Isn't it scary that the UN can just alter the IPCC's scientific findings and many don't even notice?

Question

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.

http://www.fcpp.org/images/publications/MedievalWarmPeriod500.jpg

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?

http://www.greencampus.harvard.edu/ggi/images/IPCC-climate-change-chart.gif

Some more info on the changes/alterations made to science!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports

Answer 1

I have just followed the link Benjamin provided to the actual IPCC report and could find nothing that looks even remotely like the diagram on the fcpp site as several others also pointed out the temperature scale is also wrong on the fcpp image.

How do deniers hope to taken seriously when they reference nonsense like this.

Answer 2

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.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

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:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/04/...

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.

Answer 3

No, they don't.  What's scary is the wonks who dumb it down, make the dire predictions more palatable.  They should leave it just the way the scientists wrote it so everyone could see the truth of the crappy situation we've created.

Answer 4

The IPCC's First Assessment Report, 1990, (FAR) did indeed show the graph that is SIMILAR to the one in the first link that you provided (though your Frontier Centre for Public Policy dot org is starting to get a little "creative"). However, this first graph was never meant to represent global temperatures. In fact, the original source of the graph is Hubert Horace Lamb, "Climate, History and the Modern World, 1982"[1] This graph is an estimation for ONLY central England.

The reason why the FAR published Lamb's graph was because the deniers of the time were claiming that climate could not change. The graph very nicely illustrates that climate can and does change.

The FIRST attempt at GLOBAL temperature reconstructions was Michael Mann, 1998, i.e. the "hockey stick graph." Mann's graph was used in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, (TAR) 2001.

The latest IPCC report the Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, (AR4) provides multiple multiproxy global reconstructions.[2] That the IPCC goes from using a temperature approximation for central England to using a single proxy reconstruction to using multiple multiproxy reconstructions is not a conspiracy or manipulation. It's called scientific advancement.

Answer 5

Context is everything. Your first link is most definitely NOT from the IPCC.

In your last wiki link (supposedly directed at Bob), you must have missed the fact that the red line is Lamb's reconstruction of ONLY Central England. That's not even close to representing the global surface temperature.

Here's an explanation that might clear up some of the confusion:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Edit:

dumdum - Even after I point out your oversight, you still repeat your false assertion?  That says a lot about your "credibility".  The red line on the chart you linked too is ONLY Central England.

Here's the chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipcc7...

Here's the explanation for the red line on that chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:...

Here is the quote about that chart:

"Red line is Lamb's temperature reconstruction for Central England only "

So do you acknowledge your error, or continue to post different links without admitting you didn't properly scrutinize your previous links?

Answer 6

They "had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."     It's been warmer than it is today, for centuries at a time, despite lower CO2 levels.   That means two things.   One, we can't just infer causation from the fact that this warming occurs at the same time as a CO2 increase, and two, it can be warmer than today for a prolonged period without any "runaway" warming - no release of methane from the Siberian permafrost, unleashing 10 degree C increases in temperature and 25 foot increases in sea level, etc....

So all of a sudden, in 1998, the MWP no longer happened.

The history was inconvenient, it got in the way, so they just re-wrote it.

Answer 7

They did the same with the (EPA), now it's on a global scale(ie; grand tribunals). I asked, basically the same questions with few responses, so it must be a sore spot. I think the relationship between global politics and regional politics, is; politics. Sounds confusing, but is very simplistic in reality.

Answer 8

hmm i wouldnt trust that first graph coming from here;

http://www.fcpp.org/main/project_jump.ph...

looks like it was drawn in felt pen!

you cant be that stupid so i assume you are deliberately trying to  deceive. the scales are different... 10 degree or 1/2 a degree? it  does make a bit of difference....

Answer 9

When there is a huge amount of money involved like government grants for research and government mandated limits (carbon or whatever) that will force business to pay the difference for what they need you can be sure that truth is going to take a back seat. Many have invested big time, money, and effort in this area (in order to make big money)and they will fight hard to suppress any science, findings, or truth that may cause their investment to fail. I'm encouraged that a lot of scientists, climatologists and others are trying to speak up and show that the global warming scare is not all they say it is. I hope its not to late to get taken in by yet another the sky if falling scheme.

Answer 10

The answer is pretty simple the image in your first link is a fake apart from the poor quality of the image itself, (IPCC) employ quite good graphic artists.

Second and more to the point the temps shown in this image a complete nonsense the 8.5c to 10c scale down the left side bears no relation to reality. Current average world temp is 14.5c

This is the site posting this image

http://www.fcpp.org/images/

If you actually interested in the truth here is the link to the real 1995 report, the diagram isn't in there.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1...

And before you yell, hoax, conspiracy how is it that a supposed diagram from a 1995 report goes to 2000, but then like the fake petition, most of the denier sites that post this BS are not very good at even making up lies.