Question by dumdum: Isn’t it scary that the UN can just alter the IPCC’s scientific findings and many don’t even notice?
The IPCC’s original chart on temperature change originally showed (in the late 90s) that the Medieval Warm Period saw temperatures that were a lot warmer than today, the Modern Era.
This is how the chart looks today minus the Medieval Warm Period–changing history & science and making is look like temperatures are only now climbing–big difference, isn’t it?
Some more info on the changes/alterations made to science!
“First, the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that’s scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn’t do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: “With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’ ”
Bob: So you’re just going to deny the facts even though wiki (a site you trust) even confirms that this was the old IPCC chart?
Bob: You’re right–after a lot of criticism from scientists, they changed their chart again four years later in 2005 so that it doesn’t look like the “hockey stick” chart that they were trying to use by getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period. How many times should they be allowed to change the data?
This is an interesting chart, too.
Ken: It’s not just England, it’s global temperatures.
So the data from the 70s, 80s, and even the 90s is now “wrong”–how do we know what’s right? Maybe many climatologists/scientist are right when they say we still don’t know enough about long term climate and temperature changes to make any definite conclusions (that the AGW scientists are making).
littlerobbergirl: It’s not the site that matters–it’s the same chart that’s mentioned in the wikipedia entry one the changing IPCC charts. You can’t change history and even Ken has a link that confirms that older chart.
littlerobbergirl: And you’re ignoring the fact that the Medieval Period is portrayed as being warmer either way according to both charts regardless because?? (I don’t think your that dumb not to notice that either.)
Answer by Bob
THEY DON’T alter the scientists work significantly, and the minor edits alter it in the other direction than you suggest.
Neither of your links represents the IPCC’s latest report. That clearly shows the MWP, and it clearly shows it was less than today’s temperatures.
The chart you show saying that the MWP was 10 degrees warmer than now (and claiming that it came from the 1995 IPCC report) is clearly absurd. That would have melted Antarctica, and flooded coasts everywhere. I doubt VERY much it actually came from the IPCC, even 13 (!) years ago.
Actually, the political edits of the IPCC’s work go the OPPOSITE way from what you’re suggesting. The last draft of the scientists said it was 99% certain that global warming was mostly caused by us. The political edit changed that to 95%. Not much of a change, but in the WRONG DIRECTION for your argument. Much more about that here:
EDIT – That last cite shows the MWP as being approximately as warm as today. AND IT’S TWENTY YEARS OLD. Sure I’ll believe that 20 years ago, the IPCC data was different by 1/2 degree or so. The MWP graph cited originally claiming the MWP was TEN degrees warmer is still complete nonsense. And looking at a 20 year old graph is hardly thoughtfully looking at the global warming science of today. We’ve gotten a LOT better data in the last 20 years.
EDIT 2 – Science moves on, and the data gets better. A very natural thing. It’s why the Bush Administration has been forced to acknowledge manmade global warming, the scientific data is just too overwhelming. These guys too:
“Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming”
“National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate”
“Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) ‘It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”
“I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive – but considered – response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial.”
Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.
“The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now.”
James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.
Add your own answer in the comments!