On Jan 2, 7:41*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:[i]
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../01/025294.php

January 1, 2010 Posted by John at 7:34 PM

The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and other documents that
reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world's leading global warming alarmists did us
all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception didn't just begin: rather,
the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from the start.

The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the
auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord
which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on the world's elementary
school students ever since.

But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and
injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document. You can get the
whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy.
The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:

* IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for
their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of
fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

* Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and
published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a
key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

* This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural
influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing
their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major
natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on
GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and
therefore 'bad' almost by definition.

* How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at "balance of evidence"? It was the work of a
then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead
Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human
influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language.
There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors, nor do we know who
instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions and insertions that
fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.

* The event is described by Nature [381(1006):539] and in a 1996 WSJ article by the late Professor
Frederick Seitz (See also my Science Editorial #2-09). Seitz compared the draft of IPCC Chapter 8
(Detection and Attribution) and the final printed text. He noted that, before printing, key phrases
had been deleted from the draft that had earlier been approved by its several scientist-authors.

This is from Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:

* This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been
peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body
of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what
it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on
the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community,
including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical
Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the
events that led to this IPCC report.

* A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version
reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was
the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC
Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC
Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of
scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

* The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November;
the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of
the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence
over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had
accepted the supposedly final text.
* Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism
with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate
in general and on global warming in particular.

* The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the
supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

* "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed
[climate] 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 date] to anthropogenic
[man-made] causes." "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to
remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are
reduced."

* The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am
in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author,
Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.
* IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints
on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies
of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is
to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human
activities are causing global warming.

Fred Singer, in the SEPP editorial quoted above, continues:

* n addition to these text changes there are also two key graphs that were doctored in order to
convey the impression that anthropogenic influences are dominant. Again, my Hoover essay gives the
details.

* 1. According to all climate models, [greenhouse] warming shows a characteristic 'fingerprint': a
'hot spot' in temperature trend values in the tropical upper troposphere. Michaels and
Knappenberger [Nature 384 (1996):522-523] discovered that the IPCC's claimed agreement with
observations was spurious and obtained by selecting a convenient segment of the radiosonde
temperature data and ignoring the rest.

* 2. Santer also claimed that the modeled and observed patterns of geographic surface temperatures
were correlated, with the correlation coefficient increasing over time (suggesting to the reader
that a growing human component gradually emerged from background noise). I found, however, that
Santer had obtained this result by simply deleting from a published graph all the trend lines that
disagreed with his desired outcome [Eos 80 (1999):372]. In fact, the original paper had Santer
himself as lead author and did not appear in print until after the IPCC report was completed - in
contravention of IPCC rules.

* It is interesting that these several documented falsifications went largely unreported and had
little impact on scientists and politicians, who went on to support the passage of the Kyoto
Protocol -- in spite of the absence of any scientific support.

So the Kyoto protocol was based on fictitious science, exaggerated or fabricated outright for
political purposes. The same Professor Santer who hijacked the Second Assessment Report figures
prominently in Climategate. Many of his emails were disclosed by the East Anglia whistleblower;
among other things, they show Santer resisting all efforts by independent scientists to obtain
information, through Freedom of Information Act requests, about the statistical manipulations that
Santer applies to raw climate data to "prove" the existence of anthropogenic global warming.

Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming hysteria movement.

Even posting a billion words like this cannot make the truth anything
other than the truth. Live with it.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:20:16 -0800, JohnM wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:41Â*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:

Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming
hysteria movement.

Even posting a billion words like this cannot make the truth anything
other than the truth. Live with it.

LOL! "Just because they were caught lying their asses off doesn't mean it
isn't true."

The fact is, the whole AGW argument is based on lies and fraud. There is
absolutely NO reason to believe that humans have anything but a trivial
effect on climate change. There is every reason to believe that climate
change is caused by outside causes, like Svensmark has shown and
successfully used to predict.

So why do you, against all reason and sanity, WANT anthropogenic global
warming to be true? You humans tend to believe what you want and ignore
reason. Lets get to the crux of it; why do you want it to be true?

Do you have some sort of self loathing urge that tells you that you and
your fellow humans are dirty little creatures that are destroying the
environment, and this affirms your self loathing?

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 11:20:16 -0800, JohnM wrote:

On Jan 2, 7:41 pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:

Fraud: it is the one constant in the history of the global warming
hysteria movement.

Even posting a billion words like this cannot make the truth anything
other than the truth. Live with it.

LOL! "Just because they were caught lying their asses off doesn't
mean it isn't true."

The fact is, the whole AGW argument is based on lies and fraud. There
is absolutely NO reason to believe that humans have anything but a
trivial effect on climate change. There is every reason to believe
that climate change is caused by outside causes, like Svensmark has
shown and successfully used to predict.

So why do you, against all reason and sanity, WANT anthropogenic
global warming to be true? You humans tend to believe what you want
and ignore reason. Lets get to the crux of it; why do you want it to
be true?

Do you have some sort of self loathing urge that tells you that you
and your fellow humans are dirty little creatures that are destroying
the environment, and this affirms your self loathing?


As usual, the denialist just makes some **** up.