Changes

===Climategate===

===Climategate===

The AGW industry was exposed as a hoax by the release of the "[[Climategate]]" emails in 2009. The Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain prepared 156 megaybytes of email by their researchers for release under the Freedom of Information Act. This database was somehow leaked, either prematurely or by a whistleblower after the institution had second thoughts.

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy, also known as [[Climategate]], began when emails were leaked in 2009. The Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain prepared 156 megaybytes of email by their researchers for release under the Freedom of Information Act. This database was somehow leaked, either prematurely or by a whistleblower after the institution had second thoughts.

In the most notorious message, Phil Jones, director of the unit, wrote, "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) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''."<ref name=MISH /> This should not be understood to mean that real temperature was declining, but rather that the researchers were attempting to cover up flaws in their tree-ring based data set. The graph in question was a version of the famous "hockey stick" that shows global temperature constant for 2,000 years, followed by a dramatic warming in the last century. ''Nature'' is considered one of the most authoritative science journals. So this quote suggests that a chart prepared for the magazine was faked with the approval of Jones as supervisor. An email by CRU researcher Tim Osborn clarifies what the ''Nature'' trick was: "Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were."<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne]", Tom Nelson, Dec. 06, 2011.</ref>  

In the most notorious message, Phil Jones, director of the unit, wrote, "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) amd from 1961 for Keith's to '''hide the decline'''."<ref name=MISH /> This should not be understood to mean that real temperature was declining, but rather that the researchers were attempting to cover up flaws in their tree-ring based data set. The graph in question was a version of the famous "hockey stick" that shows global temperature constant for 2,000 years, followed by a dramatic warming in the last century. ''Nature'' is considered one of the most authoritative science journals. So this quote suggests that a chart prepared for the magazine was faked with the approval of Jones as supervisor. An email by CRU researcher Tim Osborn clarifies what the ''Nature'' trick was: "Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were."<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2011/12/in-case-you-missed-it-damning.html In case you missed it, damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne]", Tom Nelson, Dec. 06, 2011.</ref>  

What's wrong with using tree ring data to created a climate record? The CRU researchers assumed that a tree grows faster when it's warmer. But rainfall has a stronger influence on tree growth than temperature does. Temperature is correlated to tree growth only in the sense that it tends to rain more in warm eras. Critics call the CRU's approach the "tree-o-meter" theory.<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2012/02/email-3826-feb-2001-in-email-copied-to.html Email 3826, Feb 2001]," Tom Nelson, Feb. 04, 2012. "In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE [Medieval Warm Era] and LIA [Little Ice Age] as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings - a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above."</ref>

What's wrong with using tree ring data to created a climate record? The CRU researchers assumed that a tree grows faster when it's warmer. But rainfall has a stronger influence on tree growth than temperature does. Temperature is correlated to tree growth only in the sense that it tends to rain more in warm eras. Critics call the CRU's approach the "tree-o-meter" theory.<ref>"[http://tomnelson.blogspot.jp/2012/02/email-3826-feb-2001-in-email-copied-to.html Email 3826, Feb 2001]," Tom Nelson, Feb. 04, 2012. "In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE [Medieval Warm Era] and LIA [Little Ice Age] as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings - a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above."</ref>

In another Climategate email, Jones enthusiastically demands that the IPCC review process be rigged: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Jones also admitted that the reason he claims the Earth is warming is political: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."<ref name=steyn14>Steyn, Mark, "[http://www.steynonline.com/2697/how-the-science-got-settled How the Science Got Settled]", December 6, 2014.</ref> Jones is ignoring the fact that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an El Niño event. All the same, it's clear that he runs the CRU to produce made-to-order results rather than as a scientist.

In another Climategate email, Jones enthusiastically demands that the IPCC review process be rigged: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Jones also admitted that the reason he claims the Earth is warming is political: "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."<ref name=steyn14>Steyn, Mark, "[http://www.steynonline.com/2697/how-the-science-got-settled How the Science Got Settled]", December 6, 2014.</ref>

 

The Climatic Research Unit stated that these emails were taken out of context.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html</ref> Fact-checkers confirmed that the Climategate emails were misrepresented by climate change denialists.<ref>https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/</ref>

==The temperature record==

==The temperature record==