[ RadSafe ] Focus = Fraud, not CO2

[garyi at trinityphysics.com]

Thanks Jess for reading the linked article.  Your post was uniquely helpful, because it 
demonstrates the sort of inquiry that Penn State carried out when they interviewed Mann 
after Climategate.  They simply asked him if he had done anything wrong, and accepted his 
denial as sufficient proof of innocence.

One of the glaring evidences fraud is the missing Medieval Warm Period.  If global 
temperatures are shown on a graph that goes back 1500 to 2000 years, the Medieval Warm 
Period dominates the picture and makes recent temperature changes unremarkable.  An 
even larger scale for global temperatures shows unmistakable periodicity and variability.  By 
truncating the graph at 1000 AD, it was possible to make the recent warming trend seem 
unprecedented and alarming.  On the larger scale, though, it seems to be in sync with 
previous periodicity.

Another, more damning, evidence of fraud would be the manipulation of data to give the 
appearance of agreement and consistency between five different data sets.  Most of the data 
sets showed **decline** in the late 20th century.  Data from Briffa in particular was discussed 
repeatedly in the stolen emails as a "problem".  Showing all these curves diverging would 
destroy the impression "settled science".  The problem was solved by simply changing the 
numbers so that all the data sets converged on a steep upward curve.

Here's a closeup showing divergence and decline:
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig2-21-blowup.gif

Here's a look at the "fixed" data showing the scary upward spike: 
http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg

Until there is a serious investigation into the fraud, we will contine to wander in circles over 
CO2 and hypothetical end-of-the-world scenarios.

-Gary Isenhower