Report: ‘Collusion Between Michael Mann, James Hansen And Gavin Schmidt To Create The Hockey Stick’

As of 1999, NASA showed no net warming from the 1870’s to the 1970’s, and showed 1877 as the warmest year from 1866 to 1976.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 8.51.57 AM

Archived from:

The IPCC showed that the warmest period of the last thousand years was in the 13th century, and that all recent warming occurred before the year 1940.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 8.55.12 AM


There was no evidence of a human influence on climate, and that was no use for funding or political influence. So the decision was made to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, and create a hockey stick of recent warming.

IPCC participant Jay Overpeck said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Michael Mann was up to the task, and he did exactly what Overpeck wanted him to do – he erased the Medieval Warm Period.

hockey stick mann

But that wasn’t enough to make the Hockey Stick. Mann needed some help from his buddies at NASA, James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt. They had to create about 0.6C warming from 1850 to 1976 – which they did by altering their own data.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 8.52.22 AM

Hansen and Schmidt erased all of the warm years before 1880, and massively cooled all of the remaining years before 1970.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 6.46.18 AM

Hansen and Schmidt created the blade of the hockey stick by tampering with their own data, just as Mann did with the proxy data to get rid of the MWP and LIA.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 6.45.49 AM

The massive climate fraud we are currently experiencing didn’t just happen.  It required two decades of planning and collusion to make it happen. Gavin says that is is no big deal that he nearly doubled 1880 to 1999 warming, hid the pre-1880 warmth, adjusted data far outside of his own error bars, and declared hottest year ever by a couple of hundredths of a degree.

Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 10.52.10 AM




Japanese Scientist Slams James Hansen & his colleagues — Calling Them ‘Lawbreakers In The Court Of Science’

Japanese Modeling Expert Slams James Hansen / Climate Scientists, Calling Them “Lawbreakers In The Court Of Science”

There really are many scientists who dispute the alarmist conclusions of the climate scientists. What follows is a scathing open letter from Japanese scientist and modeling expert Kyoji Kimoto to Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess. ====================================== You are the lawbreakers in the court of science by Kyoji Kimoto 9 January, 2016 Dear Dr. Syukuro Manabe, Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Robert Cess, The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the IPCC is based on Manabe & Wetherald (1967) and Hansen et al., (1981) which utilize one dimensional radiative convective equilibrium model (1DRCM) with the fixed lapse rate assumption of 6.5K/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2, obtaining the zero feedback climate sensitivity of 1.2-1.3K. However it is theoretically meaningless when the parameter sensitivity analysis is applied to the lapse rate for 2xCO2 as shown here. Hansen himself admitted that 1DRCM is a fudge in an interview with Spencer Weart held on 23 October, 2000 at NASA as shown below. Here Dr. Hansen and his colleagues are referring to a paper by W. C. Wang et al., 1976: “Greenhouse Effects due to Man-Made Perturbations of Trace Gases” Science 194, 685-690. An excerpt from the interview: Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s… Hansen: That’s trivial. You just put in… Weart: … a lapse rate… Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have to have a 3-D model to do it properly. In the 1-D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification. But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3-D model. See more: Cess made a mathematical error in Cess (1976), Cess et al., (1989) and Cess et al., (1990) when differentiating his equation OLR=EeffxsigmaxTs^4,which can be detected by any high school student learning differentiation. Manabe and the IPCC AR4 adopted Cess method to obtain the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) =1.2K. The detailed discussions are here: The AGW theory of the IPCC has caused huge economic losses to the world, including the collapse of British coal industry and the Fukushima nuclear disaster …

Climate activists sour on UN climate deal: ‘It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet’ – ‘Bullsh*t’ – ‘Fraud…Fake’ – ‘Magical Thinking’

Warmist Bill McKibben on Paris deal: ‘It won’t save the planet…it saves the chance of saving the planet’ – “This agreement won’t save the planet, not even close,” Bill McKibben, co-founder of, a climate advocacy group, told The Huffington Post in an email. “But it’s possible that it saves the chance of saving the planet — if movements push even harder from here on out.”


Warmist George Monbiot: ‘I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the Paris deal is bullshit’



Former NASA lead ‘global warming’ scientist James Hansen on UN summit: ‘It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit’ – Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes. “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”