Is the IPCC “House of Cards” about to collapse?

Last week, the UN’s top climate change official resigned and now the head of the IPCC will face an independent investigation…

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry

Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry into the performance of his organisation…


The Telegraph

The UN, the IPCC and the so-called climate scientists who put the IPCC reports together have been committing fraud on an almost unimaginable scale for the better part of 20 years.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a great article on how the IPCC “simplified” (or dumbed down) the science so that policy makers could comprehend it…

FEBRUARY 26, 2010
Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel


The problem stems from the IPCC’s thorny mission: Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers. To meet that goal, scientists working with the IPCC say they sometimes faced institutional bias toward oversimplification, a Wall Street Journal examination shows.



To me, the most egregious thing was the “Hockey Stick.” Prior to the publication of Mann et al., 1998, most climate reconstructions looked like the top chart in this image…

"Hockey Stick Hokum" from the July 14, 2006 issue of the Wall Street Journal

The bottom chart is the Mann’s “Hockey Stick.”

Mann’s work was the centerpiece of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001. However, the IPCC chose to exaggerate the “Hockey Stick” in the Summary for Policy Makers…

"Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel" from the February 26, 2010 issue of The Wall Street Journal.

The “Hockey Stick” in the full report was considerably less threatening than the one in the policy maker summary.

However, even the subdued Hockey Stick was a fraud. As were the other reconstructions that ostensibly confirmed it. Jones, Briffa and Mann coordinated their efforts using “Mike’s Nature Trick” to substitute instrumental data for their tree ring chronologies because the tree ring data kept showing that the 1930’s to early 1940’s were as warm or warmer than the late 1990’s.

A recent analysis of raw instrumental data (Le Mouël et al., 2008) found that the USA was indeed warmer in the 1930’s than it currently is and that European temperatures were basically flat from 1900-1987 and then rose sharply over a two-year period and have remained essentially flat since 1990…

Our overall curve for the USA rises sharply from 1910 to 1940, then decreases until 1980 and rises sharply again since then. The minima around 1920 and 1980 have similar values, and so do the maxima around 1935 and 2000; the range between minima and maxima is 1.3 8C. The European mean curve is quite different, and can be described as a step-like function with zero slope and a ~1.8C jump occurring in less than two years around 1987. Also notable is a strong (cold) minimum in 1940. Both the USA and the European mean curves are rather different from the corresponding curves illustrated in the 2007 IPCC report.


From Le Mouël et al., 2008

From Le Mouël et al., 2008

And now… A study has been released that pretty well proves that NASA-GISS and the CRU have been fraudulently tweaking the instrumental data to make the 1930’s appear cooler and the 1990’s to 2000’s warmer… 


Rather than correcting the urban data for Urban Heat Island effect (UHI), it appears that they have been adjusting the rural data upwards to match the UHI of the urban areas.

Rural vs. Urban Raw Data…

NCDC Raw Data: Rural vs. Urban

Rural vs Urban “Homogenized” Data…

NCDC Homogenized Data: Rural vs. Urban

So… The “Hockey Stick” reconstructions not only fraudulently removed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, they also suppressed the fact that the early 20th century warming was no different than the late 20th century warming.

Yet, the IPCC seems to have gone out of their way to ignore subsequent, more accurate, climate reconstructions that have restored the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

About the only time that we see Moberg’s or Esper’s reconstructions is in “spaghetti charts” like this one from Wiki…

Temperature Reconstruction "Spaghetti Chart" (Wikipedia)

The correct reconstructions are plotted along with the “Hockey Sticks” and then the instrumental record is tacked on to the end.

NOAA obscures the Moberg reconstruction on its website by tacking the instrumental record on to it…

Moberg (2005) Reconstruction from NOAA/NCDC

But Moberg’s reconstruction was already tied into the instrumental record… So NOAA is essentially doubling the effect of the 20th century warming trend.

Here is a comparison of Mann’s 2003 version of his “Hockey Stick” with Esper et al., 2003, Moberg et al., 2005 and Alley’s 2004 temperature reconstruction for central Greenland from ice core oxygen isotope ratios…

Mann (2003), Esper (2003), Alley (2004) and Moberg (2005)

It’s painfully obvious from the work of Le Mouël, Esper, Moberg, Alley, Long and their respective coauthors that the post-Little Ice Age warming is not anomalous when compared to the Medieval Warm Period; nor is the late 20th century warming anomalous when compared to the early 20th century warming.


One Response to “Is the IPCC “House of Cards” about to collapse?”

  1. Robert Feeley Says:

    SPN Headlines got the scoop on climate change data:

    Keep smiling! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: