Firstly, there are not scientists from “thousands of institutions” fudging data. There are scientist from thousands of institutions using fudged data. A very different thing.

If I had to say what I think happened it would be this: In the late 90s Michael Mann, then an unknown PhD student at the University of Virginia, fudged some data to finish his paper. It seemed inconsequential, everyone was looking for proof of manmade global warming, and no one would take any notice anyway.

But things went wrong. The paper was thrust into the spotlight. Other researchers seized upon its results and expanded upon them. Luminaries like Al Gore made movies about the bloody thing. The IPCC used it as its centrepiece evidence in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. The IPCC did that because it justified their alteration of the 1995 Second Assessment Report.

I suspect Mann told some of his peers – certainly many of them subsequently went to great lengths to hide Mann’s original data. Why? Because they had unknowingly used the same tainted data to extend the research. What could they do? Admit that they had been conned?

Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked. But now the juggernaut is rolling. Careers have been built upon it, and no one is going to allow it to stop.

Pretty much all of the above is provable. It depends if you want to do a Nelson (I see no evidence of fudging) or not. How open or closed minded you are…

I guess that's the problem - there are people who say the data wasn't faked

http://www.logicalscience.com/skepti...fakeddata.html

Can you post a link to the bit where earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked.

I note:
You appear to be indicating that only one scientist has ever done the base research (Mann) and every other scientists has been leveraging off his work. Surely other scientists have used the base data and yet others have used other sources of information to come to their conclusions?

This thread is hilarious.

Maybe it was climate scientists that faked the moon landings. Oh hang on I am getting my conspiracy theories confused.

Well here its over to you Cape Blue. you show me evidence of global warming that does NOT relate to the Yamal data set or CRU data that was derived from the Yamal data.

you said
can you show me the links to this so I can have a look at it?

I'm not a climate scientist so I am not sure where I would look for that data - I do find it surprising that you seem to be indicating that all of the scientists are using the data from one man (Mann) as their source.

Firstly, Mann himself backtracked on his 1998 paper. In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, he pointed out that the paper included the statement: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article." Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion."
Which basically is Mann saying – my work was rubbish and its other peoples fault for believing it.


Secondly, at the 2007 European Geosciences Union General Assembly there were three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions.


Thirdly, in 2009, after ten years of scientists requesting the Yamal data and CRU staunchly refusing to provide it, journal editors insisted that it be made available. When this happened it became obvious that Mann had selected evidence to support the theory. When the ENTIRE Yamal data set was included (The Schweingruber Yamal sample of living trees instead of the 12 picked trees used in the CRU archive) The difference was staggering.

Take note – TWELVE PICKED TREES, from one part, of one forest, in Russia.

This conclusively debunked Manns papers, and anything else that relied upon his findings.

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/...stick-is-dead/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/2...stick-is-dead/

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

I should have added:

The 1998 paper by Mann is the one that Al Gore used in his shock horror movie “Inconvenient Truth”. The Hockey stick Graph showing temperature increasing during the 1980s.
The only inconvenient bit (for Al) was that it was based upon Manns analysis of just TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!

The 1998 paper by Mann was used as the centrepiece evidence of the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report.
The only thing it assessed was the life of TWELVE BLOODY TREES!!!!!

Almost every other piece of Climate Warming evidence is linked to these SAME TWELVE BLOODY TREES!

I am probably not reading these correctly.

you said "Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked."

I can't see where they state that Mann has faked his data. In fact they mostly don't mention Mann but seem to be focussed on a guy called Schweingruber. Can you tell me where I am missing the bit where the researchers prove the Mann data is faked. Mann must be embarrased to have been caught-out faking his research, has he been fired?


Two of the links appear to be from the same source - Steve Mcintyre, he seems an interesting guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre

Quite interesting how the reconstructed temp data fits quite well with the actual measured thermometer data over the past 150 years though?



Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the last 1,000 years according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)

How did Mann “fake” the data?

Firstly he selected sample data to support a theory. A big NO NO. The minute you do that you are faking evidence.

Secondly, he tacked on actual thermal records for recent years onto the extrapolated thermal records obtained from the selected tree rings. By not adjusting the extrapolated temperatures to the actual thermal records, he managed to show a “hockey stick graph” showing increasing temperature in the latter half of the 20C. In simple terms, the two data sets were not adjusted to be in series. This is accurately described in the November 1999 email from Phil Jones to his colleagues (including Mann) in his sentence “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”

That is faking it.

Back in the real world, it's unlikely that an ETS as proposed by the Rudd government would deliver any decrease in CO2 emissions anyway.

Firstly, the Liberal proposals as accepted, to give free passes to most of the major "polluters" is ludicrous. if the objective is to make the enduser change his consumption by making the supplier pay and therefore pass on higher charges it is ridiculous to subsidise the suppliers.

Secondly, the likely result would be the (desired) substantial increase in energy (and goods') prices, causing the inflation index to rise and then to increases in linked payments such as pensions, as well as union demands for higher wages. All of which would negate the desired outcome of forcing lower consumption.

The problem with the ETS is that it's 15 years too late and is an outdated concept.

We need real action not talk.

That's right, we pay enough tax as it is.

So you keep saying, but you said "Earlier this year researchers finally obtained the original Mann data and proved it to be faked." - I can't see where any of the links actually say this or anything like it.

The use of the term "trick" has already been debunked many times - it was colloquial for a 'clever idea".