Eschenbach asks the CRU for the actual data which was used in their study, so he can replicate their methodology.

The 1st CRU reply:

Some 6 months or so later, Mr. Eschenbach finally gets a response and is told to check the websites, as all the info is out there- somewhere !

“Your request for information received on 28 September now been considered and I can report that the information requested is available on non-UEA websites as detailed below.

Between them, these two datasets have the data which the UEA Climate Research Unit (CRU) uses to derive the HadCRUT3 analysis.

In accordance with S. 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and the reasons for exemption are as stated below

Exemption Reason
s. 21, Information accessible to applicant via other means Some information is publicly available on external websites

This is really, really an official ‘PFO’ – yes, the data is somewhere out there, in these here websites.  Go ‘f’ yourself, because we’re not telling you which ones of these sets of data we used, which we threw away, or why!

It’s sort of like asking for the bus schedule and being told to look at the list of all the arrivals and departures at all the different bus stops, but without telling you which bus route goes to which stop…

The second FoI request:

Willis Eschenbach was outraged – and made a second FoI request in which he explained that he needed to know WHICH data was actually used, and why.  He also pointed out that the two sites the response to his first FoI request have different numbers for many stations – and wants to know which ones the Dr. Jones’ team actually used.

The 2nd CRU response:

Interestingly enough, the 2nd response does not claim that the data is ‘all out there’, like the first one does.  No!

The claim NOW is that 98% of the data is on these sites – and, again, ‘we’re not telling you which bits we chose to use and which to toss out, so go boil your head’.  So look.  BUT, 2% of the data we used isn’t there anyway, and it is too secret to tell you what it is.  Go ask the people we got it from!

“In regards the “gridded network” stations, I have been informed that the Climate Research Unit’s (CRU) monthly mean surface temperature dataset has been constructed principally from data available on the two websites identified in my letter of 12 March 2007. Our estimate is that more than 98% of the CRU data are on these sites.

The remaining 2% of data that is not in the websites consists of data CRU has collected from National Met Services (NMSs) in many countries of the world. In gaining access to these NMS data, we have signed agreements with many NMSs not to pass on the raw station data, but the NMSs concerned are happy for us to use the data in our gridding, and these station data are included in our gridded products, which are available from the CRU web site. These NMS-supplied data may only form a very small percentage of the database, but we have to respect their wishes and therefore this information would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA pursuant to s.41. The World Meteorological Organization has a list of all NMSs.

So,which is it?  Both responses can’t possibly be true!

Either the data is on these websites, as per the 1st response, or some of it isn’t, as per the 2nd reply.

Regardless, the main question, the subject of both the FoI requests (for either 100% or 98% of the data) has not been addressed!  There is no list of stations which were actually used.

You’d think they had Dogbert write these responses!

AFTER A FEW MORE TRIES…

… the CRU finally claims they cannot hand over the list of stations, because they lost it.

Actually, they say they deleted it because they needed the space

This really is inconcievable!

How could a prestigious place of scientific research loose the very data on which years of their research is based?

Going back to my ‘bus schedule’ parallel – this would be like saying that they can’t tell you which bus route goes to which stop, because they lost the list of routes!

OK – I am getting all worked up, and this post is getting rather long – my apologies.  It’s just that this just boggles my mind: I just hope I have explained just how revealing this particular exchange of correspondence truly is.

ACC is real – just not the way IPCC claims

Let’s face it:  us pesky humans are constantly changing the climate around us!

From as far back as we know, we have always tried to create pockets of micro-climates where we controlled the water flow and maintained temperatures as close to the 20-22 degrees Celsius optimum as possible! We call these ‘our homes’.

And, we have become very good at creating and maintaining these human-changed pockets of climate!

As I point out to my husband just about every summer, when he suggests that camping might be a fun family activity:  it took our ancestors thousands of years to develop running water at just the optimal temperature to fill a ‘soaker-tub’, it took centuries of engineering to be able to control the heating and cooling of our house with the touch of a button, it took decades of scientific research to put little box into our basement so I can connect to the whole world!  To voluntarily sleep on the hard ground, separated from the elements by nothing but a thin piece of cloth held up by glorified sticks – that would be disrespectfully turning our backs on our ancestors!

The tent, of course, is also an artificial  microclimate:  but nowhere as nice as our home.  But, ‘indoors’ is not the only climate we are building…

It is a well known phenomenon that the temperature inside a forest is several degrees cooler than in the meadow just beside it:  this is a function of the type of vegetation that grows there.  Plants use the energy from the air which surrounds them to eat up carbon dioxide and poop out oxygen – this energy ‘in the air’ is indeed what we measure as ‘temperature’.

In a meadow, the plants are usually (plus or minus) ‘knee deep’.  In a forest, there are short plants, too – plus they are surrounded by plants which are much taller.  And, all the green bits of these plants are eating up the carbon dioxide and cooling the air around them in the process.  Since the plants here are ‘stacked up above each other’, and each bit is sucking in energy out of the air, it is not surprising that the forest is cooler than the adjoining meadow because some of the heat from the air is absorbed by the plants (and turned into food) at every layer of the forest.

When we surround our homes with tiny little short lawns, where each blade of grass is chopped into stunted obedience (admission – I think that ‘manicured lawns’ are hideous and unsightly, as well as philosophically offensive), we have replaced the trees and bushes which used to grow there with plants which are nowhere near as good at cooling the air as a forest (or even scrub, or the plants in a marsh) would be.  We may not think of it that way, but when we mow our lawns and pull out the thistles, we are altering our climate by propagating plants which are relatively inefficient in cooling the air and reducing the carbon dioxide levels.

The same holds true when we cut down forests and plant crops (OK – I am not referring to Christmas tree farms….I mean grains, and so on).  And I am not even talking about the large areas we pave, because we find pavement to be convenient – forests which absorb heat are now replaced by cement or asphalt which absorb the heat and radiate it right back out.

Predictably enough, the temperatures we measure in cities are higher than in the ones we measure in the countryside just outside them. This effect is called ‘urban heat islands’ and is well known to climatologists.  (OK- my description is a simplification… these references do a better job.)

Here is a nifty video I came across, which really clearly illustrates this:

This video used the surface temperature data collected by NASA’s GISS – the same data was also available to the IPCC scientists…. If you would indulge me, I would like to point something out:  I have not verified that what this kid and his dad have done is accurate.  BUT – I could, if I wanted to! Because unlike the IPCC cabal, which swore they would rather delete their ‘source data’ than reveal it – and this data has, mysteriously, been accidentally deleted due to lack of storage memory (!), this kid and his dad have  (in preparing a YouTube video) followed the scientific method with much greater integrity than our esteemed IPCC experts.  Notice what theboy and his dad did:

  1. Stated what they wanted to find out, and why (their hypothesis)
  2. Stated where they took their data from (the NASA GISS site – they showed both the web address and screenshots), so people would be able to get the same data from there and check that they were not making it up, or that they did not make any mistakes.
  3. Stated how they selected the sites they used:  a pair of readings, one inside a city, one in the countryside nearby
  4. Stated how they defined ‘city’ (minimum population size) and ‘countryside’ (maximum population size)
  5. Stated how they ‘controlled’ for geographic variations:  the maximum distance separating the ‘city’ and ‘country’ pair, to make sure that they really were located in the same geographic area
  6. Showed the points they actually used – each and every one of them, along with the selection criteria, was scrolled down the screen, making it possible for everyone to check their work and reproduce it
  7. Showed their methodology:  the dad explained, in detail – and repeating himself to make sure he was clear – exactly what they did with the data once they decided which points to use….again, everyone can follow his steps EXACTLY in order to verify his claims
  8. Showed intermediate results:  the ‘in-between’ stages of the data, the various graphs, are shown and clearly explained what it is they are showing and how they were generated
  9. Showed final results and explained how they related to (confirmed, in this case) tw thheir hypothesis – in other words, they said this is why/how our results confirm what we said at the beginning

EVERYONE CAN RE-DO THIS TO CHECK IT FOR THEMSELVES!!!

And THAT is what ALL scientists are supposed to do – not just for little videos, but especially for work based on which trillions of dollars are being spent!  But, I digress from my original point…

Which was that yes, we humans ARE changing the climate around us.  If nothing else, this little amateur video has demonstrated this:  but this ‘ACC’ is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions, it is caused by deforestation and urbanization….

 

Carbon caps will have no effect on it whatsoever!

In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The CRU climatologists have not only failed to provide any proof of their claims (aside from their say-so), they have actively destroyed data so that nobody else can provide a proof, either.   Without a proof, why should we believe them – especially when an alternative explanations for the same data, presented transparently and verifiably, is so easily available?

The ‘Tree Ring Circus’: what does ‘divergence of the proxy’ mean?

With the ‘leaked emails’ confirmed as authentic, many experts are sifting through the materials and analyzing them.

One thing which has been highlighted was the discussion about tree ring studies, from which the (now infamous – you can get T-shirts with it) ‘hide the decline’ phrase comes from. Here, I would like to explain what the ‘tree ring’ and ‘multi-proxy reconstruction’ thing is all about, and why it really, really matters.

When constructing the graphs of global temperatures, the scientists ran into a tiny little problem:  how do we know what the Earth’s temperature was like, say, 1 500 years ago? There were no ‘standardized measurements’…. So, how do we ‘know’?

Aside:  my explanation is going to be a simplification for the sake or clarity, which runs the danger of being an over-simplification.  Please, consider it to be a starting point for your own inquiry, not anything more.

The idea is that there are other ‘indicators’ of the Earth’s temperature than just ‘direct measurements’, like we can make today.

For example, ‘tree ring data’.  Each year’s growth can be measured on each tree, because tree-trunks grow radially outwards:  the latest year adds the newest (out-most) ring to the tree.  By looking at the rings, scientists can see which ones are thicker (meaning that the tree added ‘more growth’ that year) and which ones are thinner (meaning the tree grew less that year).

The reasoning goes something like this:

  1. The years when the weather is nice and warm, plants do well and grow more.
  2. Trees are plants, therefore trees do well grow more:  the warmer a year it was, the bigger the tree’s growth ring for that year will be!
  3. Therefore, looking back and comparing the size of tree rings will tell us when it was warmer and colder.

Sounds good, right?

So, that is what they did.

(By ‘they’, I mean the scientists who promote the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ agenda and on whose scientific work the current political policies are based.  I shall refer to them as ‘the IPCC cabal’.)

They took core samples of very, very old trees and looked at their rings, counted the years and centuries, compared them, analyzed them, assigned temperature values to various ring thicknesses – and they came up with a nifty little graph. Because it does not measure the temperature directly, but uses a ‘proxy’ (a substitute) – the growth of trees – this nifty little curve was included on the graph they submitted to the IPCC report as one of the ‘proxies’ for actual temperature records from long ago.

Except that….

During the time period when we have had the most reliable, actual temperature readings, say, from 1960 to now, the tree ring growth did not correspond to the temperatures the scientists measured!

To the contrary:  while these scientists measured an in increase in temperatures, the tree ring ‘record’ from 1960 to now shows a DECLINE in temperatures!

The scientists did notice this divergence:  one set of readings went up, the other down. That can clearly be seen from the email exchanges between them – and from the graphs they exchanged, which I linked to above. Now, at this point, a real scientist would look at their data and say:  “We have actual, measured temperatures going up, while the temperatures reconstructed from tree-ring temperatures are going down!  Obviously, there are other factors at play here:  either some of our measurements are wrong, or the method how we are using to figure out temperatures from tree rings is wrong.  Therefore, either have to figure out what we are missing or figure out where we have made a mistake:  either way, this data cannot be used as is!”

Alas, that is not what happened.

Instead, they decided that since the first ‘divergent’ year that the ‘common data’ was available for both the actual measured temperatures and the tree-ring proxy temperatures was 1960nto now, they would simply stop showing the tree-ring data from 1960 on!!!

Then, nobody could tell that the tree-ring data showed something different than what they were claiming! This is hard to believe.  Please, consider the picture below:

get_th31.jpg get_th32.jpg

The bigger graph was what these people submitted to the IPCC thing.

The picture on the right (or below – depending on your browser and settings) is a close-up of the last few decades of the graph.  It shows the actual temperatures measured in modern times (black), and the ‘proxy’ temperatures as they were gleaned by the ‘scientists’ for the past dozen or so centuries.

The ‘tree-ring data’  – the temperatures they figured out the Earth ‘had to have been’ based on the thickness of the tree-rings from those years – is the pale blue line.

When one looks at the enlarged view of the graph, it becomes obvious that that line stops a few decades before the other ones do:  1960, to be exact…. And, the email exchanges show that the only reason that this data was excluded – why the line was not continued – was not because they did not have the data….it was because they did not like what the data showed!!!

And THAT is FRAUD!

By excluding the data, by stopping the blue line on that graph in 1960, even though the data since then exists, the IPCC Cabal of scientists PROVED they knew they were committing fraud!

And THAT is why so many respectable scientists are so very, very angry.

Disappointed, and angry.

Note:  the formatting of this post got ‘messed up’, so, I edited it to fix it.  Aside from formatting (and this note), the post has not been altered.