1. Climategate Is this a conspiracy of the sceptics or the end of the global warming hype? Marcel Crok, science writer Wageningen, 9 December 2009

2. Global warming poll 1)The recent warming was mostly natural 2)The recent warming was mainly caused by humans, but greenhouse gases are not the dominating forcing; other forcings like aerosols and land use changes are as important. 3)The recent warming was caused by greenhouse gases. This is the IPCC hypothesis.

3. Copenhagen vs Climategate Copenhagen: 15,000 delegates from almost 200 countries gather in Copenhagen to ‘save the planet’ from catastrophic warming Climategate: thousands of emails and documents hacked or leaked from CRU. Did IPCC scientists manipulate the data? Is it fraud?

4. Rajendra Pachauri, Opening address COP15 "Given the wide-ranging nature of change that is likely to be taken in hand, some naturally find it inconvenient to accept its inevitability," Dr Pachauri said. "The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC. "But the panel has a record of transparent and objective assessment stretching over 21 years performed by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe."

5. Pachauri at COP15 Stolen or leaked? illegal acts, perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC transparent and objective assessment tens of thousands of dedicated scientists from all corners of the globe

6. Roger Pielke sr in 2008 Climate Assessment Oligarchy – The IPCC An oligarchy is a “form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.” This definition certainly fits with the IPCColigarchy This small community of climate scientists is controlling the agenda with respect to the assessment of climate change. This is an oligarchy.

7. Climategate “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 !” Phil Jones to Michael Mann (2004)

8. Climategate “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” Kevin Trenberth to Mike Mann (Oct 2009)

9. Climategate “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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Phil Jones to Ray Bradley (1999)

10. Poll about the ‘trick’ 1)RealClimate: Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret” 2)McIntyre on CNN this monday: Let’s be frank, the trick really was a trick

11. Mann, Bradley, Hughes (MBH99)

12. Michael Mann with tree rings

13. Presentation third IPCC rapport (2001) Sir John Houghton, co-chairman

14. McIntyre and McKitrick McIntyre, statistician, career in mineral exploration business McKitrick, economist, Univ. of Guelph McIntyre: “Hockey stick looks like a dotcom graph” Too good to be true! McIntyre asks Mann for the data in 2003; however there is no existing ftp-server! McIntyre intrigued…

15. Up: average of 450 series of Mann. Down: reconstruction Mann after his method

16. Bristlecone pine in California. This tree dominates the whole reconstruction!

17. Conclusion: hockey stick is broken, Mann is wounded

18. Spaghetti graph in TAR

19. Briffa reconstruction declining after 1960

20. Solution to this ‘inconvenient’ decline in TAR? Truncate it in 1960 = Hide the decline

21. Poll about the ‘trick’ 1)RealClimate: Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret” 2)McIntyre on CNN this monday: Let’s be frank, the trick really was a trick

22. Debate 1) Are the scientists involved in the CRU Hack the offenders or the victims? 2) Is there a conspiracy of the alarmists? 3) Should these people (Jones, Mann etc.) be banned from the peer review process and the IPCC reports?

23. Climategate “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.” Kevin Trenberth to Mike Mann (Oct 2009)

28. How not to measure temperature

31. Surfacestations.org

32. US temperature

34. Issues with the temperature Surface T measurements were never designed for climate research In the US we have the ‘best’ network, but still only a few conform with the WMO standards Most of the trend in the US is due to adjustments! What is the justification Still, 30-ies as warm or even warmer than now!

35. Issues with the temperature Globally we have three datasets: CRU, GISS, NCDC Phil Jones of CRU for years refuses to release his raw data and source code Critics did many FOIA requests, all blocked by CRU CRU even said: we lost the raw data! Climategate: source code leaked as well, now investigated

36. Issues with the temperature Defend of Phil Jones after the leak (November 25, 2009): “….Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

37. Issues with the temperature Reaction Roger Pielke sr: These claims of that the surface temperature series are “completely independent” is false and Phil Jones knows that “The data sets are distinguished from one another by differences in the details of their construction.” “Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations there is a degree of interdependence.”

38. Issues with the temperature Overlap between CRU, GISS and NCDC is around 90% of the raw data CRU and NCDC don’t correct for UHI GISS does but in a strange way Only 1500 stations used now on land of which around 90% are airports! So... What are we measuring?

39. Are we measuring the growth in air traffic?

40. Now some simple logic Even if you do accept the global temperature datasets and accepts 0.8 degree C of warming, this does not proof AGW! Melting glaciers, melting sea ice, rising sea levels etc. do not proof AGW either. These phenomena say nothing about the cause But how did IPCC prove AGW then, because they say it’s very likely?

42. John von Neumann With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.

43. Now some simple logic So fitting past (already known!) data doesn’t proof anything either! Many models can do that The AGW models can be tweaked in many ways, i.e. by adjusting the forcing of aerosols A theory gets more reliable if it can predict unknown data, that means in this case future data

44. Models vs Observations

45. Now some simple logic So the models ‘fail’ immediately when they have to predict new data This means AGW is now less likely than ten years ago There never has been direct or strong evidence for AGW Are there alternatives? Oh yes, many Some examples: the sun (uv, Cosmic rays), clouds, ocean cycles

46. Climategate “ As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” Phil Jones to John Christy (July 2005)

47. Climategate Follow us on: Climategate.nl