AGW fraud unravels at an accelerating pace
<p>AGW alarmists, led by the &#8220;hockey team&#8221;, have dismissed criticisms that urban heat-island effects have been distorting surface temperature measurements upwards. Now Vincent Gray, a reviewer of the 2007 IPCC report, says this:  not only is the single paper on which this dismissal is based fraudulent, the hockey team knows it&#8217;s fraudulent and <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/">keeps citing it anyway!</a></p>
<p>Paleoclimatologist Eduardo Zorita <a href="http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/">writes</a>: &#8220;I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files.&#8221;</p>
<p>A Franco-Russian geomagnetics research group who was rebuffed when it tried to get primary temperature datasets from the CRU has assembled its own series of average temperature efforts by going back to ground-station measurements that the hockey team has never had an opportunity to &#8220;correct&#8221;.  The result?  </p>
<blockquote><p>
Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming since. This pattern cannot be explained by rising carbon dioxide concentrations, unless some critical threshold was reached in 1987; nor can it be explained by climate models.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The  <a href ="http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx">report</a> on this is well worth reading, as it goes into some detail on how the geomagneticians&#8217; statistical methods produced a different &#8212; and much higher quality &#8212; result than the IPCC did.  Among other things, they used daily rather than monthly averaging and avoided suspect techniques for statistically inferring temperature at places it hadn&#8217;t actually been measured.</p>
<p>Interestingly, their calculation of average temperature in the U.S. says &#8220;The warmest period was in 1930, slightly above the temperatures at the end of the 20th century. &#8220;.  Could this inconvenient warm spell be what the <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447">VERY ARTIFICAL correction</a> was intended to suppress?</p>
<p>I can almost pity the poor AGW spinmeisters. Perhaps they still think they can put a political fix in to limit the damage from the CRU leak.   But what&#8217;s happening now is that other scientists who have seen the business end of the hockey team&#8217;s fraud, stonewalling, and bullying are beginning to speak out.  The rate of collapse is accelerating.</p>
