Read here, here and here. Phil Jones, former director of the UK's Climate Research Unit center, has finally come clean about the IPCC "global warming" science. He should be commended for coming forward and setting the record straight - it definitely had to be incredibly painful for him to do so in a BBC interview:
"Specifically, the Q-and-As confirm what many skeptics have long suspected:- Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
- There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
- The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases, underestimated natural variability, or both.
- This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models just from this factor alone.
- The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
- The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
- There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers."
Phil Jones should be encouraged (provided an incentive?) to share more of the IPCC "global warming" science skeletons so as the public finally becomes informed about the true realities of climate change. In addition, further information from Jones may precipitate needed actions by U.S. trial lawyers, state's attorney generals, and/or criminal prosecutors to go after the remaining smug, miserable, arrogant climate "scientists" who willingly choose to perpetuate the AGW-CO2 global warming hoax.
For any U.S. politician who wants to get on the right side of this global science fraud, he/she should call for Congressional hearings. Additionally, demands for independent forensic audits of all climate historical and temperature data published would be appropriate, plus forensic audits of all software used by global warming scientists used in the most recent IPCC 2007 review - it's time to know conclusively what "science" the $79 billion in research funding grants has actually been based on.
