In my view the trend lines in this graph are a lot lesser problem than the way it has been completely altered from the one from the IPCC report (First AR, 1990 not from the 1995 report as Ball indicates). Here is a quote from the testimony of Dr. Jay Gulledge, Senior Fellow at the Pew Institute for Climate Change, to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 26, 2006:

“The scientific debate over the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been on the same trajectory for at least 20 years, with early indications that the MWP was not a globally coherent event becoming more solid over time. The MBH99 reconstruction represented an evolutionary step—not a revolutionary change—in this established trajectory. The 1990 IPCC figure that Mr. McIntyre, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Dr. Wegman have used in their own assessment of past climate is a cartoon, as stated by Dr. Wegman in his testimony last week. I have confirmed this with a number of individuals who were involved with the 1990 IPCC report or with versions of the schematic that pre-dated the 1990 IPCC report. The schematic is not a plot of data and is inappropriate as a comparison to MBH. The text of the 1990 IPCC report clearly states that the figure is a "schematic diagram" and that “it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global” (p. 202)”.

There were no numbers on this graph; it was merely a schematic representation of what might have happened.

For Ball to insert numbers and claim that it is the graph produced by the IPCC is a serious example of scientific fraud, but is what we have come to expect from him.

The complete testimony from Dr. Gulledge can be found at:

http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm

1uThank's for greate post.3o I compleatly disagree with last post . ogw
паркет 1j