Have you stopped beating your wife? Please try to phrase your questions without the implied insults.
When it was first leaked, I read the original and made up my own mind as to what it represented. I later read the Wikipedia article and some of the referenced articles.
That was about 2 years ago. Accepting the conclusions of eminent authorities is certainly easier than trying to understand what happened, but I find it more interesting. From the above article: "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct." which is correct. There was no fraud or misconduct. What I saw was a substantial amount of effort expended in removing and invalidating inconsistent data and data that did not fit the predefined conclusions. Unfortunately, as I didn't understand everything that was happening in the document, I can only offer a general impression.
Incidentally, I don't recall the exact report, but one of the early AGW research reports produced spectacular predicted temperature rises. Even the supporters were amazed, as was the press which carried the story in the most alarmist manner possible. It turned out that the researchers had used history from weather stations located in urban areas, which tend to be heat islands. When all the urban sensor data was removed, leaving only rural sensors, the numbers looked like random garbage with no obvious trend line. Recently, satellite data has eliminated much of these types of problems, but it was amusing to watch the cover up after this was pointed out.
I just wanted to point out how easy it is to do. Much to my disgust, the local water district used my method to justify drought funding a few years ago. We really did have a drought, but the historical numbers were insufficient to qualify for federally funded relief. So, they produced ominous trend graphs, but also "normalized" (tweaked) some of the data. Computers make all this so easy to do.
Holdit. A few rants ago, I mentioned that I believe that there's no question that there's been a trend towards temperature increase. I don't question any of that type of historical data (unless the original data is suspect). The pressing questions are:
- What is the predicted trend line?
- Is it caused by human activity?
- Should we do anything about it?
- Will doing anything about it actually work or cause more problems? My comments were specifically directed towards predicting future trends, not historical data.
Incidentally, I find it amusing that the IPCC and you are both using the term AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) where anthropogenic means "caused by humans" as if it's already conclusive that any and all effects are the result of human activities. Begging the question comes to mind.
It doesn't explain everything, but is a substantial part of the puzzle.
Hmmm... I wonder if the current unusual lack of sunspots is caused by human activity?
Ok. I won't argue.