The graph above comes from a guest post at http://wattsupwiththat.com March 10th by Frank Lansner, on why the IPCC 'disappeared' the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The above graph illustrates what happened in 2001 - when the IPCC adopted Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' graph which smoothed out the MWP. As you can see, the blue line (post 2001) is quite different from IPCC graphs before that date (the red line). Lansner says this was a deliberate attempt to falsify the data by the IPCC (and Mann) in order to eliminate the fact most often cited by sceptics - the MWP was as warm as the modern world. He looked at 54 data sets, almost every one of them peer reviewed. Between 1976-2000 the MWP was usually portrayed as warm but between 2001-2009 it was not so. Almost certainly this has something to do with the choice of trees and their location as used in the Mann et al data proxy central to the hockey stick model. In one stroke AGW advocates effectively blocked sceptic arguments that modern warming was not out of the ordinary. Even IPCC data between 1990 and 2000 showed a warm MWP which is actually the real situation. When the hockey stick swindle was blown by McIntyre and McKitrick climate scientists insisted that the MWP only affected a small area in the northern hemisphere and therefore continued to defuse the fact that temperature had been as high as it was in the 1990s a thousand years earlier. Indeed, we now have evidence from clam shells in Icelandic waters that not only was there a MWP but the Roman Warm Period was even warmer - and the period between 640-760AD was fairly warm too (see also http://wattsupwiththat.com and Nature Geoscience at www.nature.com/news/2010/100308/full/news.2010.110.html . The study concerned the settlement of Iceland, and the authors note that sagas refer to a severe famine in the 1000sAD. The clam shells show that summer temperatures declined quite rapidly, an actual date is not provided. However, Mike Baillie (see earlier post from Cosmic Tusk) said there was a downturn for a year or so in the 1000s - but associated it with an ammonium spike (a cosmic event of some kind).

At http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/ice-core-graph (see also the menus on RH column of web site) there is a report on the Vostock ice core from Antarctica which was written to show C02 levels lagged behind temperatures - which is now fairly well established as far as the science is concerned (but an object of ridicule amongst AGW advocates). However, the series of charts and graphs are interesting as they show the ups and downs of temperature at the South Pole over the last 400,000 + years. The graphs seem to show a clear signal but is it as precise as the Milankovitch model requires, a 100,000 year cycle that is derived from the tilt in the orbit of the earth as it moves around the Sun. It may be clearer in Greenland ice cores - but the clarity appears to come from North Atlantic sediment cores (using the shells of foraminifera as isotopic signatures). The Vostik ice core is telling us something and that something takes place roughly at 100,000 year intervals - and appears to be a distinct background feature to climate on earth. For instance, the temperatures went above 0 degrees (summer) at 322,000 years ago - part of a peak that stretched from 325,000 to 300,000 years ago. Fair enough, that is one of the interglacial episodes. There was another peak above 0 degrees in around 238,000 years ago - which then declined only to go up again to around -2 degrees between 220,000 and 200,000 years ago. Finally, at 130,000 years ago temperatures once again went past the 0 degrees mark, lasting roughly 10,000 years (the last interglacial before the present). It then dropped to a low around 110,000 years ago but then made a half hearted recovery for a while before dropping so as to remain at a fairly stable level until the end of the Ice Age 15,000 years ago, when temperatures once again rose sharply - but not rising beyond the 0 degrees mark for the last 10,000 years. Worth checking out - and making your own judgement.

At http://joannenova.com.au March 10th there is a report on a speech made by the chairman of ABC, a public funded media network akin to the BBC. It was made to senior staff and criticised their handling of the AGW debate - which he thought was one sided. The ABC journalists have been especially scathing of Australian sceptics - very often personalising their intolerance. The chairman asked for the debate in future to be even-handed, saying 'I've been around for long enough to know that consensus and conventional wisdom do not always serve you well ...'. He was recruited from outside ABC, presumably for his commercial skills, and from an interview with one of his journalists afterwards it is clear the latter was bemused by the chairman's words. The credulity did not stop with ABC journalists who have grown used to pumping the AGW message over the years - apparently unaware the sceptics had ideas worthy of inspection, but it was the response from the leader of the Green Party that was most striking. She described it as 'anti-science' nonsense.

At www.quadrant.org.au there is a post dated July 26th 2009 that might be worth reading. It is by Richard Lindzen (and can be downloaded in pdf format) a climate scientist who upset his peers, and the AGW advocates who set in motion a hate campaign against him. This dates to before the Climategate email leak and it's worth reading if only in the context of what has subsequently happened. He was spot on.

At http://eureferendum.blogspot.com 10th March ... Richard North is back to following the trail of public money looted from taxpayers in order to fund what he regards as pointless climate change research. Ten NGOs vie for a place at the high table of EU handouts. In fact, the major funder of them is actually the EU - plus a few mysterious charitable organisations such as the Oak Foundation. It seems that it is not just the WWF that accrues wealth via grants but the likes of Friends of the Earth and similar purportedly charitable organisations that are always baying for money via junkmail through the letter box. They begin by lobbying the EU to adopt more green policies - providing them with agendas. The EU allocates funds - and these are used for environmental purposes and then the lobbying begins again, for more grants - and so the roundabout goes. From over 2 million euros in 1998 it has gone up to nearly 9 million euros in 2009 - straight out of taxpayers pockets. Some NGOs, including FoE, besides mugging the ordinary man and woman in the street, receive substantial sums from the Dutch and German governments (particularly keen on green issues) but they also receive monies from shadowy organisations such as the Oak Foundation (and there are a surprising number of these - such as the James Goldsmith Foundation etc). Goldsmith was of course a prominent member of the Conservative Party so how did it precisely come to give away so much dosh to anti-Conservative bodies - it has all to do with his offspring, who don't share the same politics.  Somewhat tongue in cheek, it has been noted by the more cynical of people that some charities, especially those dispensing Aid, appear to be invented to provide a career for the people setting them up. Might the idea be expanded somewhat by the suggestion some NGOs came into existence to provide jobs for environmentalists - otherwise lumbered with a useless Degree as real jobs are actually quite thin on the ground in their chosen endeavour - or they were before AGW became fashionable. So many of them were produced by the university conveyor belt system - careers had to be invented. Has AGW escalated simply to provide a purpose in life for some ex-students? In additon, did the mushrooming of environmentalism then spawn 'climate science' and 'climate models' - an occupation where your average geek can play around on a computer 24 hours a day. Richard North, in contrast, sees something sinister about organisations such as the European Climate Foundation as they have access to EU funds way and beyond the EU budget (which is supposed to be accountable and open to FOI requests). Powerful vested interests are at work, he says, and we have no way of finding out who is pulling the strings.