The Make-Believe World of Global Warming

© O. R. Adams Jr., 2010



 (The global warming alarmists even falsely claimed the disappearance of the polar bears as one of their scare tactics.)

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see? Alice in Wonderland (From The Hottest Hoax in the World, by Ninad D. Sheth, cited below.)

When scientific decisions are influenced by what is "politically correct," it is no longer science. It is a make-believe world very similar to that of Alice in Wonderland.

What is perhaps the biggest hoax in history is unraveling before us today. It has been a terrible and destructive fraud on the people. The evidence is now clear that the idea that we have global warming to a dangerous degree which is caused by man-made "greenhouse gasses," and that it can be changed by cutting down on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, is decisively flawed, if not a complete fraud in all aspects. There is no question that it has been fraudulently presented to the people. The resulting regulations have cost the people billions of dollars, and regulations are proposed that would cost many billions more. The total sum is so astronomical that it is hard to comprehend. It has also been the reason why we have not pursued more sensible energy policies, and needed development of our natural resources to supply our own energy at a reasonable cost.

We actually have two separate questions. The first is: Do we have significant global warming? The second is: Are our climate changes significantly caused by man-made "greenhouse gasses"? I will present relevant information on these two questions under separate headings, although there is necessarily considerable overlapping.

Do we have significant global warming?

What is generally called "ClimateGate" began when a hacker or whistle-blower obtained emails from Britain's University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), which is one of the world's leaders in climate research, and a key proponent of global warming propaganda. I call this propaganda, because I consider that term charitable in light of the recent evidence of the deceit and misinformation that has been foisted onto the people of the world. It appears that the deceit and misinformation has involved all of the major players pushing the idea of man made global warming. These include the CRU, U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U. S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)). The global warming propaganda has also been eagerly promoted by the liberal news media.

One thing that is most unfortunate for our country and the world is that our primary agencies that we have looked to for information have become so politicized, and their data is so undependable, that we can no longer depend on them for accurate information as to whether or not we are even in a period of global warming. The evidence also indicates that much of the basic data needed to determine the truth in these matters has been destroyed for the purpose of covering up their fraud.

A key matter that should also be kept in mind is that the period chosen for determination of the trend of either global warming or global cooling is critical. If the period chosen is from the last great ice age, there will of course be a warming trend. If the period chosen is from the warmest period after the last great ice age, or the warmest period we can determine, there will be a cooling trend. It is clear that we are somewhere in between. Also, if short enough periods are chosen, either warming or cooling trends can be found, because of the continual fluctuations of the global climate. Thus, trends can be found in either direction without even doctoring the data as it appears to have been done by current global warming proponents. It appears that the doctoring, falsifications, and exaggerations have occurred in an attempt to make it appear that in recent years there has been an alarming increase in global temperature, and that it was largely caused by people and our industries.

The following are excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article, 11-24-2009 , Global Warming With the Lid Off – The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science:

'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." [A quote from one of the emails.]

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. ...

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data. ...

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.[1]

The Wall Street Journal article presents a sordid picture of deleting, doctoring, and withholding information, and it is well supported by more detailed studies.   

From further information obtained, it now appears that the CRU people now have indeed destroyed much of the basic data on which their models, graphs, and claims presented to the public were based, making it difficult if not impossible for them to be reliably check or verified. Why would CRU officials want to hide or destroy information if they had nothing to hide? Replication and verification of data obtained and hypotheses presented have always been a key part of true science.


The most comprehensive analysis of the CRU emails I have found was made by scientist and physicist, John P. Costella, Ph.D., in the 149 page paper, Climategate Analysis.[2] This paper gives detailed information, and comments of Dr. Costella, that fully support the conclusions of the Wall Street Journal article, above; as well as Costella's conclusions of fraud, hiding facts, manipulations, and deceit. Time and space require that I only cover a small part of Costella's paper, but it is all worthwhile reading for those sufficiently interested. The following are a few excerpts:

...This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology .

It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists. ...

Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009, when a whistle-blower leaked thousands of emails and documents central to a Freedom of Information request placed with the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. This institution had played a central role in the “climate change” debate: its scientists, together with their international colleagues, quite literally put the “warming” into Global Warming: they were responsible for analyzing and collating the various measurements of temperature from around the globe and going back into the depths of time, that collectively underpinned the entire scientific argument that mankind’s liberation of “greenhouse” gases—such as carbon dioxide—was leading to a relentless, unprecedented, and ultimately catastrophic warming of the entire planet. ...

Climategate has shattered that myth. ... [Emphasis added]

But as wisely noted by P. T. Barnum, and quoted by Abraham Lincoln,

You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ...

As an increasing number of highly qualified scientists slowly began to realize that the “climate science” community was a facade—and that their vitriolic rebuffs of sensible arguments of mathematics, statistics, and indeed scientific common sense were not the product of scientific rigor at all, but merely self-protection at any cost—the veil began to drop on what has already become clear as the greatest scientific fraud in this history of mankind. [Emphasis added.]

This is one of the darkest periods in the history of science. Those who love science, and all it stands for, will be pained by what they read below. However, the crisis is here, and cannot be avoided. ...

CAST OF COLORFUL CHARACTERS [Color coding used in original are omitted due to difficulty in reproducing.]

MIKE MANN: lead conspirator in the United States .

PHIL JONES: lead conspirator in the United Kingdom .

TOM WIGLEY: older conspirator who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal.

KEITH BRIFFA: older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.

BEN SANTER: dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States .

OTHER CONSPIRATORS: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity.

SKEPTICS: and other unrelated parties.

[As we see from the above listing of the parties, and from the emails, this fraud is not limited to just the CRU, but infects major players around the world.]

September 19, 1996 : email 0843161829

Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change [Exchange with Keith Briffa]:

I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

His reluctance to report a “null result” (namely, that the data do not show anything significant) is extremely disturbing, as it flies in the face of standard scientific practice, which requires that all results be reported. ...

We will, sadly, see that this fundamental scientific flaw—which, in and of itself, is sufficient to render the evidence for climate change completely unreliable and scientifically worthless—is one that runs throughout the entire Climategate saga. ...

November 22, 1996: email 0848679780

Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with [the] early release of information [via Australia], “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? ...

October 9, 1997: email 0876437553

We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

With just months until the Kyoto Climate Conference, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

Distribution for Endorsements—

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you). Get those names!

This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signer has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is nonsense, pure and simple. ...

November 25, 1997: email 0880476729

Tom Wigley roundly criticizes the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement:

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with [the] IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject. ...

I couldn’t express it any better myself. ... [We see by this how little the propaganda means that man-made global warming was the consensus of the scientific world.]

September 22, 1999: email 0938018124

In this next email, Keith Briffa raises one of the issues that is central to the infamous “hide the decline” email (which is the next email to be dealt with, below). It is therefore worth spending some time understanding what this is all about, in at least a simplified form. (Scientists interested in a more thorough account of all the methods used to “hide the decline” should refer to Steve McIntyre’s extensive discussion of these issues.) ...

Of course, these researchers realized that all of their “independent temperature proxies” didn’t always give the same answers; so most of their work was involved in either figuring out which pieces of data agreed with which others (and ignoring or suppressing those that didn’t), or concocting mathematically invalid ways of “averaging out” the various discrepant pieces of data, to give an artificial appearance of consistency. ...

It is with this scandal in mind that Keith Briffa writes to writes to Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Karl, and Chris Folland, expressing severe reservations about their contribution to the next Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at that time in the revision stages:

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the temperature proxy data” but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of temperature proxies that come right up to today and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) have some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

That is an understatement! Indeed, Briffa states his key opinion even more clearly:

I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.

This is a remarkable statement, which undermines the entire argument propounded by Briffa and his colleagues that global warming was “unprecedented”.

Mike Mann responds to this catastrophic development:

[I] [w]alked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil [Jones] have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris [Folland], through no fault of his own, but probably through me not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann [and coworkers’]) [results]

In other words, Mann has no confidence in his own results! ...

Of course, we know that, ultimately, he gave up on this impossible task, and the troublesome “decline” was simply removed! [Emphasis added.]

Mann-made global warming, indeed. ...

November 16, 1999: email 0942777075

That background now paves the way to our understanding the historic email that generations of schoolchildren to come will study as the catchphrase of the greatest scientific fraud in the history of mankind:

Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temp[erature]s to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [Emphasis added.]

Those thirty-three words summarize the hoax so magnificently succinctly that the Nobel Committee should consider retrieving their Peace Prize from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, and re-issuing it as a Literature Prize to Phil Jones. ... [Emphasis added.]

September 22, 2000: email 0969618170

Tom Crowley of the Department of Oceanography at the Texas A&M University writes to Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, about the huge problems involved in trying to figure out if the various “temperature proxies” are measuring temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, or some other complicated combination:

... Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with [one-third to one-half] of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920. ...

So, are you sure that some [carbon dioxide effect] is responsible for this? May we not actually be seeing a warming?

Malcolm Hughes’s response exemplifies the utter confusion of these researchers:

I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.

... What they do is “cherry pick” those proxies that seem to give the "right" answers, and ignore those that don’t. That’s not just bad science: it’s completely wrong. ...

July 2, 2001: email 0994083845

Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind:

We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway.

This is a remarkable admission: even if the scientists are completely wrong, we “should” force changes on mankind that could cost trillions of dollars, on simplistic ideological grounds? ...

March 11, 2003: email 1047388489

A paper by astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas was published by Climate Research, which concluded that “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” Phil Jones writes a number of emails to his colleagues. In the first:

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in New Zealand. He has let a few papers through by [skeptics] Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

... He continues:

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A C[limatic] R[esearch] U[nit] person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

... Mann immediately suggests black-balling the journal that dared to challenge their authority:

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

So it’s OK for their gang to control the “peer review” process, but not OK for skeptics to have any say? ... [Such as this makes the idea of "peer review" rather worthless.]

July 31, 2003: email 1059664704

Tim Osborn writes to Mike Mann, trying to make sense of some of Mann’s data, which appears to have simplistic estimates of uncertainties. After an exchange in which Mann attempts to explain what he has done, he adds:


Attached are the [calculations requested] …

p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to ensure absolutely clarity on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking with me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…

In other words, Mann lacks so much confidence in his own calculations that he refers to them as his “dirty laundry”, that is to be hidden from scrutiny at all costs.

This is the basis of global climate policy? [Emphasis added.]

[A large number of the emails dealt with how to attack and discredit scientists that disagreed with their global warming propaganda, and how to keep them from getting their papers published in reputable scientific journals.]

October 26, 2003: email 1067194064

Mike Mann receives secret information about the forthcoming McIntyre and McKitrick paper, which marks the start of the debunking of the “hockey stick”:

Two people have a forthcoming Energy and Environment paper that’s being unveiled tomorrow (Monday) that—in the words of one Cato Institute / Marshall Institute / Competitive Enterprise Institute type—

… will claim that Mann arbitrarily ignored paleo data within his own record and substituted other data for missing values that dramatically affected his results.

When his exact analysis is rerun with all the data and with no data substitutions, two very large warming spikes will appear that are greater than the 20th century.

Personally, I’d offer that this was known by most people who understand Mann’s methodology: it can be quite sensitive to the input data in the early centuries.

In other words, most of Mann’s colleagues were fully aware of the problems.

[Continuance of the above email:]

Anyway, there’s going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann’s very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past….

[I consider this blatant fraud to present the "hockey stick" graph to the world as valid science, when apparently everyone in the CRU well knew that it presented a false picture.]

 [A large number of emails deal with how the CRU people can prevent McIntyre and McKitrick from obtaining the basic data and computer programs CRU used for their graphs. It is quite obvious that true scientific verification and replication is the last thing they want. It appears that their whole purpose is to conceal their fallacious actions.]

September 28, 2004: email 1096382684

Andy Revkin, Environment Reporter for The New York Times, writes to Tim Osborn:

Again, the take-away message is that Mann’s method can only work if past variability is the same as the variability during the period used to calibrate your method.

So it could be correct, but it could be very wrong as well.

By the way, von Storch doesn’t agree with Osborn and Briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there’d likely be high future variability as well (bigger response to greenhouse gases). He simply says it’s time to toss the “hockey-stick graph” and start again; he doesn’t take it further than that.

Is that right?

So The New York Times should have headlined, “Climate Change Scientists Could Be Very Wrong,” and sub-headlined, “Time to Toss the Hockey-Stick Graph.”

No? ...

[Here we see the liberal New York Times covering up for "climate gate," too, by not giving this information to the public.]

February 2, 2005: email 1107454306

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann:

Just sent loads of … data to Scott [ Rutherford ]. Make sure he documents everything better this time!

So it isn’t until 2005 that they decide it is time to document what they are doing?

And don’t leave stuff lying around on [anonymous download] sites—you never know who is trawling them. [McIntyre and McKitrick] have been after the C[limatic] R[esearch] U[nit] … data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the United Kingdom, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone.

Does your similar Act in the United States force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The U[nited] K[ingdom] works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a Data Protection Act, which I will hide behind. ...

Mike Mann responds:

Yes, we’ve learned our lesson about anonymous download sites. We’re going to be very careful in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.

[These emails show the determination of these people to do everything they can to prevent any attempt at scientific replication and verification of what they have presented to the public. This is necessary to cover up what they know to be erroneous presentations. McIntyre and McKitrick did some very commendable work in uncovering the fiction being presented as man-made global warming.]

July 5, 2005: email 1120593115

Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy:

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant. [Emphasis added.]

 [Here we see willful intent to defraud by Phil Jones. He knows that the world has cooled for the past seven years, when his bunch of global warming proponents have been telling the public the opposite. And to say that seven years of global cooling is not statistically significant is a blatant lie.]

Later in the same email:

As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

July 6, 2005: email 1120676865

Neville Nicholls, of the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre in Melbourne, Australia, asks Phil Jones:

Do you expect to get a call from Congress?

Jones replies:

I hope I don’t get a call from Congress! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a U[nited States] D[epartment] o[f] E[nergy] grant, and have had this (with Tom Wi[gley]) for the last 25 years.


[Here we see one of the incentives for why they falsely propagandize the people about global warming – it keeps their government and private grant money coming in. It is why they also try so hard to keep other scientists from getting papers published that are contrary to their agenda. We see how money and prestige can corrupt scientists and a portion of science itself.]

January 5, 2007: email 1168022320

Phil Jones to many:

I’ve added a few extra names in the cc of this email list to see if we can definitively determine where Figure 7.1c from the 1990 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report comes from. The background is that the skeptics keep referring back to it and I’d like to prove that it is a schematic and it isn’t based on real data, but on presumed knowledge at some point around the late 1980s.

Wonderful! Fake graphs presented in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report—but only disclose that once the skeptics take note of it? ... [Emphasis added.]

January 9, 2007: email 1168356704

Tom Wigley, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), writes to Phil Jones, its then head, on the continuing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) graph scandal:


Phil Jones replies to Wigley and Caspar Ammann:


I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame. I have a long email from him—just arrived. Just read that and he seems to changing his story from last December, but I still think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on Friday—that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like a mystery whodunit.

... The scientific fraud is explicit, and covers the entire history of the CRU. But it is best left buried—too many skeletons in that cupboard—if the cupboard could even be found in the CRU archives! [Emphasis added.] ...

August 31, 2007: email 1188557698

Phil Jones to Tom Wigley:

Tom, Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.

I have been in touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. I just agreed with him that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan has gone to the S[tate] U[niversity] [of[ N[ew] Y[ork] [(SUNY)]. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he sent the complaint. W[ei-]Ch[yung] Wang has nothing to worry about, but it [is] still unsettling! ...

Tom Wigley’s remarkable reply:

It seems to me that Keenan has a valid point. The statements in the papers that he quotes seem to be incorrect statements, and that someone (W[ei-] C[hyung] W[ang] at the very least) must have known at the time that they were incorrect.

Whether or not this makes a difference is not the issue here.

Wigley, again, realizes that they have all missed the point: Keenan’s allegations are actually valid! ... [More evidence of fraudulent knowledge that material used was not valid.]

September 11, 2007: email 1189515774

Phil Jones to Mike Mann and Gavin Schmidt:

Don’t pass this on; it’s just for interest. It seems as though Energy and Environment will likely publish this paper. …

… The fraud allegation against you, Mike, is only in passing!

Wei-Chyung is in Vienna. Have forwarded this to him to pass onto the State University of New York. I wish they would conclude their assessment of malpractice. ...

May 29, 2008: email 1212063122

Phil Jones writes to Mike Mann the email that will provide his prosecutors with their easiest conviction:


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [regarding the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment—minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

So the primary co-conspirators in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Keith Briffa, Eugene Wahl, and Caspar Ammann.

[Now we see the culprits adding to their fraud by the destruction of evidence.]

October 26, 2008: email 1225026120

Mick Kelly writes to Phil Jones:

Hi Phil

I just updated my global temperature trend graph for a public talk, and noticed that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so, and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.

Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they haven’t done so already …

[It would] [b]e awkward if we went through a[nother] early-1940s-type swing!

Phil Jones:

Mick, They have noticed for years—mostly w[ith] r[espect] t[o] the warm year of 1998. The recent coolish years [we put] down to La Nina. When I get this question I have 1991–2000 and 2001–2007/8 averages to hand. Last time I did this they were about 0.2 [degrees] different, which is what you’d expect.


Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, [I’m] used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer—10-year—period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina, etc.

[This is] speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the [graph] before I give the talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

In private, they admit that there could be significant cooling; in public, they hide it. Again: when the results don’t fit your preconceptions, fraudulently alter them so that the public doesn’t get the wrong idea!

[Pure fraud! And they call this corruption science!]

[There are a considerable number of emails dealing with keeping Steve McIntyre from getting data and information supporting their reports and graphs under the Freedom of Information Act. They most strenuously try to cover up what they have done. A wide spread conspiracy in the cover up is disclosed.]

Jones now describes how he evaded the latest request:

The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers!

If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little—if anything at all. ...

More easy pickings for his prosecutors. ...

January 30, 2009: email 1233326033

Geoff Smith writes to Ben Santer:

[The following are principles of all true science.]

... My “dog in this fight” is good science and replicability. I note the following references:

The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):

“The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.

2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.” [Emphasis added.] ...

September 28, 2009: email 1254147614

Tom Wigley writes to Phil Jones:

Here are some speculations on correcting sea temperatures to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg[rees] C[elsius], then this would be significant for the global [average]—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 [degrees Celsius] here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip …

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip?”

[Here we have what appear to be fraudulent efforts to try to remove and cover up a 1940s warming period that is contrary to their global warming propaganda.]

October 11, 2009: email 1255352257

Narasimha Rao, a Ph.D. student at Stanford University in the United States, writes to Stanford’s Stephen Schneider:


You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)’s reporter on climate change, on Friday (October 9) wrote that there’s been no warming since 1998, and that Pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20–30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics’ views.

(includes links)

The BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the United States.

Do you think this merits an opinion–editorial response in the BBC from a scientist?

Intriguingly, Hudson claims that he received the first tranche of emails from the Climategate whistle-blower on October 12.

Schneider sends the email on to many of his colleagues. Mike Mann responds:

[It is] extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on the BBC. It’s particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at the BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy (Hudson) was formerly a weather person at the Met(eorological) Office.

It seems that their “man on the ground” at the BBC (Richard Black, an environmental correspondent) has been displaced by a person with a scientific background who worked for the Met(eorological) Office for ten years.

Usually, we would expect a chorus of agreement with Mann. But something has changed. Kevin Trenberth, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

Well I have my own article on “where the heck is global warming?” We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. …

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The … data published in the August … 2009 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

The belief system of these scientists is undergoing crisis. For decades, they have predicted catastrophic, accelerated warming—but someone forgot to tell the Earth about it.

Rather than draw the obvious conclusions—that their predictions are wrong; that the models that their predictions come from are inadequate—they instead start to question the measured temperatures themselves! ...

October 14, 2009: email 1255523796

Kevin Trenberth, responding to Tom Wigley’s criticism of his comments, is beginning to sound like a skeptic:

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter?

The most fundamental law of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed or transferred. If their climate models do not even satisfy this elementary law, then it is questionable whether they are useful for anything at all.

We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we cannot account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless, as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Mike Mann responds:

Kevin, that’s an interesting point. … But this raises the interesting question: is there something going on here with the energy and radiation budget which is inconsistent with the … models? I’m not sure that this has been addressed—has it?

Rather than dispute Trenberth’s remarkable statements, Mann acknowledges that there may be something fundamentally wrong with their climate models. Trenberth:

Here are some of the issues as I see them:

Saying it is natural variability is not an explanation. What are the physical processes? Where did the heat go? …

As a physicist, these are questions that I would have been asking thirty years ago—not stumbling across in October 2009. But I suppose that’s the difference here: these guys are simply not physicists; and they ensured that any physicists who did wander into their field were suitably chased off.

Trenberth admits that there are three sets of vital data that are “wanting” before they can understand how the climate functions:

But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with [sky temperature] data. That data is unfortunately wanting, and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking, although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes, and burying heat at depth, where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later, and so we should know about it.

In other words, even the direct temperature measurements are indeed suspect—there are plausible reasons why they are giving an incomplete picture.

October 14, 2009: email 1255532032

Mike Mann responds to Kevin Trenberth:

Thanks Kevin, yes, it’s a matter of what question one is asking. To argue that the observed global [average] temperatures of the past decade falsify the model projections …, as [the] contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. But that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going on.

Mann is almost right, but his logic is slightly muddled. Not being able to “explain exactly what’s going on” does invalidate their model projections, without any doubt. What it doesn’t do is “prove” any opposing view, either.

The simple fact of the matter is that the incompetence of these “scientists”—covered up with decades of manipulation and “stacking the deck” of peer review—has left us with absolutely no idea whether the Earth’s climate has been affected to any appreciable degree by mankind.

That is the real travesty. [Emphasis added to last two paragraphs.] ...


I agree that these emails show the corruption, manipulations, and cover-ups of these would-be scientists, and it is a great travesty. The great fraud is that they have presented false propaganda to the world that man-made global warming was endangering the world, and that it was backed up by incontrovertible science. This scientific misbehavior is not of recent origin. It appears to have been going on for a long period of time by the major proponents of man-made global warming.

In other articles, I have noted how the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, tends to take the liberal leftist position on controversial subjects. As expected, they did the same thing on global warming and even used the hockey stick graph, and defended it as long as they could. Their effort to present and protect the global warming propaganda, including the "hockey stick" baloney was tremendous. A good article on this is Wikipedia's climate doctor – How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles[3], by noted writer and researcher on energy, Lawrence Solomon. Excerpts from the article:

Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma. ...

But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.

...One person in the nine-member team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

 All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.


The Hockey Stick Fraud

The "Hockey Stick" refers to a graph that Michael Man had a key part in compiling, although there were a number of others involved in it. It was the most important one item used by proponents of global warming, and was of such importance, and so controversial, that it was the subject of a congressional investigation. The results of that investigation were not widely reported, and, in my opinion, it was because it was so detrimental to the global warming alarmists, and there supporters in the general media. We noted, above, in connection with the emails, how the New York Times failed to let the public know about defects of the hockey stick graph that its staff knew about.

Although Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did some key work in exposing the invalidity of the hockey stick graph, one of the first to expose it was a writer and researcher named John L. Daly. I have not been able to determine the exact date that he made his paper available on his website, but it had to have been early, because he died of a heart attack January 29, 2004. The climate gate conspirators knew him well. On that date Phil Jones sent an email to Michael Mann forwarding the news of Daly's death, and stating in part: "In an odd way this is cheering news!" This tells us something about the character of Phil Jones. On Daly's website was his article: The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science.[4] The following are excerpts from the article:

In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was "a discernible human influence on global climate".

In their previous 1990 report [33], the IPCC illustrated their, then, understanding of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.

Fig.1 - Global temperature since 900 AD

This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today (as suggested by the opening lines to the Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer), while it was much cooler during the Little Ice Age (as suggested by John King). Historical records from all over Europe, and Greenland attest to the reality of both events, and their profound impact on human society. For example, the colonization of Greenland by the Vikings early in the millennium was only possible because of the medieval warmth. During the Little Ice Age, the Viking colonies in Greenland collapsed, while the River Thames in London often froze over, resulting in frequent `frost fairs' being held on the river ice.

The dating of these two climatic events depends to some extent on what one regards as `warm' and `cold' in comparison with present temperatures, but the following dating approximates these events -

1) `Medieval Warm Period' (AD 700 - 1300)
2) `Sporer Minimum' cool period (AD 1300 - 1500)
3) Brief climatic warming (AD 1500 - 1560)
4) `Little Ice Age' (`Maunder Minimum') (AD 1560 - 1830)
5) Brief warmer period (AD 1830 - 1870)
6) Brief cool period (AD 1870 - 1910)
7) 20th century warm period (AD 1910 - 2000)

As to what caused these two major climatic events, the most probable candidate is the variable sun, particularly with respect to the Little Ice Age. This is because we have direct observations of sunspot counts going back to 1600 AD, which allows us to compare variations in the sun with variations to global climate. Fig.2 shows how the sun has changed over time, the radiation being greatest during a sunspot maximum and least during a sunspot minimum, both recurring on an 11-year cycle. ...

The inference is clear. The variable sun caused the Little Ice Age and in all probability caused the Medieval Warm Period too. Carbon 14 isotopes are used as a proxy for solar activity prior to 1600 AD and this indicates a high level of solar activity during the medieval period, resulting in climatic warmth, and also a reduced level of activity during a cold period called the `Sporer Minimum' centered around 1350 AD.

This account of climatic history contains two serious difficulties for the present global warming theory.

1) If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, with no greenhouse gas contribution, what would be so unusual about modern times being warm also?

2) If the variable sun caused both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, would not the stronger solar activity of the 20th century account for most, if not all, of the claimed 20th century warmth?

Both propositions posed a serious threat to continued public acceptance of the climate modeller's catastrophic view of future climate. This is because new findings in solar science suggested that the sun, not greenhouse gases, were the primary driver of 20th century climate trends.

The power of the sun to modulate our climate has been reinforced by a large body of recent research that shows it is not only the cyclic warming and cooling of the sun (manifested by the 11-year sunspot cycle) causing our climate to change, but also changes in the solar spectrum towards greater ultra-violet radiation compared with visible or infra-red light (see Fig.3) [14] [8].

Fig.3 - The sun since AD 1600

The disproportionate enhancement of the ultra-violet part of the solar spectrum affects the ozone layer and other atmospheric chemistry, which may amplify any warming. In addition, recent changes to magnetic activity on the sun influence cosmic radiation reaching Earth which in turn modulates low level cloudiness and therefore temperature [24].

In other words, solar scientists have now identified three separate mechanisms by which the sun could warm or cool the earth, and it is these that are now believed to have been responsible for the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century climatic trends.

These new solar findings were either ignored by greenhouse theorists or treated with hostility, since a warming sun in the 20th century would leave little or no room for trace greenhouse gases to be cited as an explanation for the claimed 20th century warmth.

In 1999, a new paper published in `Geophysical Research Letters' [15] altered the whole landscape of how past climate history was to be interpreted by the greenhouse sciences. It stood in stark contrast to the challenge posed by the solar scientists.

The infamous `Hockey Stick' was unveiled for the first time.

 Dr Michael Mann of the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts was the primary author of the GRL paper, and in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history [16].

Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [22]. Fig.4 shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.

Fig.4 - The `Hockey Stick'

From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD.

At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial skepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy. ...

Within months of the IPCC draft release, the long-awaited draft U.S. `National Assessment' Overview document featured the `Hockey Stick' as the first of many climatic graphs and charts in its report, affirming the crucial importance placed in it by the authors and by the industry at large. This is not an esoteric theory about the distant past, marginal to the global warming debate, but rather is a core foundation upon which a new publicity offensive on global warming is being mounted.

Two issues are raised by Mann's `Hockey Stick'.

1) Why did the climate community fail to critically review the validity of the new theory, indeed to uncritically embrace it in its entirety?

2) Is any of it true? Or is it a means of disposing of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, and thus avoid the problem of the role of the sun in climate history?


Tree rings are the primary proxy behind the `Hockey Stick', particularly the earlier part of the millennium. Tree rings are only laid during the growing season, not the whole year, and so they tell us little or nothing about annual climate. For example, this year (2000) there was a warm winter and early spring in the north-eastern USA, followed by an unusually cool summer and fall. Since the two events are largely self-cancelling, the year may finish as fairly average, but the tree rings would only record the cool summer and thus give a completely false impression of the full-year temperature. ...

A final weakness arises when calibrating the tree rings against temperature. When measuring the width or density of a tree ring, exactly what temperature is represented by that measurement? This can only be determined by calibrating recently laid rings against known temperatures that existed at the time. Even this is problematic as the `known temperatures' can mean using a temperature series seriously contaminated by heat island and other local errors. If the calibrating temperatures are wrong, the whole tree ring temperature reconstruction for the distant past is also compromised. ...

In respect of Europe and Greenland, the IPCC and `National Assessment' do not challenge the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age as they are too well recorded in other proxy indicators and historical accounts of the time. [Emphasis added.] Instead, these events are now presented as being purely local to Europe and Greenland, but completely absent elsewhere in the world.

In general, the greenhouse industry disregards historical evidence, claiming them to be merely `anecdotes'. However, the idea that historical evidence can be easily dismissed as `anecdotes' in favor of questionable proxies like tree rings is to suggest that professional historians cannot be trusted to be objective. ...

... The wider academic community, governments, and public opinion (the most important peer group of all) will give much more credibility to well-researched historical evidence. ...

In Mann's original formulation, the `Hockey Stick' only applied to the Northern Hemisphere. However, the U.S. National Assessment treated it as if it were a global history by reproducing Mann's original graph with a new title implying it has global rather than hemispheric application [19]. [This was fraudulent in itself.] This revised version of Mann's graph is shown in Fig.5

Fig.5 - The `Hockey Stick' according to the U.S. `National Assessment'

Apart from the subtle `globalization' of the graph in the title, this version omits the wide error margins that were included with the original Mann graph (Fig.3), shown in yellow. These error margins were the only indication by Mann that his formulation could be wrong, conceding in his paper that the pre-1400 data was uncertain. The idea that global temperature 1,000 years ago could be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1°F based on a limited number of tree rings is simply not credible by any reasonable standard.

The `National Assessment' disregarded these issues and threw its full weight behind the new theory with this stark assertion.

"New studies indicate that temperatures in recent decades are higher than at any time in at least the past 1,000 years." - (NACC Overview p.11)

Mann himself made a similar conclusion in his original paper with these concluding remarks in the abstract to his paper –

"Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990's was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence".

The statement was dramatic and uncompromising, with barely a hint of the uncertainties inherent in his whole analysis. There was no dissent - except from those scientists who were already on record as being skeptical of global warming anyway. The final claim, that `1998 was the warmest year of the millennium' was exactly what the climate change industry wanted to hear in the run-up to the next round of conferences on the Kyoto Protocol.

The `Hockey Stick' - True or False?

To disprove the `Hockey Stick', it is sufficient to merely demonstrate conclusively the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and/or the Little Ice Age in proxy and/or historical evidence from around the world. According to the `falsifiability' principle of science, substantial physical evidence that contradicts a theory is sufficient to `falsify' that theory. To that end, `exhibits' of physical evidence are presented below to prove that not only is the `Hockey Stick' false, but that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were not only very real - but also global in extent.

[The author then presents 14 exhibits, with graphs and data, that show that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact occur, and that the effects were worldwide. This has all been scientific history for many years, and it is clear that the global warming proponents chose to ignore it, and act like it wasn't there because it showed the farce of their propaganda. Pure fraud!]

The Science that Lost its Way

It is now clear that the climate history of the northern hemisphere and the globe as a whole bears no similarity whatever to that portrayed by Mann's `Hockey Stick'. It is inconceivable that two major climatic events of the last millennium, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, could be observed at the same points in time in such varied locations and with such a variety of proxies, around the world and yet be missed by Mann's study. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that tree rings are inappropriate as temperature proxies, something most dendrochronologists are reluctant to acknowledge. ...

The world should thank John L. Daly for the great work he did against this terrible hoax. McIntyre and McKitrick published papers that confirmed what Daly presented, but due to their persistent hammering of information out of CRU and other culprits, they were able to establish that there were other manipulations and erroneous data used, including a meaningless computer model, that even further proved the worthlessness of the great hockey stick graph.

In case someone might think that the work of McIntyre and McKitrick may have been influenced by "big oil companies" or other entities, they made this statement in a January, 2005, background paper:

We have neither sought nor received funding for this work. For McKitrick, undertaking the project has required considerable time away from his own economics research. For McIntyre, undertaking this project has required an unpaid leave of absence from his career in mineral exploration financing, at the cost of over a year’s foregone earnings so far.[5]

Their first important paper of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick on this matter, Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series[6] was published in the United Kingdom Energy and Environment journal in November, 2003. I will give a few excerpts from that 20 page paper, below, that tend to verify and add to what Daly said on the matter, above.

The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,

“MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains

collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,

geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other

quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98

methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

[The paper shows and documents in detail what the errors and defects are.]

... We find that the particular “hockey stick” shape derived by MBH98 is primarily an

artefact of poor data handling and use of obsolete proxy records. ...

Figures 7 and 8 show the impact of the corrections on northern hemisphere

temperature construction. In Figure 7 the top line is the MBH98 construction

(reproducing Figure 6a), while the bottom line shows the Northern Hemisphere

multiproxy temperature index resulting from the application of MBH98 procedures on

an updated and correctly collated assembly of the MBH98 library of proxy data. On

the basis of corrected and updated data, 15th century values are higher than those in

the 20th century, contradicting the MBH98 conclusion of a unique late 20th century

climate. Figure 8 shows 20-year smoothed series for comparison.


 We see from the above McIntyre and McKitrick graphs how wrong and completely misleading the Mann, et. al., hockey stick graph was. We also see how closely the corrected graph by McIntyre and McKitrick resembles the long recognized graph (Figure 1 in the Daly paper) that clearly shows the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – something that is completely opposite of the global warming propaganda. It is beyond belief that those proponents of man-made global warming would not have known that they were presenting false information and data to the public. McIntyre and McKitrick presented a number of talks and papers relating to the "Hockey Stick Graph," its importance, and how it was used by the IPCC and other agencies as their main tool for the promotion of man-made global warming. Their further work only verified and somewhat expanded the work presented in the 2003 paper referred to above. Other papers and information may be found at the website, The M&M Project: Replication Analysis of the Mann et al. Hockey Stick.[7]

Due to the importance of this controversy the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, United States House of Representatives, in 2006, requested that independent experts in the matters involved be chosen to investigate and make a report to Congress on the matter. A committee was chosen consisting of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), who was Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University). Their 91 page report, AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEYSTICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION,[8] states in part:

In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 [the hockey stick graphs of Mann, et. al.] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b [papers of McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and compelling. ...


While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid. Because the error and uncertainty involved in climate reconstructions is magnified with each preceding year, the ability to make certain conclusions about the climate at the beginning of the millennium is not very robust. This is even less robust considering the inability to actually calculate an accurate uncertainty for these reconstructions. Additionally, the work of Esper, Von Storch and Moberg make valid arguments for the inclusion of low-frequency proxies as well as the inability of PCA [a statistical technique employed by Mann, et. al.] to effectively measure variations on a multi-centennial scale. This pitfall of PCA is further complicated by its tendency for misuse during the calibration process, specifically the decentering of the mean that McIntyre and McKitrick mention. The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions. Vague terms such as “moderate certainty” (Mann et al. 1999) give no guidance to the reader as to how such conclusions should be weighed. While the works do have supplementary websites, they rely heavily on the reader’s ability to piece together the work and methodology from raw data. This is especially unsettling when the findings of these works are said to have global impact, yet only a small population could truly understand them. Thus, it is no surprise that Mann et al. claim a misunderstanding of their work by McIntyre and McKitrick. In their works, Mann et al. describe the possible causes of global climate change in terms of atmospheric forcings, such as anthropogenic, volcanic, or solar forcings. Another questionable aspect of these works is that linear relationships are assumed in all forcing-climate relationships. This is a significantly simplified model for something as complex as the earth’s climate, which most likely has complicated nonlinear cyclical processes on a multi-centennial scale that we do not yet understand. Mann et al. also infer that since there is a partial positive correlation between global mean temperatures in the 20th century and CO2 concentration, greenhouse-gas forcing is the dominant external forcing of the climate system. Osborn and Briffa make a similar statement, where they casually note that evidence for warming also occurs at a period where CO2 concentrations are high. A common phrase among statisticians is correlation does not imply causation. The variables affecting earth’s climate and atmosphere are most likely to be numerous and confounding. Making conclusive statements without specific findings with regard to atmospheric forcings suggests a lack of scientific rigor and possibly an agenda. ...

And we well know that the agenda of Mann and his cohorts was to convince the world that there was dangerous man-made global warming. It was a travesty that our liberal news media failed to fully inform the public of the Wegman report and it's significance. They knew that it would be the end of the global warming scare so sacred to the liberals of today.

And what was the excuse of Mann, et al, when they were caught? It was quite different from what they were saying at the time:

In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[52][53] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."[9] [The information above shows that this is a complete lie. They were trying to sell the world on global warming, the hockey stick graph was being used as a key element, and they told us that the science on the matter was well settled. They did everything they could to keep the facts from coming out.]

Two Inconvenient Canadians[10], by Jay Nordlinger, National Review (Online), February 8, 2010 , is a good readable article on the effect and value of the work of McIntyre and McKitrick. The article states in part:

... And “Climategate,” as the scandal of the CRU e-mails has been called, has embarrassed the red-hots. They are on the defensive, for the first time since global warming became a going concern. And M&M are looking pretty good. McKitrick says that Climategate has brought “a loss of innocence”: about how the major climate scientists operate, about their devotion to scientific truth. ...

The graph in question was not only a hockey stick, but a smoking gun, as people saw it: proof positive of man-made global warming. The stick went around the world, impressing and alarming people in all corners. It was featured in endless government reports, on newscasts, on posters. Al Gore used it in his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. The hockey stick became an icon, a symbol of global warming, along with the polar bear stranded on an ice floe. And the symbol was accompanied by a “soundbite,” as Stephen McIntyre says — a bite taken from the IPCC report: “It is . . . likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” during the past thousand years. Nineteen ninety-eight as the warmest year: That, along with the hockey blade — the graph’s sharp upswing — concentrated the mind.

In due course, Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize, “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change,” said the committee, “and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” Man-made global warming became accepted by almost all right-thinkers. To dispute it was to dispute the roundness of the earth, or its perpetual trek around the sun. The science was settled; there was to be no more discussion. ...

Along the way, M&M attracted some support. When they submitted a paper to Geophysical Research Letters, a referee told the journal, “I urge you not to shy away from this paper because of its potential controversy. The whole field of global warming is currently suffering from the fact that it has become politicized. ..."

Have the M’s had any fun in this debate, as Davids taking on Goliaths? McKitrick says no, not really. “I wouldn’t ever choose this as a hobby or pastime. There has been a lot of stress.” He doesn’t take any pleasure in causing an intellectual opponent embarrassment. There is, in fact, a hint of weariness about him, of someone who just wishes that science could be discussed dispassionately, and conclusions arrived at civilly. McIntyre has the same wish, as we have seen. But he has a greater liking for combat. “I wouldn’t do what I’m doing if I didn’t like it,” he says. He has sacrificed a good deal of time and money to pursue the global-warming question: “I used to make money.” In recent years, not so much. But he forges ahead “because I’m interested” and because he considers his work a kind of public service. ...

... McKitrick, says that “you’ve got a range of data sets of varying levels of quality.” And the best data sets indicate the least amount of warming. He is for keeping an eye on the global temperature, and making adjustments in policy when needed — adjustments based on solid information and not merely model predictions. ...


What have been the predictions? And how have they checked out with the facts? The hockey stick graph itself was a predictor that we were in an extreme period of global warming. And that is what the proponents told us – over and over. The liberal media and politicians preached it.

Washington, D.C. may never see snow again. That was global warming conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writing in The Los Angeles Times on Sept. 24, 2008. In his column ... [he] went on to recall, almost bursting into written tears, sledding down a suburban D.C. hill as a child and how there will never be that kind of snow again.[11] 

The goofy David Letterman joined in the chorus on September 3, 2009 :

With furrowed brow, Letterman drummed up global warming fear, indignantly asserted that “Coal is the culprit,” and fretted that “My son might not have a chance to see snow!”[12]

What kind of weather did they actually have? For the winter of 2009-2010, Washington, D. C., had record breaking snow and cold weather.[13] And the entire Northeastern Corridor was having extreme, and perhaps record breaking, snows and cold weather.[14] This winter's storms and cold weather were not just local. Moscow, Capital city of Russia, was covered with a record snowfall.[15] "Arctic freeze and snow wreak havoc across the planet."[16]

The facts drive the global warmers completely nuts. Some are now saying that global warming causes global cooling.[17]  

The facts don't check out with their dire predictions. There has been global cooling instead of global warming since at least 1998, and that is 12 years of cooling. Some say there has been no global warming since 1995. As stated above, even the conspirator, Phil Jones admitted in an email Dated July 5, 2005: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data ... ." It is now 12 years of data. So for at least 12 years we have had global cooling instead of global warming. As stated below, Jones later makes further admissions.

Now, after the rats are trapped, the truth comes out. UK Daily Express, February 15, 2010 :

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.

Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.[18] [This is exactly what McIntyre and McKitrick showed.]

Other major hoaxes laid on the world by the IPCC and major conspirators was the false propaganda that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035, and that great destruction would be done to the Amazon rain forests, thus causing major water problems and droughts in major parts of the world – and all because of man-made global warming. A good article on this is The Hottest Hoax in the World[19], by Ninad D. Sheth. The article documents the falsity of those claims, which is now generally recognized. It also contains the following interesting observations:


So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.

On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri) that Pachauri [Who is Chairman of the IPCC, but has no training in climate science.] heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if this is not a neat one, what is? [It is Alice in Wonderland!]

Some other interesting points in Sheth's article were:

There’s plenty more in this sordid tale. For one thing, there is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.’

An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus.

A recent United Kingdom article in Times Online, World misled on Himalayan glacier meltdown[20], January 10, 2010, states in part:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi .

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments." ...

When finally published … went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%.

The report read: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, said: "Even a small glacier such as the Dokriani glacier is up to 120 metres [394ft] thick. A big one would be several hundred metres thick and tens of kilometres long. The average is 300 metres thick so to melt one even at 5 metres a year would take 60 years. That is a lot faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistically high.”

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. ...

These so-called scientists and those involved with them have defrauded governments and private organizations from whom they got grants. They did it for money, keeping up their fraudulent organizations, and prestige. And they have already cost the world tremendous amounts of money, and did great damage to our energy policies.

Using the "hockey stick" graph to scare people about global warming, the alarmists went to great extremes. One of their widely used scare tactics was telling the people that the disappearance of glaciers was leading to the extinction of the polar bear. The U.K. Telegraph published the article, Polar bear expert barred by global warmists,[21] by Christopher Booker, June 27, 2009. The following are excerpts:

This [polar bear scare] is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’, reveals Christopher Booker.


The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image. ...

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea. ...

As we see from this article on the polar bears, the global warmers' agenda always trumps facts and truth.

The most comprehensive article I have found on the various frauds and misrepresentations of the various people and agencies involved is the 107 page analysis, Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?[22] by meteorologists Joe d’Aleo and Anthony Watts. This paper details the complicity of all the major proponents of man-made global warming, including the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the agencies already covered, and others. The paper contains numerous graphs and pictures in its documentation. The article begins with this summary:

[Major players (pp. 5-6:]

Five organizations publish global temperature data. Two – Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) – are satellite datasets. The three terrestrial institutions – NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – all depend on data supplied by ground stations via NOAA.

Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.

The thermometers were marched towards the tropics, the sea, and airports near bigger cities. These data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature base periods, further increasing the bias towards overstatement of warming by NOAA.

The world’s surface observing network had reached its golden era in the 1960s-1980s, with more than 6000 stations providing valuable climate information. Now, there are fewer than 1500.

Calculating the average temperatures this way would ensure that the mean global surface temperature for each month and year would show a false-positive temperature anomaly – a bogus warming. This method would also ensure that the trend in the temperature change would be enhanced beyond the natural 60-year climate cycles.

This graph from page 11 of the article indicates how they got their false global warming data by selecting warmer and dropping off cooler stations:

[The bar graphs are average temperatures. We see that when they had their most stations, including the rural and high altitude ones, they got their coolest temperatures, and vice versa. In addition, the article shows how they failed to include available data and stations that were detrimental to their agenda of global warming. They show how improper adjustments were made to data they did have. They used fabricated data. There is no way that all of this could have done by error. It looks like pure fraud to me!]

The authors also make this interesting statement (p. 62):


Should you believe NOAA/NASA/HADLEY rankings for month and year? Definitively NO! Climate change is real, there are cooling and warming periods that can be shown to correlate nicely with solar and ocean cycles. You can trust in the data that shows there has been warming from 1979 to 1998, just as there was warming around 1920 to 1940. But there has been cooling from 1940 to the late 1970s and since 2001. It is the long term trend on which this cyclical pattern is superimposed that is exaggerated.

As shown, record highs in North America show the cyclical pattern but suggest the 1930s to 1940 peak was higher than the recent peak around 1998. Recent ranking was very likely exaggerated by the numerous data issues discussed. Given these data issues and the inconvenient truths in the Climategate emails, the claim that the 2000s was the warmest decade in a millennium or two is ludicrous.

These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. An obvious conclusion from all findings above and the case studies that follow is that the global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends. And, consequently, such surface data should not be used for decision making.

We also owe a great debt to people like d'Aleo and Watts, as well as the others, for the tremendous amount of work they have done to show us the truth about global warming.

Are we presently in a period of Global warming or global cooling?

As we see from the material above, even many of the global warming crowd now admit that we have been in a period of global cooling for the last 10 to 15 years. Experts that did not fall for the global warming propaganda agree that our present trend is cooling.

Let us first look at the United States, where we have much more industry, many more power plants, and more automobiles by far than the average of the rest of the world. A WorldNet Daily article, Global Cooling Documented in Last Decade[23], by Jerome R. Corsi, shows the following graph:

                                     Source: U.S. National Climate Data Center and

Corsi's article also states that satellite data recorded at the University of Alabama in Huntsville show a global-cooling pattern over the last decade. The following is the graph from that source[24]:

Corsi's article states:

Global-warming alarmists were thrown into disarray last September at the U.N.'s world climate conference when a noted global-warming scientist presented data showing the earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and likely is entering "one or two decades during which temperatures cool."

                         Source: U.S. National Climate Data Center and

 Mojib Latif, a climate physicist at the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany and a lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, produced evidence predicting two decades of natural global cooling caused by cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook, Department of Geology, Western Washington University, wrote an article, November 2, 2008, Global Cooling is Here – Evidence for predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades.[25] The following are excerpts:

The significance of the correlation between the GDO [Glacial Decadal Oscillation], PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation], and global temperature is that once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future. Using the pattern established for the past several hundred years, in 1998 I projected the temperature curve for the past century into the next century and came up with curve ‘A’ in Figure 5 as an approximation of what might be in store for the world if the pattern of past climate changes continued. Ironically, that prediction was made in the warmest year of the past three decades and at the acme of the 1977-1998 warm period. At that time, the projected curved indicated global cooling beginning about 2005 ± 3-5 years until about 2030, then renewed warming from about 2030 to about 2060 (unrelated to CO2—just continuation of the natural cycle), then another cool period from about 2060 to about 2090. This was admittedly an approximation, but it was radically different from the 1° F per decade warming called for by the IPCC. Because the prediction was so different from the IPCC prediction, time would obviously show which projection was ultimately correct.

Now a decade later, the global climate has not warmed 1° F as forecast by the IPCC but has cooled slightly until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. In 2008, NASA satellite imagery (Figure 6) confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC. 

The graph of Dr. Easterbrook's predictions:

We see from this graph a predicted general cooling period of 40 years – from 2000 to 2040. And for the past years Easterbrook was right, not the IPCC.

There is a tremendous amount of information and data from various reputable sources, which also verify the fact that we are presently in a period of global cooling, and not global warming, and have been for at least 10 to 15 years. But I consider the above data sufficient to show this, and piling up more of the same kind of data would be overkill.

Are our climate changes significantly

caused by "man-made greenhouse gasses"?

Every year we have significant climate changes. They are called winter and summer. They are caused by the relative positions of the sun and the earth. In the summer the days are longer and the sun shines on the earth for significantly longer periods of time, and in the winter the days are shorter. At Point Barrow, Alaska, there are times in the winter when the sun never rises – it is nighttime for 24 hour, and there are times in the summer when the sun never sets. 

Science teaches us that in its early life the earth was a ball of fire and molten lava, and that although it has cooled considerably its core is still molten lava. Nevertheless, when the earth was much nearer to its time of origin of fire and molten lava it had great ice ages. In between the ice ages have been periods of global warming much higher than any global warming we have today. These periods of global warming and cooling were not brought about by man-made greenhouse gasses – there was no mechanized industry or any automobiles as we have today. I believe that they were primarily brought about by changes in the positions and relationships of the earth and the sun.

The sun is the greatest conglomeration of energy and power known to exist in the universe. When the small changes in the earth's position to the sun can cause ice ages on the earth, with its molten core of lava, we get some idea of the sun's enormous power. Any effect that man-made greenhouse gasses would have is indeed puny compared to the tiniest change in the sun's effect. Ocean currents and movements can also affect the weather, and some scientists consider them primary factors. Examples are the El Niños and La Niñas. But they are definitely not caused by man. They are also probably caused by the positions of the sun and the moon in relation to the earth. Even the moon has great power, as witnessed by our ocean tides.

Science teaches that at one time a good part of North America, including part of what is now the United States, was covered with glaciers. In doing research on the ice ages, I found it interesting that much of it is older science that has not yet been contaminated with the politics of our more recent global warming alarmists. Some good information can still be obtained  – even from Wikipedia. The following are interesting excerpts on Causes of Ice Ages[26] from Wikipedia:

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes. ...

There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect ... .

As stated by the Wegman Report to Congress, referred to above, in regard to greenhouses gasses and temperature, "correlation does not imply causation." As has been pointed out by other scientists, the warming of the planet causes more growing of trees and plant life, and therefore more CO2 results. It is necessary for plant and animal life.

A U.K. Times Online article, Climate Change Hits Mars[27], April 29, 2007, gives us the following critical information:

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Our man-made greenhouse gasses could not have given Mars its global warming, but changes in the relationship between Mars and the sun certainly could have, and is the only explanation that is plausible to me. Mars is the closest planet to earth, and this is certainly strong evidence that the climate changes of both were not caused or even materially affected by man.

The atmospheres of both Mars and Venus are "all Carbon Dioxide" (CO2)[28]. Certainly, that CO2 was not caused by people and industry on earth.

An interesting Geoscience article, Where does CO2 come from?[29], explains how some of our CO2 comes from the burning of fossil fuels, but it also contains the following statement:

Carbon is transferred between through the geosphere, atmosphere, biosphere and oceans in a variety of different ways. Plants utilise atmospheric CO2 in photosynthesis and when they decompose, they lock carbon into the soil and sediments. Sediments interact with the geologic cycle and become involved in the processes of weathering, dissolution, subduction and volcanism. Sediments are eventually prone to weathering and release their carbon back into the cycle. The world's oceans act as a massive CO2 sink and atmospheric CO2 dissolves in their waters. Animals and plants respire, which means that they expel CO2. Through all these processes and more, all the carbon on earth is recycled through the sources.

A comprehensive and interesting article on the American Chemical Society website is Does CO2 actually drive global warming?[30] by Robert H, Essenhigh. The article states in part:

I don’t believe that it does.

To the contrary, if you apply the IFFY test—if-and-only-if or necessary-and-sufficient—the outcome would appear to be exactly the reverse. Rather than the rising levels of carbon dioxide driving up the temperature, the logical conclusion is that it is the rising temperature that is driving up the CO2 level. ...

In applying the IFF test, we can start with the clear correlation between the global CO2 profile and the corresponding temperature signature. There is now in the literature the report of a 400,000-year sequence clearly showing, as a phenomenon, that they go up—and down—together (1). The correlation is clear and accepted. But the causation, the mechanism, is something else: Which is driving which? ...

[After documenting a considerable amount of data and information, Essenhigh concludes:]

The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. ...  

An article, CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages[31], by Frnak Lansner, and edited by Meteoroligist Anthony Watts because of language differences, has this graph on the correlation of CO2 and Temperature for 400,000 years:

We see that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is no more significant today than it was ages back when there were no automobiles and industry. The author also goes into the effects of the ocean and sunspots. Lansner's conclusion is that CO2 rises do not cause the temperature rises, but follows them – "The well known Temperature-CO2 relation with temperature as a driver of CO2 is easily shown." [Emphasis added.]

This coincides with the conclusion of Essenhigh.

Certainly no man-made greenhouse gasses caused either the ice ages or the subsequent higher temperatures over all those thousands of years. The clear preponderance of the evidence also shows that they are not the causes of our warming and cooling of recent years.

The geological and regular history of Greenland is very intriguing. Today it is about 80% covered with a sheet of ice. It has been inhabited by humans since about 2,500 B.C.[32] And it has been much colder and much warmer, than today, and people and animals survived.

A BBC article, DNA reveals Greenland 's lush past[33], July 6, 2007 , tells us:

Armies of insects once crawled through lush forests in a region of Greenland now covered by more than 2,000m of ice.

DNA extracted from ice cores shows that moths and butterflies were living in forests of spruce and pine in the area between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago. ...

The ice cores also suggest that the ice sheet is more resistant to warming than previously thought, the scientists say. ...

This extremely warm period, referred to above, was not even the catastrophe predicted by Al Gore and the IPCC, and their claimed warming was miniscule compared to that period. They predicted that great portions of the world would be inundated by the oceans, and life destroyed by droughts and famines, and all caused by a slight increase in temperature. Quite the opposite to their theories, life flourished, even in small Greenland, during a period of great warming; and it obviously was not flooded. Neither was the rest of the world.

On global warming and CO2, Professor Don J. Easterbrook states[34]:

Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

[Easterbrook presents the following graph]

Figure 2
. Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)

This graph clearly shows that the present temperature is much lower than at a number of other times during the past 7,000 years. And when it was the highest, there were no industries, power plants, and automobiles, as we have today.   

The University of Colorado, Boulder, has the following explanation on its Ecological Research website:

What causes ice-ages?

Fluctuations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) are the most likely cause of large-scale changes in Earth's climate during the Quaternary. In other words, variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun are the most likely cause of the glacial/interglacial cycles. This solar variable was neatly described by the Serbian scientist, Milutin Milankovitch, in 1938. There are three major components of the Earth's orbit about the sun that contribute to changes in our climate. First, the Earth's spin on its axis is wobbly, much like a spinning top that starts to wobble after it slows down. This wobble amounts to a variation of up to 23.5 degrees to either side of the axis. The amount of tilt in the Earth's rotation affects the amount of sunlight striking the different parts of the globe. The greater the tilt, the stronger the difference in seasons (i.e., more tilt equals sharper differences between summer and winter temperatures). The range of motion in the tilt (from left-of-center to right-of-center and back again) takes place over a period of 41,000 years. As a result of a wobble in the Earth's spin, the position of the Earth on its elliptical path changes, relative to the time of year. This phenomenon is called the precession of equinoxes. The cycle of equinox precession takes 23,000 years to complete. In the growth of continental ice sheets, summer temperatures are probably more important than winter. ...[35]

The interglacial cycles are the warm periods in between the glacial cycles. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: Earth is currently within the most recent interglacial period, which started 11,700 years ago and is commonly known as the Holocene Epoch.[36]


Man-made global warming has now been exposed for the hoax that it is. This hoax has resulted in bad policies and a tremendous unnecessary expense to the world. Those responsible should receive just punishment and ridicule for their misdeeds. For the last 10 to 15 years, we have not even had global warming – we have been in a period of global cooling, and knowledgeable scientists predict that this cooling will continue for some time. Man-made "greenhouse gasses," and CO2 in particular, have little, if anything, to do with global warming or global cooling. We should change our energy and economic policies accordingly.