IPCC WGI: Leaked Graph Conspiracy
The final draft of the underlying Working Group I report is also subject to copy-editing and corrections in proof as normally applied to scientific reports
– IPCC, Acceptance of The Actions, 9/30/2013
Without fanfare, the IPCC released the full 1,000+ page Working Group I (WGI) “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis” report yesterday, 9/30/2013.
This crucial report outlines the physical evidence behind all IPCC claims.
No proof, no consensus… no human-caused global warming theory!
The IPCC did NOT release the final report. It’s not done yet. Instead, for world consumption, the IPCC released its incomplete final draft dated June 7th, 2013.
That’s similar to the way the IPCC released its sister report “Summary for Policymakers” on Friday. That makes two botched works in a row released by the IPCC for its 5th assessment of the state of earth’s climate (AR5).
Multi-trillion dollar decisions are supposed to be made from these already outdated reports!! After four years of intense work, can’t the IPCC do better than that?
The new draft reveals a coverup of sorts. It is with the single most important graph of all – observed temperatures vs. model predictions.
London’s The Guardian newspaper is contributing to the coverup:
“IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think“
– The Guardian, Abraham and Nuccitelli, 9/30/2013
The sordid story begins with Alec Rawls. While an expert IPCC reviewer, Rawls leaked the entire WGI 2nd draft report to the world on December 12th, 2012.
He was vilified for pre-releasing the report because, according to the IPCC, “the unauthorized and premature posting of the drafts of the WGI AR5, which are works in progress, may lead to confusion”.
Ironically, the IPCC yesterday did what Rawls did, released its own draft!
In the introduction of the leaked 9/12 report is a crucial graph which clearly shows that observed temperatures do NOT match with IPCC climate modeling.
In fact, it appears to show that earth’s 2011 global temperature trended completely outside the statistical range of all four previous IPCC temperature assessments. Whoops!!!
The skeptic community waved it around like a red flag as proof positive that “The Pause” is real and that IPCC climate models are seriously flawed.
So, it was with great anticipation that this writer rifled through the newly released AR5 WGI introduction to see if the damning graph is still there.
It is! It’s been doctored to make the “The Pause” and its disagreement with IPCC climate models disappear!
What once was easily readable is now muddled and confused!
Climate Wars: The Empire Strikes Back!
Mindful of the controversy over the now widespread 9/12 temperature graph, The Guardian published a rebuttal and explanation of changes in the IPCC’s ‘new and improved’ version of the graph.
It claims the original graph was flawed from the start and that the new version just corrects the errors.
It leaves out the part of the new graph that reveals how observed temperatures still fall outside the IPCC model ranges. “The Pause” is still there. Its just harder to see.
Suspiciously, too, The Guardian never shows the original leaked version and publishes only part of the new graph as shown above.
Lets make an apples-to-apples comparison…
The IPCC graph was trimmed to show the same timeline display as Rawls’ leaked graph.
In this comparison the new IPCC graph is distorted slightly, but only to make the two graphs come as close as possible to displaying the same scale.
As plain as the nose on your face… “The Pause” is still in the revised IPCC graphic and the models are still just as far off as before, but those things are just harder to see now.
NOTE: Earth’s measured temperature datapoints from 1990-1995 have been completely changed to remove the dip seen at left in the leaked graph. That better supports IPCC theory.
Well, isn’t that SPE-CIAL?! How con-VEEN-ient!…
Could it be…SATAN?
– Saturday Night Live, Dana Carvey, “Church Lady”
Clearly, the IPCC has doctored a crucial graphic that both obscures the existence of “The Pause” and that its own climate models no longer follow mother nature’s temperature curve. We’d never know if not for Alec Rawls.
The suspicious changes made to the empirical datapoints from 1990-1995 erasing a clear dip are particularly damning.
Is it possible that errors in actual temperature measurements made 20 years ago were suddenly discovered and corrected between December 12th, 2012 and June 7th, 2013???
If you believe that then IPCC skeptics have got some old Chicago mercantile carbon credits they’ll sell you for cheap!
The time has come for the IPCC climate monitors to get independently monitored themselves.