S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and University of Virginia professor emeritus commented about these sorry circumstances in the foreword of my book, stating in part:
“Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA [director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies] during the summer of 1988. More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for which there was no evidence; in some cases the ‘evidence’ was clearly manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed.”
1966 report??
The SAR
1966 is probably meant to be 1996.
Yes the episode Prof Singer is referring to is the infamous Ben Santer fraud known as
“A Discernable Human Influence on Climate.”
Details of it can be found at the late great John L Dalys site. A short read with graphs and testimony.
http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm
Speaking of Virginia…….
Today, Virginia taxpayers, a state lawmaker and a public interest law firm are asking the University of Virginia to produce important “global warming” records under that state’s Freedom of Information Act. These are records the school no longer denies possessing but nonetheless refuses to release, even to Commonwealth Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli…… In response to a previous FOIA request, U.Va. denied these records existed…..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/06/yes-virginia-you-do-have-to-produce-those-global-warming-documents/
tony? calling tony?
Come on, the IPCC is above reproach. Tony Duncan won’t dignify this post with comments.
;+)
Bert Bolin, first chairman of the IPCC, described the events of 1996 in his book “A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change”.
Details are in my document “We have been conned: an independent review of the IPCC” but briefly the facts are these. Around the time of the second review of the pivotal chapter two of the 3 lead authors worked with a third author to produce a paper that they claimed provided ‘new evidence’ of man-made warming. This paper was submitted to ‘Nature’ but at that time had not been published. The chairman of IPCC WGI, in concert with Bert Bolin, decided not only that the paper be cited in the report, despite the 2nd review being underway (or was it completed?), but also that the rest of the chapter should be modified to include this new information.
Bolin wrote in an end-note to the passage in chapter 8 of his book “Santer and Wigley, the two lead authors of the IPCC chapter, were key authors of the ‘Nature’ article and they were undoubtedly at the vanguard of this kind of analysis at the time.”
In point of fact the paper was published and almost immediately shown to be nonsense, which of course didn’t matter to the IPCC because its report was published by that time.