Eight Studies That Played Significant Role In Supporting IPCC’s Claims of Man-Made Global Warming Shown To Be Fraudulent

Spectator Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocksGore another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPCC’s claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent.

As Andrew Orlowski reports in The Register, the issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy in order to ‘reconstruct’ past temperatures. The papers in question  incorporated data from trees at the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia:

This dataset gained favour, curiously superseding a newer and larger data set from nearby. The older Yamal trees indicated pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures.

How could this be? Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret — failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open — and Yamal’s mystery is no more. From this we know that the Yamal data set uses just 12 trees from a larger set to produce its dramatic recent trend. Yet many more were cored, and a larger data set (of 34) from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages.

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked.

A small ‘but closely knit’ number of scientists all used the misleading Yamal data to claim that today’s temperatures were unprecedentedly hot. Orlowski notes:

For the rest of the article go here.


IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming

About Clare Swinney

Committed to awakening those still asleep. Please keep an open mind and do your own research. WebofEvidence on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyTh2WC7w_8GYD6ZecXUQMQ Clare on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/1z2iaeXTln25/
This entry was posted in Global Warming Hoax and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Eight Studies That Played Significant Role In Supporting IPCC’s Claims of Man-Made Global Warming Shown To Be Fraudulent

  1. Hypernation says:

    So what about the millenium-old glaciers that are literally not there anymore? And in any case, filthying up the planet with pollution is STILL to be avoided at all costs, surely. Whether global warming is real or not, I’d like a clean planet for my kids, thank you very much.

    • Clare Swinney says:

      Even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence! Contradicting Gore’s claim that, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.
      If you want to clean up the planet, why not address those who are suppressing the clean-energy inventions [1] and dropping depleted uranium (DU), [2]?
      Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential to life on earth.

      [1] Free Energy: The Race To Zero Point

      [2] The Global Threat of DU

  2. hypernation says:

    Why write [sic] in your original (now edited) answer? Aren’t glaciers a millenium old, if not older? And in answer to your question, these ones: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html

    Funnily enough I do work in and for the Clean Energy industry, so your second point is moot. Although I will check out that video, it’s new to me.

    I am surprised that your tone is more didactic than discursive. I thought your blog was more open than that.

    And not everything to do with climate change (which includes cooling and warming in different areas) is from Al Gore.

  3. Hypernation says:

    Claire that’s a pathetic answer. A link and no commentary. Did you even think about the answer, or simply google the phrase “global warming is a lie” and pick the first link you agreed with?

    Now, why does “standardized melting anomaly” actually mean? Amount of snow melted? Rate that the snow melted as measured by weight? Mass? Either way, I’ll wager the highest points don’t necessarily mean “highest amount of snow melted” or “molten”, to avoid another hilarious “sic” comment. Do you have some info on the graph? I’d very much like to know more. This time in actual words.

    • Clare Swinney says:

      Why not stick with information related to the global warming hoax instead of pursuing personal attacks?
      Like for example, according to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there’s actually no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate. “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations,” he asserts.

      Referring to the mention New Zealand gets in the film, when Al Gore falsely claims many residents of low-lying Pacific Island nations have already had to evacuate to New Zealand because of “rising seas,” Dr Gray asserts: “Everybody knows that the Pacific Island of Tuvalu is sinking…Around 1990 it became obvious that the local tide-gauge did not agree – there was no evidence of “sinking”. So scientists at Flinders University in Adelaide were asked to check whether this was true. They set up new, modern tide-gauges on 12 Pacific Islands including Tuvalu, confident that they’d show that all of them are sinking. Recently, the whole project was abandoned, as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the twelve islands for the past 16 years. In 2006, Tuvalu even rose,” [1].

      [1] IPCC Wins the Nobel Prize of Peace, (20/10/07), by Dr V. Gray, http://www.nzcpr.com/guest72.htm

  4. Hypernation says:

    Personal attacks? Don’t make me laugh. I questioned your logic and the meaning of some statistics you quickly googled. You answered neither, instead posting another link. For someone claiming to be a harbinger of truth that simply won’t do.

    As regards sea levels – You may have heard of the Thames barrier – since it’s inception the barrier has been used as much as 3 times in a 4 day period, from a frequency of once or twice a year. Sea levels have already risen. The environment has been damaged and changed. Fact. Actual physical everyday fact. And the fact that you don’t even waste a single momet on trying to understand the graphs you happily post as evidence worries me in this case. It’s not personal. I am asking for your workings.

    • Clare Swinney says:

      Were you aware that when Al Gore was the Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs? And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale? Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species, [6]. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil! [1].

      [1] Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468

  5. Hypernation says:

    Yes Claire I was and am aware that Al Gore is a massive envionmental failure. He allowed tuna to be caught in dolphin unfriendly nets whilst allowing the manufacturer to sell them as dolphin friendly labelled cans. So what? You keep bringing Gore up like he’s evidence against climate change. Is this the extent of your frame of reference? you bring up the Al Gore straw man argument and hope a misdirected Oscar somehow delivers you an argument. I never even mentioned gore. It’s a shame you did. His wife’s creation of the PMRC is one of the reasons why US mainstream music is as dire and soulless as it is, quite apart from his own failings.

    You have yet to actually address a single issue I have raise with fully explained evidence. Are you in the habit of talking AT anyone who engages in a conversation? Or do you hear them first?

    These days I start by asking more questions, rather than accepting the answers I think I should in order to feel “enlightened” – none are more imprisoned than those who falsely believe they are free. (With apologies to Goethe.)

    • Clare Swinney says:

      Also interesting in regard to the global warming agenda, but not disclosed by the mainstream media, is what Dr Michael Coffman, CEO of Sovereignty International, established. Dr Coffman headed a multi-million dollar research effort in the early-1990’s that studied the effects of global warming on ecosystems in the US, says there’s a cadre of scientists on “soft money” who are out of a job if they “don’t show a global-warming connection.” He says the US government is pouring an astronomical US$4 billion per annum into this research because on an elite political level, where the real power lies, there’s an agenda to establish a fascist one-world government, [1].
      The UN, which is controlled by the elite, is preparing to take over as the government for all the world’s nations under the pretext of saving the planet from “global warming.” It aims to implement Agenda 21, which is supposedly about “sustainable development.” On cursory inspection, 21 looks reasonable, however, as Dr Michael Coffman who has taken the time to read UN documents pointed out, the intention of the 40-chapter document is to reorganize the world around socialist, command and control regulation, as the elite view humans as earth’s primary contaminants. It will be a living nightmare for us if the elite have their way.

      [1] Global Warming or Global Governance?, (2007), documentary by Dr M. Coffman, is available at infowars.com, Torrent sites or can be viewed at Google here:

  6. Hypernation says:

    Well done you copy and pasted from a Wikipropaganda page. Again. Whilst utterly failing for the 4th time to engage in an actual conversation with a human being. It seems to be a race to paste links, rather than follow coherent lines of argument with you.

    Let me ask you this – if you don’t belive in the BIG LIE of global warming, why are you so concerned by big bad polluting Al Gore anyway? Surely him and his oil is having no effect on the environment whatsoever, and everything will be fine right?

    Sorry apart from the “elite” who will come knocking shortly, as they’ve been seeming to almost do for hundreds of years now.

    I thought this was about evidence. If your going to paste another amateur google documentary or further ignore a reader’s actual comments, don’t even bother replying at all.

  7. Hypernation says:

    Once again, where’s the evidence? What’s useful about disparate links to multiple topics?

    • Clare Swinney says:

      You might not find it useful, but others do. As you seem so dissatisfied with what is on offer here, I suggest you go elsewhere, where your tastes are catered for.

  8. Hypernation says:

    Claire, you seem surprisingly vitriolic when asked a simple question about evidence. It makes you and your site come off as just as alarmist as many of the targets you have (some of them quite admirable.)

  9. Clare Swinney says:

    If you say so. Lucky for you there are millions of other sites with people who will be far more to your liking. Bye and good luck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s