At the moment we have the media stating everything about accelerating climate change; accelerating CO2 emissions; massive man made storms and rising sea levels; but not reporting the simple fact that average global temperature (AGT), as measured by the HadCRUT datasets 3 & 4 (the UN IPCC's measure of choice), shows no measurable change in AGT for the last 16 years. So, massive rises in emissions and no rise in temperatures; without rising temperatures it is difficult to see how 'global warming' can be causing the imagined disasters nominated. Without 'global warming' something else must be causing imaginary sea rises; imaginary superstorms; imaginary droughts and so on. If the global temperatures aren't rising as 'projected' in the early UN IPCC reports and if the most recent papers published with such fanfare around Doha are completely misleading, which they are, one wonders how long this habit of spin, lies and deceit has been going on.
It is instructive to recall one of the major turning points in the history of this major science fraud. It happened in 1995 during the compilation of the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Essentially, all the scientists agreed on a form of words which basically said, 'we see no evidence that humans are causing global warming'. This was the fabled (though in reality, unscientific) 'consensus science'.
The following excerpt from the comprehensive and informative book by Christopher Booker [The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Kindle Locations 855-862). Kindle Edition.] exposes the 1995 story,
".....The IPCC's `second assessment report' (SAR) went considerably further than the first in endorsing an anthropogenic explanation for global warming. The biggest media headlines were reserved for its claim that `the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate'. These words were to be quoted far more often than any others in the report. But the story behind how they came to be included in the Summary for Policy Makers was curious.18
The source of this sentence was given as Chapter 8 of the scientific working group's report, the `lead author' of which was Ben Santer, a scientist working for the US government's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. This included much the same wording: that `the body of statistical evidence' now `points to a discernible human influence on the global climate'.
When the report containing these sentences was published, however, some of the scientific contributors who had signed off the working group's chapters the previous year were seriously dismayed. These words had not appeared in the draft they had formally approved. It seemed they had been added subsequently, by the `lead author' himself. Santer had also, it emerged, deleted a number of key statements from the agreed text, all of which reflected serious scientific doubt over the human contribution to global warming. They included these passages:
• 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 the climate change observed) to (man-made) causes. • Any claims of positive detection and attribution 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 be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is "We do not know".'
All these sentences had mysteriously vanished from the original agreed version. What was particularly odd about the new additions to the text was that the only source cited in support of them appeared to be two papers co-authored by Santer himself, which had not yet been published. That much-cited claim about `discernible human influence on climate change' was based on what were known as `fingerprinting studies'. These compared the patterns of climate change predicted by computer models with changes actually observed in the real world. Where these coincided (or displayed the same `fingerprint'), this was taken as evidence that the computer model was correct.19
However, when Santer and several colleagues published their first, all-important paper, two other scientists, Dr Patrick Michaels and a colleague, examined their evidence. They were surprised to discover that its conclusions in favour of global warming had been based only on part of the data. The supposed `fingerprinting' parallel between the computer models and observed data applied only to the years between 1943 and 1970, during the `Little Cooling'. When the full set of data was used, showing earlier years going back to 1905 and years after 1970, the warming trend claimed by Sauter and his colleagues disappeared.20
This was surprising enough, in view of the significance attached to Sauter's revised wording of Chapter 8 by the Summary for Policymakers and all the publicity which followed. But the realisation that a single contributor could have been allowed to make such a crucial change after the scientific text had been formally approved, soon gave rise to a considerable uproar.
Even Nature, which published the Santer paper, was not happy about the rewriting of Chapter 8 to `ensure that it conformed' with the Summary. A week after the report was published, the Wall Street Journal not only expressed outrage in an editorial ('Cover-up in the Greenhouse').21 The following day it published an excoriatory article by Frederick Seitz, a much-respected former president of the US National Academy of Sciences.22
The story continues here for the excerpt from Christopher Booker's, The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Kindle Locations 801-812). Kindle Edition.