Muscatine

Anybody else getting tired of this global warming?

The three curves show the data with different weights assigned to it, the red being the strongest and the blue being the weakest that the authors think is merited.[127]

_______

* In 2009, an unknown individual(s) released more than 1,000 emails (many dealing with proxy studies) from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The materials were authored by some of the world's leading climate scientists and accompanied by the following note:

* These emails (commonly referred to as the ClimateGate emails) show IPPC scientists and authors:

• proposing to conduct an "honest" study about the "uncertainties" of proxies and then to "publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address," because "what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show" that we "honestly know f**k-all" (i.e., little or nothing[130]) about Northern Hemisphere temperature variability over periods of more than a hundred years.[131]

• writing, "I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike [Mann] appears to … and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene [11,000 years ago to present] that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."[132]

• writing, "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."[133]

• writing, "In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC."[134]

• planning to have the editor of a scientific journal "ousted" if he exhibits skepticism of global warming.[135]

• instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC report.[136]

• planning to evade Britain's Freedom of Information Act.[137]

• planning to boycott scientific journals that require authors to release all data and calculations used in their published papers.[138]

• writing, "I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). … Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this."[139]

• writing, "it would be nice to try to 'contain' the putative 'MWP' [Medieval Warm period], even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back."[140]

• planning to shorten the timeframe of a proxy data series so "it would do what we want."[141]

• writing, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[142] [For comprehensive facts regarding this email, click here.]

It's warm today, therefore it must be man-made global warming.

Warm.   Yep.