disciplines.[35][102] The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." Regarding his sharing unpublished manuscripts with colleagues on the assumption of implied consent, it considered such sharing to be "careless and inappropriate" without following the best practice of getting express consent from the authors in advance, though expert opinion on this varied. It said that his success in proposing research and obtaining funding for it, commenting that this "clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research." Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists." It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.[103][104] Mann said he regretted not objecting to a suggestion from Jones in a 29 May 2008 message that he destroy emails. "I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann said in March 2010. "I didn't think it was an appropriate request." Mann's response to Jones at the time was that he would pass on the request to another scientist. "The important thing is, I didn't delete any emails. And I don't think [Jones] did either."[105] Independent Climate Change Email Review[edit] First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.[106] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.[107] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.[108] The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[109] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.[110] At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research.[107][108][111]

United States Environmental Protection Agency report[edit] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had issued an "endangerment finding" in 2009 in preparation for climate regulations on excessive greenhouse gases. Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virginia and Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.[112] The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."[113] In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."[114] The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet,[115] and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."[116] Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce[edit] In May 2010 Senator Jim Inhofe requested the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an independent review of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had dealt with the emails, and whether the emails showed any wrongdoing.[117] The report, issued on 18 February 2011,[118] cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures". It noted that NOAA reviewed its climate change data as standard procedure, not in response to the controversy. One email included a cartoon image showing Infofe and others marooned on a melting ice floe, NOAA had taken this up as a conduct issue. In response to questions raised, NOAA stated that its scientists had followed legal advice on FOIA requests for information which belonged to the IPCC and was made available by that panel. In two instances funding had been awarded to CRU,[117] NOAA stated that it was reviewing these cases and so far understood that the funds supported climate forecasting workshops in 2002 and 2003 assisting the governments of three countries.[119] National Science Foundation[edit] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct.[120] It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.[121] The OIG reviewed the findings of the July 2010 Penn State panel, took further evidence from the university and Mann, and interviewed Mann. The OIP findings confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."[122] ICO decisions on Freedom of Information requests[edit] Main article: Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit In two cases, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued decisions on appeals of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests which had been turned down by the university. David Holland, an electrical engineer from Northampton, made a 2008 FOI request for all emails to and from Keith Briffa about the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report; the university's information policy and compliance manager refused the request. On 23 November 2009, after the start of the controversy, he wrote to the Commissioner explaining in detail the relevance of the alleged CRU emails to his case,[123] with specific reference to a May 2008 email in which Phil Jones asked others to delete emails discussing AR4 with Briffa.[124] In January 2010 news reports highlighted that FOI legislation made it an offence to intentionally act to prevent the disclosure of requested information, but the statute of limitations meant that any prosecution had to be raised within 6 months of the alleged offence. This was discussed by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.[125] The ICO decision on Holland's requests published on 7 July 2010 concluded that the emails indicated prima facie evidence of an offence, but as prosecution was time-barred the Commissioner had been unable to investigate the alleged offence. On the issue of the university failing to provide responses within the correct time, no further action was needed as Holland was content not to proceed with his complaint.[124] In the hockey stick controversy, the data and methods used in reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years have been disputed. Reconstructions have consistently shown that the rise in the instrumental temperature record of the past 150 years is not matched in earlier centuries, and the name "hockey stick graph" was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperatures. These graphs were publicised to explain the scientific findings of climatology, and in addition to scientific debate over the reconstructions, they have been the topic of political dispute. The issue is part of the global warming controversy and has been one focus of political responses to reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Arguments over the reconstructions have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science.[1] The use of proxy indicators to get quantitative estimates of the temperature record of past centuries was developed from the 1990s onwards, and found indications that recent warming was exceptional. The Bradley & Jones 1993 reconstruction introduced the "Composite Plus Scaling" (CPS) method used by most later large-scale reconstructions,[2][3] and its findings were disputed by Pat Michaels at the United States House Committee on Science. In 1998 Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes developed new statistical techniques to produce Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98), the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR). This showed global patterns of annual surface temperature, and included a graph of average hemispheric temperatures back to 1400.[4] In Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99) the methodology was extended back to 1000.[5][6] The term hockey stick was coined by the climatologist Jerry Mahlman, to describe the pattern this showed, envisaging a graph that is relatively flat to 1900 as forming an Ice hockey stick's "shaft", followed by a sharp increase corresponding to the "blade".[7][8] A version of this graph was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), along with four other reconstructions supporting the same conclusion.[6] The graph was publicised, and became a focus of dispute for those opposed to the strengthening scientific consensus that late 20th century warmth was exceptional.[9] Those disputing the graph included Pat Michaels, the George C. Marshall Institute and Fred Singer. A paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas claiming greater medieval warmth was used by the Bush administration chief of staff Philip Cooney to justify altering the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment. The paper was quickly dismissed by scientists in the Soon and Baliunas controversy, but on July 28, Republican Jim Inhofe spoke in the Senate citing it to claim "that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".[10] Later in 2003, a paper by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick disputing the data used in MBH98 paper was publicised by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In 2004 Hans von Storch published criticism of the statistical techniques as tending to underplay variations in earlier parts of the graph, though this was disputed and he later accepted that the effect was very small.[11] In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published criticisms of the principal components analysis methodology as used in MBH98 and MBH99. The analysis therein was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology. In June 2005 Rep. Joe Barton launched what Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. At Boehlert's request a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result.[12] Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations. More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions. Contents [hide] 1 Background 1.1 Kyoto Protocol 1.2 Controversy over Bradley and Jones 1993 2 Climate field reconstruction (CFR) methods; MBH 1998 and 1999 2.1 Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 2.1.1 Publicity on publication of MBH98 2.1.2 Controversy over MBH 1998 2.2 Jones et al. 1998 2.3 Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 2.3.1 Critique and independent reconstructions 2.3.2 Controversy over draft of IPCC Third Assessment Report 2.4 IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001 3 Controversy after IPCC Third Assessment Report 3.1 IPCC graph enters political controversy 3.2 Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation 3.3 McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 3.3.1 Disputed data 3.3.2 Publicity and Washington briefing 3.4 von Storch and Zorita 2004 3.5 Reconstructions, Inhofe and State of Fear 3.6 McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 3.6.1 Climate blogs 3.6.2 Principal components analysis methodology 3.6.3 Publicity 4 Congressional investigations 4.1 Reconstruction methodology 4.2 Inconvenient Truth 5 National Research Council Report 6 Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman Report) 7 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 7.1 Hans von Storch review 8 Further reconstructions 9 Climatic Research Unit email controversy 10 Continuing research 11 See also 12 Notes 13 References in chronological sequence Background Main articles: Hockey stick graph, History of climate change science and Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports Red line: rescaled IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1(c}, based on Lamb 1965 showing central England temperatures; compared to central England temperatures to 2007, as shown in Jones et al. 2009 (green dashed line).[15] Also shown, Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 40 year average used in IPCC TAR 2001 (blue), and Moberg et al. 2005 low frequency signal (black). Paleoclimatology dates back to the 19th century, and the concept of examining varves in lake beds and tree rings to track local climatic changes was suggested in the 1930s.[16] In the 1960s, Hubert Lamb generalised from historical documents and temperature records of central England to propose a Medieval Warm Period from around 900 to 1300, followed by Little Ice Age. This was the basis of a "schematic diagram" featured in the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 beside cautions that the medieval warming might not have been global.[2] Early quantitative reconstructions were published in the 1980s.[17] Publicity over the concerns of scientists about the implications of global warming led to increasing public and political interest, and the Reagan administration, concerned in part about the political impact of scientific findings, successfully lobbied for the 1988 formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates.[18] The IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 noted evidence that Holocene climatic optimum around 5,000-6,000 years ago had been warmer than the present (at least in summer) and that in some areas there had been exceptional warmth during "a shorter Medieval Warm Period (which may not have been global)" about AD 950-1250, followed by a cooler period of the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century. The report discussed the difficulties with proxy data, "mainly pollen remains, lake varves and ocean sediments, insect and animal remains, glacier termini" but considered tree ring data was "not yet sufficiently easy to assess nor sufficiently integrated with indications from other data to be used in this report." A "schematic diagram" of global temperature variations over the last thousand years[19] has been traced to a graph based loosely on Lamb's 1965 paper, nominally representing central England, modified by Lamb in 1982.[15] Mike Hulme describes this schematic diagram as "Lamb's sketch on the back of an envelope", a "rather dodgy bit of hand-waving".[20] Archives of climate proxies were developed: in 1993 Raymond S. Bradley and Phil Jones composited historical records, tree-rings and ice cores for the Northern Hemisphere from 1400 up to the 1970s to produce a decadal reconstruction.[21] Like later reconstructions including the MBH "hockey stick" studies, their reconstruction indicated a slow cooling trend followed by an exceptional temperature rise in the 20th century.[22] This paper introduced the "Composite Plus Scaling" (CPS) method which was subsequently used by most large-scale climate reconstructions of hemispheric or global average temperatures.[23] The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured Figure 3.20 showing this decadal summer temperature reconstruction together with a separate curve plotting instrumental thermometer data from the 1850s onwards. It stated that in this record, warming since the late 19th century was unprecedented. The section proposed that "The data from the last 1000 years are the most useful for determining the scales of natural climate variability". Recent studies including the 1994 reconstruction by Hughes and Diaz questioned how widespread the Medieval Warm Period had been at any one time, thus it was not possible "to conclude that global temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period were comparable to the warm decades of the late 20th century." The SAR concluded, "it appears that the 20th century has been at least as warm as any century since at least 1400 AD. In at least some areas, the recent period appears to be warmer than has been the case for a thousand or more years".[24] Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography was working towards the next IPCC assessment with Phil Jones, and in 1996 told journalist Fred Pearce "What we hope is that the current patterns of temperature change prove distinctive, quite different from the patterns of natural variability in the past".[25] Tree ring specialist Keith Briffa's February 1998 study reporting a divergence problem affecting some tree ring proxies after 1960 warned that this problem had to be taken into account to avoid overestimating past temperatures.[26] Kyoto Protocol While the details of the science were being worked out, the international community had been steadily working towards a global framework for a cap on green-house-gas emissions. The UN Conference on Environment and Development was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and produced a treaty framework that called for voluntary capping of emissions at 1990 levels. Government representatives gathered in Kyoto later during 1998 and turned this framework into a binding commitment known as the Kyoto protocol.[16] Due to the nature of the treaty, it essentially required commitment from the United States and other highly industrial nations for proper implementation. By 1998 the Clinton Administration had signed the treaty, but vigorous lobbying meant ratification of the treaty was successfully opposed in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition of economic and energy interests. Lobbyists such as the Western Fuels Association funded scientists whose work might undermine the scientific basis of the treaty, and in 1998 it was revealed that the American Petroleum Institute had hosted informal discussions between individuals from oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations who opposed the treaty, and who had tentatively proposed an extensive plan to recruit and train scientists in media relations. A media-relations budget of $600,000 was proposed to persuade science writers and editors and television correspondents to question and undermine climate science.[27][28] Controversy over Bradley and Jones 1993 At a hearing of the United States House Committee on Science on 6 March 1996, Chairman Robert Smith Walker questioned witnesses Robert Watson of the White House Office of Science and Technology and Michael MacCracken, head of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, over the scientific consensus shown by the IPCC report and about the peer reviewed status of the papers it cited.[29] As reported by Pat Michaels on his World Climate Report website, MacCracken said during the hearing that "the last decade is the warmest since 1400", implying that the warming had been caused by the greenhouse effect, and replied to Walker's question about whether thermometers had then existed by explaining the use of biological materials as temperature proxies. Michaels showed a version of the graph based on Bradley & Jones 1993 with the instrumental temperature record curve removed, and argued on the basis of the "raw data" that the large rise in temperatures occurring in the 1920s, "before the greenhouse effect had changed very much", and "there’s actually been a decline since then". He said the Science Committee had been told of this, and of comments by one IPCC reviewer that this was misleading and the text should say "Composite indicators of summer temperature show that a rapid rise occurred around 1920, this rise was prior to the major greenhouse emissions. Since then, composite temperatures have dropped slightly on a decadal scale." Michaels said that the IPCC had not noted this in the agreed text, "instead leaving most readers with the impression that the trees of the Northern Hemisphere had changed their growth rates in response to man’s impact on the atmosphere." He questioned the consensus, as only one reviewer out of 2,500 scientists had noticed this problem.[29][30] Climate field reconstruction (CFR) methods; MBH 1998 and 1999 Variations on the "Composite Plus Scale" (CPS) method continued to be used to produce hemispheric or global mean temperature reconstructions. From 1998 this was complemented by Climate Field Reconstruction (CFR) methods which could show how climate patterns had developed over large spatial areas, making the reconstruction useful for investigating natural variability and long-term oscillations as well as for comparisons with patterns produced by climate models. The CFR method made more use of climate information embedded in remote proxies, but was more dependent than CPS on assumptions that relationships between proxy indicators and large-scale climate patterns remained stable over time.[31] Related rigorous statistical methods had already been developed for tree ring data to produce regional reconstructions of temperatures, and other aspects such as rainfall.[32] As part of his doctoral research, Michael E. Mann worked with seismologist Jeffrey Park on the development of statistical techniques for finding long-term oscillations of natural variability in the instrumental temperature record of global surface temperatures over the last 140 years; Mann & Park 1993 showed patterns relating to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, and Mann & Park 1994 found what was later termed the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. They then teamed up with Raymond S. Bradley to use these techniques on the dataset from his Bradley & Jones 1993 study with the aim of finding long-term oscillations of natural variability in global climate. The resulting reconstruction went back to 1400, and was published in November as Mann, Park & Bradley 1995. They were able to detect that the multiple proxies were varying in a coherent oscillatory way, indicating both the multidecadal pattern in the North Atlantic and a longer term oscillation of roughly 250 years in the surrounding region. Their study did not calibrate these proxy patterns against a quantitative temperature scale, and a new statistical approach was needed to find how they related to surface temperatures in order to reconstruct past temperature patterns.[33][34] Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 For his postdoctoral research Mann joined Bradley and tree ring specialist Malcolm K. Hughes to develop a new statistical approach to reconstruct underlying spatial patterns of temperature variation combining diverse datasets of proxy information covering different periods across the globe, including a rich resource of tree ring networks for some areas and sparser proxies such as lake sediments, ice cores and corals, as well as some historical records.[35] Their global reconstruction was a major breakthrough in evaluation of past climate dynamics, and the first eigenvector-based climate field reconstruction (CFR) incorporating multiple climate proxy data sets of different types and lengths into a high-resolution global reconstruction.[4] To relate this data to measured temperatures, they used principal component analysis (PCA) to find the leading patterns, or principal components, of instrumental temperature records during the calibration period from 1902 to 1980. Their method was based on separate multiple regressions between each proxy record (or summary) and all of the leading principal components of the instrumental record. The least squares simultaneous solution of these multiple regressions used covariance between the proxy records. The results were then used to reconstruct large-scale patterns over time in the spatial field of interest (defined as the empirical orthogonal functions, or EOFs) using both local relationships of the proxies to climate and distant climate teleconnections.[23] Temperature records for almost 50 years prior to 1902 were analysed using PCA for the important step of validation calculations, which showed that the reconstructions were statistically meaningful, or skillful.[36] A balance was required over the whole globe, but most of the proxy data came from tree rings in the Northern mid latitudes, largely in dense proxy networks. Since using all of the large numbers of tree ring records in would have overwhelmed the sparse proxies from the polar regions and the tropics, they used principal component analysis (PCA) to produce PC summaries representing these large datasets, and then treated each summary as a proxy record in their CFR analysis. Networks represented in this way included the North American tree ring network (NOAMER) and Eurasia.[37] The primary aim of CFR methods was to provide the spatially resolved reconstructions essential for coherent geophysical understanding of how parts of the climate system varied and responded to radiative forcing, so hemispheric averages were a secondary product.[38] The CFR method could also be used to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures, and the results closely resembled the earlier CPS reconstructions including Bradley & Jones 1993.[4] Mann describes this as the least scientifically interesting thing they could do with the rich spatial patterns, but also the aspect that got the most attention. Their original draft ended in 1980 as most reconstructions only went that far, but an anonymous peer reviewer of the paper suggested that the curve of instrumental temperature records should be shown up to the present to include the considerable warming that had taken place between 1980 and 1998.[39] The Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) multiproxy study on "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" was submitted to the journal Nature on 9 May 1997, accepted on 27 February 1998 and published on 23 April 1998. The paper announced a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, building on previous multiproxy reconstructions. The authors concluded that "Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD1400", and estimated empirically that greenhouse gases had become the dominant climate forcing during the 20th century.[40] In a review in the same issue, Gabriele C. Hegerl described their method as "quite original and promising", which could help to verify model estimates of natural climate fluctuations and was "an important step towards reconstructing space–time records of historical temperature patterns".[41] Publicity on publication of MBH98 Release of the paper on 22 April 1998 was given exceptional media coverage, possibly due to the chance that this happened to be Earth Day and it was the warmest year on record. There was an immediate media response to the press release, and the story featured in major newspapers including the New York Times, USA Today and the Boston Globe. Later reports appeared in Time, U.S. News & World Report and Rolling Stone. On one afternoon Mann was interviewed by CNN, CBS and NBC. In the CBS interview, John Roberts repeatedly asked him if the study proved that humans were responsible for global warming, to which he would go no further than that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[42] The New York Times highlighted their finding that the 20th century had been the warmest century in 600 years, quoting Mann saying that "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors". Most proxy data are inherently imprecise, and Mann said "We do have error bars. They are somewhat sizable as one gets farther back in time, and there is reasonable uncertainty in any given year. There is quite a bit of work to be done in reducing these uncertainties." Climatologist Tom Wigley had high regard for the progress the study made, but doubted if proxy data could ever be wholly convincing in detecting the human contribution to changing climate.[43] Phil Jones of the UEA Climatic Research Unit told the New York Times he was doubtful about adding the 150-year thermometer record to extend the proxy reconstruction, and compared this with putting together apples and oranges; Mann et al. said they used a comparison with the thermometer record to check that recent proxy data were valid. Jones thought the study would provide important comparisons with the findings of climate modeling, which showed a "pretty reasonable" fit to proxy evidence.[43] A commentary on MBH98 by Jones was published in Science on 24 April 1998. He noted that it used almost all the available long-term proxy climate series, "and if the new multivariate method of relating these series to the instrumental data is as good as the paper claims, it should be statistically reliable." He discussed some of the difficulties, and emphasised that "Each paleoclimatic discipline has to come to terms with its own limitations and must unreservedly admit to problems, warts and all."[44] Controversy over MBH 1998 On 11 May, contrarian Pat Michaels objected to press headlines such as "Proof of Greenhouse Warming" and "1990s Warmest Since 1400" in a feature he titled "Science Pundits Miss Big Picture Again" published on his Western Fuels Association funded World Climate Report website. He asserted that "almost all of the warming described in the article took place before 1935–long before major changes to the greenhouse effect–and the scientific methodology guarantees that the early 1990s should appear as the warmest years", citing the papers by Jones to support his view that all of the warming took place between 1920 and 1935, "In other words, if this is the human signal, it ended 63 years ago." He referred to his earlier pieces making the same complaint about the Bradley & Jones 1993 study featured in the Second Assessment Report, and about Overpeck et al. 1997.[45] The George C. Marshall Institute alleged in June 1998 that MBH98 was deceptive in only going back to 1400: "Go back just a few hundred years more to the period 1000–1200 AD and you find that the climate was considerably warmer than now. This era is known as the Medieval Warm Period." It said that "by 1300 it began to cool, and by 1400 we were well into the Little Ice Age. It is no surprise that temperatures in 1997 were warmer than they were in the Little Ice Age", and so if "1997 had been compared with the years around 1000 AD, 1997 would have looked like a rather cool year" rather than being the warmest on record. It said that the Medieval Warm Period predated industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and had a natural origin.[46] In August, criticisms by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas were published by Michaels on his World Climate Report website. They took issue with tree ring reconstructions by Briffa et al. 1998 and Jones 1998 as well as with MBH98, discussing the tree ring divergence problem as well as arguing that warming had ended early in the 20th century before CO2 increases and so was natural. They reiterated the suggestion that MBH98 only went back to 1400 to avoid showing the Medieval Warm Period, and implied that it too suffered from the tree ring divergence problem which actually affected a different reconstruction and not MBH98. Michaels subsequently gave Mann the opportunity to post a reply on the website in September 1998.[47] In October 1998 the borehole reconstruction published by Pollack, Huang and Shen gave independent support to the conclusion that 20th century warmth was exceptional for the past 500 years.[48] Jones et al. 1998 Jones, Keith Briffa, Tim P. Barnett and Simon Tett had independently produced a "Composite Plus Scale" (CPS) reconstruction extending back for a thousand years, comparing tree ring, coral layer, and glacial proxy records, but not specifically estimating uncertainties. Jones et al. 1998 was submitted to The Holocene on 16 October 1997; their revised manuscript was accepted on 3 February and published in May 1998. As Bradley recalls, Mann's initial view was that there was too little information and too much uncertainty to go back so far, but Bradley said "Why don't we try to use the same approach we used in Nature, and see if we could push it back a bit further?" Within a few weeks, Mann responded that to his surprise, "There is a certain amount of skill. We can actually say something, although there are large uncertainties."[7][49] Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1999 In considering the 1998 Jones et al. reconstruction which went back a thousand years, Mann, Bradley and Hughes reviewed their own research and reexamined 24 proxy records which extended back before 1400. Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests, removing each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result. He found that certain proxies were critical to the reliability of the reconstruction, particularly one tree ring dataset collected by Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D'Arrigo in a part of North America that Bradley's earlier research had identified as a key region.[50] This dataset only extended back to 1400, and though another proxy dataset from the same region (in the International Tree-Ring Data Bank) went further back and should have given reliable proxies for earlier periods, validation tests only supported their reconstruction after 1400. To find out why, Mann compared the two datasets and found that they tracked each other closely from 1400 to 1800, then diverged until around 1900 when they again tracked each other. He found a likely reason in the CO2 "fertilisation effect" affecting tree rings as identified by Graybill and Idso, with the effect ending once CO2 levels had increased to the point where warmth again became the key factor controlling tree growth at high altitude. Mann used comparisons with other tree ring data from the region to produce a corrected version of this dataset. Their reconstruction using this corrected dataset passed the validation tests for the extended period, but they were cautious about the increased uncertainties.[51] The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1,000 years (MBH99) was submitted in October 1998 to Geophysical Research Letters which published it in March 1999 with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations to emphasise the increasing uncertainty involved in reconstructions of the period before 1400 when fewer proxies were available.[7][52] A University of Massachusetts Amherst news release dated 3 March 1999 announced publication in the 15 March issue of Geophysical Research Letters, "strongly suggesting that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, with 1998 the warmest year so far." Bradley was quoted as saying "Temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented", while Mann said "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can’t quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years. Though substantial uncertainties exist in the estimates, these are nonetheless startling revelations." While the reconstruction supported theories of a relatively warm medieval period, Hughes said "even the warmer intervals in the reconstruction pale in comparison with mid-to-late 20th-century temperatures."[53] The New York Times report had a colored version of the graph, distinguishing the instrumental record from the proxy evidence and emphasising the increasing range of possible error in earlier times, which MBH said would "preclude, as yet, any definitive conclusions" about climate before 1400.[54] The reconstruction found significant variability around a long-term cooling trend of –0.02 °C per century, as expected from orbital forcing, interrupted in the 20th century by rapid warming which stood out from the whole period, with the 1990s "the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence." The time series line graph Figure 2(a) showed their reconstruction from AD 1000 to 1980 as a thin line, wavering around a thicker dark 40-year smoothed line. This curve followed a downward trend (shown as a thin dot-dashed line) from a Medieval Warm Period (about as warm as the 1950s) down to a cooler Little Ice Age before rising sharply in the 20th century. Thermometer data shown with a dotted line overlapped the reconstruction for a calibration period from 1902 to 1980, then continued sharply up to 1998. A shaded area showed uncertainties to two standard error limits, in medieval times rising almost as high as recent temperatures.[5][52][55] When Mann gave a talk about the study to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Jerry Mahlman nicknamed the graph the "hockey stick",[7] with the slow cooling trend the "stick", and the anomalous 20th century warming the "blade".[22] Critique and independent reconstructions Briffa and Tim Osborn critically examined MBH99 in a May 1999 detailed study of the uncertainties of various proxies. They raised questions later adopted by critics of Mann's work, including the point that bristlecone pines from the Western U.S. could have been affected by pollution such as rising CO2 levels as well as temperature. The temperature curve was supported by other studies, but most of these shared the limited well dated proxy evidence then available, and so few were truly independent. The uncertainties in earlier times rose as high as those in the reconstruction at 1980, but did not reach the temperatures of later thermometer data. They concluded that although the 20th century was almost certainly the warmest of the millennium, the amount of anthropogenic warming remains uncertain."[56][57] With work progressing on the next IPCC report, Chris Folland told researchers on 22 September 1999 that a figure showing temperature changes over the millennium "is a clear favourite for the policy makers' summary". Two graphs competed: Jones et al. (1998) and MBH99. In November, Jones produced a simplified figure for the cover of the short annual World Meteorological Organization report, which lacks the status of the more important IPCC reports. Two fifty-year smoothed curves going back to 1000 were shown, from MBH99 and Jones et al. (1998), with a third curve to 1400 from Briffa's new paper, combined with modern temperature data bringing the lines up to 1999: in 2010 the lack of a clarity about this change of data was criticised as misleading.[58] Briffa's paper as published in the January 2000 issue of Quaternary Science Reviews showed the unusual warmth of the last century, but cautioned that the impact of human activities on tree growth made it subtly difficult to isolate a clear climate message.[59] In February 2000 Thomas J. Crowley and Thomas S. Lowery's reconstruction incorporated data not used previously. It reached the conclusion that peak Medieval warmth only occurred during two or three short periods of 20 to 30 years, with temperatures around 1950s levels, refuting claims that 20th century warming was not unusual.[60] Reviewing twenty years of progress in palaeoclimatology, Jones noted the reconstructions by Jones et al. (1998), MBH99, Briffa (2000) and Crowley & Lowery (2000) showing good agreement using different methods, but cautioned that use of many of the same proxy series meant that they were not independent, and more work was needed.[61] Controversy over draft of IPCC Third Assessment Report In May 2000, while drafts of the IPCC Third Assessment Report were in the review process, Fred Singer's contrarian Science and Environmental Policy Project held a press event on Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. and alleged that the Summary for Policymakers was a "political document put together by a few scientific bureaucrats." Regarding the draft conclusion that the 20th Century was the warmest in the last 1000 years, he said "We don't accept this. We challenge this". Wibjörn Karlén said the IPCC report "relies extensively on an attempt to reconstruct the global climate during the last 1000 years". In what has become a recurring contrarian theme, he said "This reconstruction shows neither a Medieval Warm Period nor a Little Ice Age. But extensive evidence shows that both these events occurred on a global scale and that climates fluctuated significantly." Mann notes that MBH99 shows both, but the Medieval Warm Period is shown as reaching only mid-20th century levels of warmth and not more recent levels.[62] A hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, chaired by Senator John McCain, was held on 18 July 2000 to discuss the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change (NACC) report on the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change which had been released in June for a 60-day public comment period.[63] Witnesses included Fred Singer, whose statement cited the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol to claim that his skeptic views on human causes of climate change were not fringe. He said there had probably been no global warming since the 1940s, and "Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend." From this, he concluded that "The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted 'hockey stick' graph (with its 'unusual' temperature rise in the past 100 years)".[64] The NACC report as published stated that "New studies indicate that temperatures in recent decades are higher than at any time in at least the past 1,000 years" and featured graphs showing "1000 Years of Global CO2 and Temperature Change". Its list of sources said that the temperature data was from MBH99, but the graph did not show error bars or show which part was reconstruction and which was the instrumental record.[65] Contrarian John Lawrence Daly commented on the TAR draft and the NACC report in a blog posting which alleged that the IPCC 1995 report which reported "a discernible human influence on global climate" had also "presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD", showing a graph which resembled the IPCC 1990 Figure 7.1.c schematic but with changed wording. He wrote that this graph "asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today", and described climate changes as due to solar variation. He said that the MBH99 hockey stick graph swiftly "altered the whole landscape of how past climate history was to be interpreted by the greenhouse sciences" and "in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history", so that soon afterwards "Overturning its own previous view in the 1995 report, the IPCC presented the `Hockey Stick' as the new orthodoxy with hardly an apology or explanation for the abrupt U-turn since its 1995 report." Around two years later he revised his post to refer to IPCC 1990 rather than the 1995 report.[66] IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001 The Working Group 1 (WG1) part of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a subsection on multi-proxy synthesis of recent temperature change. This noted five earlier large-scale palaeoclimate reconstructions, then discussed the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 reconstruction going back to 1400 AD and its extension back to 1000 AD in Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99), while emphasising the substantial uncertainties in the earlier period. The MBH99 conclusion that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, with "likely" defined as "66-90% chance", was supported by reconstructions by Crowley & Lowery 2000 and by Jones et al. 1998 using different data and methods. The Pollack, Huang & Shen 1998 reconstruction covering the past 500 years gave independent support for this conclusion, which was compared against the independent (extra-tropical, warm-season) tree-ring density NH temperature reconstruction of Briffa 2000.[6] Its Figure 2.21 showed smoothed curves from the MBH99, Jones et al. and Briffa reconstructions, together with modern thermometer data as a red line and the grey shaded 95% confidence range from MBH99. Above it, figure 2.20 was adapted from MBH99.[6] Figure 5 in WG1 Technical Summary B (as shown to the right) repeated this figure without the linear trend line declining from AD 1000 to 1850.[67] This iconic graph adapted from MBH99 was featured prominently in the WG1 Summary for Policymakers under a graph of the instrumental temperature record for the past 140 years. The text stated that it was "likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" in the past 1,000 years.[68] Versions of these graphs also featured less prominently in the short Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, which included a sentence stating that "The increase in surface temperature over the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than that for any other century in the last thousand years", and the Synthesis Report - Questions.[69] The Working Group 1 scientific basis report was agreed unanimously by all member government representatives in January 2001 at a meeting held in Shanghai, China. A large poster of the IPCC illustration based on the MBH99 graph formed the backdrop when Sir John T. Houghton, as Co-Chair of the working group, presented the report in an announcement shown on television, leading to wide publicity.[7][70] The original MBH98 and MBH99 papers avoided undue representation of large numbers of tree ring proxies by using a principal component analysis step to summarise these proxy networks, but from 2001 Mann stopped using this method and introduced a multivariate Climate Field Reconstruction (CFR) technique based on the regularized expectation–maximization (RegEM) method which did not require this PCA step. A paper he published jointly with Scott Rutherford examined the accuracy of this method, and discussed the issue that regression methods of reconstruction tended to underestimate the amplitude of variation.[71] Controversy after IPCC Third Assessment Report IPCC graph enters political controversy Rather than displaying all of the long-term temperature reconstructions, the opening figure of the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) highlighted an IPCC illustration based only on the MBH99 paper,[68] and a poster of the hockey stick graph was the backdrop when the report was presented in January 2001,[70] in a televised announcement. The graph was seen by mass media and the public as central to the IPCC case for global warming, which had actually been based on other unrelated evidence. Jerry Mahlman, who had coined the "hockey stick" nickname, described this emphasis on the graph as "a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it." He added that it was "not the smoking gun. That's the data we've had for the past 150 years, which is quite consistent with the expectation that the climate is continuing to warm."[7] From an expert viewpoint the graph was, like all newly published science, preliminary and uncertain, but it was widely used to publicise the issue of global warming.[5] The 1999 study had been a pioneering work in progress, and had emphasised the uncertainties, but publicity often played this down. Mann later said "The label was always a caricature and it became a stick to beat us with".[12] Controversy over the graph extended outside the scientific community, with accusations from political opponents of climate science.[12] Science historian Spencer Weart states that "The dedicated minority who denied that there was any global warming problem promptly attacked the calculations."[5] The graph was targeted by those opposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. As Mann said, "Advocates on both sides of the climate-change debate at various times have misrepresented the results for their own purposes". Environmental groups presented the graph flatteringly, and the caution about uncertainty in the original graph tended to be understated or removed: a "hockey stick" graph without error bars featured in the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change report. Similar graphs were used by those disputing the findings with the claim that the graph was inaccurate. When a later Wall Street Journal editorial used a graph without error bars in this way, Gerald North described this as "very misleading, in fact downright dishonest". Funding was provided by the American Petroleum Institute for research critical of the graph.[7] A paper by Chris de Freitas published by the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists in June 2002 argued against the IPCC findings and the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that global warming posed no danger and CO2 was innocuous. A section disputing the "hockey stick" curve concluded it was merely a mathematical construct promoted by the IPCC to support the "notion" that recent temperatures were unprecedented.[72] Towards the end of 2002, the book Taken By Storm : the troubled science, policy, and politics of global warming by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick, published with assistance from the Fraser Institute,[73] included a chapter about the graph titled "T-Rex Plays Hockey".[74][75] Iconic use of the IPCC graph came to symbolise conflict in which mainstream climate scientists were criticised, with some sceptics focussing on the hockey stick graph in the hope that they could damage the credence given to climate scientists.[76] Soon & Baliunas and Inhofe's hoax accusation See also: Soon and Baliunas controversy An early attempt to refute the hockey stick graph appeared in a joint paper by Willie Soon, who had already argued that climate change was primarily due to solar variation, and Sallie Baliunas who had contested whether ozone depletion was due to man-made chemicals.[77][78] The Soon and Baliunas literature review used data from previous papers to argue that the Medieval Warm Period had been warmer than the 20th century, and that recent warming was not unusual. They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas, an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions who has been characterized by Fred Pearce as a "climate contrarian". Chris de Freitas approved the paper for publication in the relatively obscure journal Climate Research, where it appeared on 31 January 2003. In March Soon and Baliunas published an extended paper in Energy & Environment along with others including David Legates. Two scientists cited in the papers later said that their work was misrepresented.[79][80][81] The Bush administration's Council on Environmental Quality chief of staff Philip Cooney, a lawyer who had formerly been a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, edited the draft first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment to remove all references to reconstructions showing world temperatures rising over the last 1,000 years, and inserted a reference to Soon & Baliunas. He wrote in a 21 April 2003 memo that "The recent paper of Soon-Baliunas contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community".[82] The Climate Research paper was criticised by many other scientists, including several of the journal's editors.[10] In a BBC interview, while Legates said their paper showed the MBH data and methods were invalid, Phil Jones said "This isn't a scientific paper, it's absolutely awful."[8] On 8 July Eos featured a detailed rebuttal of both papers by 13 scientists including Mann and Jones, presenting strong evidence that Soon and Baliunas had used improper statistical methods. Responding to the controversy, the publisher of Climate Research upgraded Hans von Storch from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August 2003. After seeing a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, von Storch decided that the Soon and Baliunas paper was seriously flawed and should not have been published as it was. He proposed a new editorial system, and an editorial saying that the review process had failed.[79][83] When the McCain-Lieberman bill proposing restrictions on greenhouse gases was being debated in the Senate on 28 July 2003, Senator James M. Inhofe made a two-hour speech opposing the bill. He cited the Soon and Baliunas paper to support his conclusion: "Wake up, America. With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? I believe it is."[10][84] Inhofe convened a hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held on 29 July 2003, examining work by the small group of researchers saying there was no evidence of significant human-caused global warming. Three scientists were invited, Mann giving testimony supporting the consensus position, opposed by long-term skeptics Willie Soon and David Legates.[10][85] The Soon and Baliunas paper was discussed. Senator Jeffords read out an email in which von Storch stated his view "that the review of the Soon et al. paper failed to detect significant methodological flaws in the paper. The critique published in the Eos journal by Mann et al. is valid." In reply, Mann testified "I believe it is the mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that paper. They got just about everything wrong."[79][85] He later recalled that he "left that meeting having demonstrated what the mainstream views on climate science are."[86] The publisher of Climate Research agreed that the flawed Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published uncorrected, but von Storch's proposals to improve the editorial process were rejected, and von Storch with three other board members resigned. News of his resignation was discussed at the senate committee hearing.[79][85] McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol became a major political issue in Canada, and the government issued pamphlets which said that the "20th century was the warmest globally in the past 1,000 years". Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre saw this as based on the hockey stick graph, and in 2003 he became interested in the IPCC process which had featured the graph prominently. With a background in mineral exploration, including the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy, he felt that he had the mathematical expertise and experience to independently audit the graph.[87][88] McIntyre downloaded datasets for MBH99 from a ftp server, but could not locate the ftp site for MBH98 datasets and on 8 April wrote to Mann to request this information. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April 2003.[89] McIntyre then made a series of comments about the data on the internet discussion group climateskeptics, and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen suggested that he should write and submit an article on the topic. She edited the little-known social science journal Energy & Environment which avoided standard peer review and had recently published the extended Soon and Baliunas paper. McIntyre agreed, and made contact with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute which opposed the Kyoto treaty, and co-author of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.[88][90] McIntyre drafted an article before they first met on 19 September 2003, and they then worked together intensively on an extensive re-write. McKitrick suggested submitting the paper to Nature, but after drafting a short version to fit the word limit they submitted the full paper to Energy & Environment on 2 October. After review, resubmission on 14 October and further corrections, the paper was published on the web on 27 October 2003, only three and a half weeks after its first submission.[91][92] Boehmer-Christiansen later said that she had published the paper quickly "for policy impact reasons, eg publication well before COP9", the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in December 2003.[93] At the same time that the McIntyre and McKitrick (MM03) paper "Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" was published on the web, McIntyre set up climate2003 as a web site for the paper.[94][95] Disputed data McIntyre and McKitrick said that they had not been able to replicate the Mann, Bradley and Hughes results due to problems with the data: although the sparse data for the earlier periods was difficult to analyse, their criticism was comprehensively refuted by Wahl & Ammann 2007.[77] The McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 paper (MM03) said that Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) "hockey stick" shape was "primarily an artefact of poor data handling and use of obsolete proxy records." It listed data issues, and stated that when they applied the MBH98 method to corrected data, "The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century." They disputed infilled data and had computed principal components analysis using standard algorithms, but said that these "algorithms fail in the presence of missing data". When they used this method on revised data they got different results, and concluded that the “hockey stick” shape "is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components."[94] A draft response by Mann, Bradley and Hughes was put on the University of Virginia website on 1 November 2003, and amended two days later. They said that MM03 appeared seriously flawed as it "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98", having deleted key proxy information. In particular, MM03 had misunderstood the stepwise reconstruction technique MBH98 applied. This made use of all the progressively richer and more widespread networks available for later periods by calculating separately principal components for each period of overlapping datasets, for example 1400–1980, 1450–1980, and so on. In treating these as one series with missing information, MM03 had eliminated whole datasets covering the 15th century. The data which MM03 reported difficulty in finding had been available since May 2000 on the Johans Aleksandrs Heinrihs Klapje de Kolongs – – naval engineer Eliass Eliezers Desslers – – Orthodox rabbi Talmudic scholar and Jewish philosopher Leor Dimant born – the DJ for the rap metal group Limp Bizkit Anatols Dinbergs – – diplomat Aleksis Dreimanis born – geologist Inga Drozdova born – model and actress Olgerts Dunkers – – actor and film director E edit Mihails Eizenšteins – – architect Sergejs Eizenšteins – – film director Modris Eksteins born – Canadian historian and writer Andrievs Ezergailis born – historian of the Holocaust F edit Movša Feigins – – chess player Gregors Fitelbergs – – conductor composer and violinist Vesels fon Freitags Loringhofens – – colonel and member of the German resistance against German dictator Adolf Hitler Laila Freivalds born – former Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs G edit Inese Galante born – opera singer soprano Gints Gabrans born – artist Elina Garanca born – opera singer mezzo soprano Karlis Goppers – – general founder of Latvian Boy Scouts Andrejs Grants born – photographer Ernests Gulbis born – tennis player Natalija Gulbis born – Latvian descent LPGA golfer G edit Uldis Germanis – – historian under the alias of Ulafs Jansons a social commentator Aivars Gipslis – – chess player H edit Moriss Halle born – linguist Filips Halsmans – – Latvian American photographer Juris Hartmanis born – computer scientist Turing Award winner Uvis Helmanis – basketball player I edit Arturs Irbe born – ice hockey player goalkeeper Karlis Irbitis – – aviation inventor engineer designer J edit Gatis Jahovics – basketball player Mariss Jansons born – conductor Inese Jaunzeme born – athlete Rashida Jones born Latvian American actress K edit Aivars Kalejs born organist composer Sandra Kalniete born – politician diplomat former Latvia s EU commissioner Bruno Kalninš – – Saeima member Red Army General Imants Kalninš born – composer politician Oskars Kalpaks – – colonel first Commander of Latvian National Armed Forces Kaspars Kambala born – basketball player Martinš Karsums born – ice hockey player Reinis Kaudzite writer and journalist Renars Kaupers – musician Jekabs Ketlers – – Duke of the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia Gustavs Klucis – – painter and graphic designer Aleksandrs Koblencs – – chess player Abrams Izaks Kuks – – chief rabbi Jewish thinker statesman diplomat mediator and a renowned scholar Aleksandrs Kovalevskis – – zoologist Gidons Kremers born – violinist and conductor Mikelis Krogzems – – poet author and translator of German poets Juris Kronbergs born – poet writer free lance journalist translator Atis Kronvalds – – teacher and journalist reformed the Latvian language organized the first Latvian Song and Dance Festival Dainis Kula born – athlete Olympic gold medal in javelin Alberts Kviesis – – president of Latvia L edit Aleksandrs Laime – – explorer Vilis Lacis – – author and politician Ginta Lapina born – fashion model Natalija Lašenova – gymnastics Olympic champion team Ed Leedskalnin Edvards Liedskalninš – – builder of Coral Castle in Florida claimed to have discovered the ancient magnetic levitation secrets used to construct the Egyptian pyramids Jekabs Mihaels Reinholds Lencs – – author Marija Leiko – – actress Aleksandrs Liepa – – inventor artist Maris Liepa – – ballet dancer Maksims Lihacovs born – professional football player Peggy Lipton born Latvian American actress Nikolajs Loskis – – philosopher Janis Lusis born – athlete Olympic champion L edit Jevgenija Lisicina born – organist M edit Maris Martinsons born film director producer screenwriter and film editor Hermanis Matisons – – chess player Zenta Maurina – – writer literary scholar culture philosopher Juris Maters – – author lawyer and journalist translated laws to Latvian and created the foundation for Latvian law Janis Medenis poet Arnis Mednis singer Zigfrids Anna Meierovics – – first Latvian Minister of Foreign Affairs Leo Mihelsons – – artist Arnolds Mikelsons – – artist Jevgenijs Millers – – czarist Russian general Karlis Milenbahs – – linguist N edit Arkadijs Naidics born – chess player now resident in Germany Andris Nelsons born – conductor of The Boston Symphony Orchestra Andrievs Niedra – – pastor writer prime minister of German puppet government Arons Nimcovics – – influential chess player Reinis Nitišs born World Rallycross driver Fred Norris born – Radio personality The Howard Stern Show O edit Stanislavs Olijars born – athlete European champion in m Hurdles Vilhelms Ostvalds – – received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in for his work on catalysis chemical equilibria and reaction velocities Elvira Ozolina born – athlete Olympic gold medal in javelin Sandis Ozolinš born – ice hockey player defense Valdemars Ozolinš – – composer conductor P edit Artis Pabriks born – Minister of Foreign Affairs – Karlis Padegs – – Graphic artist painter Marians Pahars born – soccer player Raimonds Pauls born – popular composer widely known in Russia Lucija Peka – – Artist of the Latvian Diaspora Jekabs Peterss – – revolutionary and Soviet Cheka leader Brita Petersone – American model Kaspars Petrovs born – serial killer Vladimirs Petrovs – – chess player Oskars Perro – Latvian soldier and writer Andris Piebalgs born – politician diplomat European Commissioner for Energy Janis Pliekšans – – distinguished Latvian writer author of a number of poetry collections Juris Podnieks – – film director producer Nikolajs Polakovs – – Coco the Clown Janis Poruks writer Rosa von Praunheim born – film director author painter and gay rights activist Sandis Prusis born – athlete bobsleigh Uldis Pucitis actor director Janis Pujats born – Roman Catholic cardinal Andrejs Pumpurs – – poet author of Latvian national epic Lacplesis R edit Rainis pseudonym of Janis Pliekšans poet and playwright Dans Rapoports American financier and philanthropist Lauris Reiniks – singer songwriter actor and TV personality Einars Repše born – politician Lolita Ritmanis born – orchestrator composer Ilja Ripss born inventor of the Bible Code Fricis Rokpelnis – – author Marks Rotko – – abstract expressionist painter Elza Rozenberga – – poet playwright married to Janis Pliekšans Juris Rubenis born – famous Lutheran pastor Martinš Rubenis born – athlete bronze medalist at the Winter Olympics in Turin Brunis Rubess born – businessman Inta Ruka born – photographer Tana Rusova born – pornographic actress S edit Rudolfs Saule born ballet master performer with the Latvian National Ballet Uljana Semjonova born – basketball player Haralds Silovs – short track and long track speed skater Karlis Skalbe – – poet Karlis Skrastinš – – ice hockey player Baiba Skride born – violinist Konstantins Sokolskis – – romance and tango singer Ksenia Solo born Latvian Canadian actress Serge Sorokko born art dealer and publisher Raimonds Staprans born – Latvian American painter Janis Šteinhauers – – Latvian industrialist entrepreneur and civil rights activist Gotthard Friedrich Stender – the first Latvian grammarian Lina Šterna – – biologist and social activist Roze Stiebra born animator Henrijs Stolovs – – stamp dealer Janis Streics born – film director screenwriter actor Janis Strelnieks born – basketball player Peteris Stucka – – author translator editor jurist and educator Janis Sudrabkalns poet and journalist Jevgenijs Svešnikovs born – prominent chess player Stanislavs Svjanevics – – economist and historian Š edit Viktors Šcerbatihs born – athlete weightlifter Pauls Šimanis – – Baltic German journalist politician activist defending and preserving European minority cultures Vestards Šimkus born – pianist Aleksejs Širovs born – chess player Andris Škele born – politician Prime Minister of Latvia Armands Škele – basketball player Ksenia Solo born – actress Ernests Štalbergs – – architect ensemble of the Freedom Monument Izaks Nahmans Šteinbergs – – politician lawyer and author Maris Štrombergs – BMX cyclist gold medal winner at and Olympics T edit Esther Takeuchi born – materials scientist and chemical engineer Mihails Tals – – the th World Chess Champion Janis Roberts Tilbergs – – painter sculptor U edit Guntis Ulmanis born – president of Latvia Karlis Ulmanis – – prime minister and president of Latvia


abby-lane abby-rode abigail-clayton ada-tauler addie-juniper addison-cain adele-wiesenthal adeline-lange adeline-pollicina adriana-amante adrianna-laurenti adrianna-russo agnes agnes-ardant agnes-zalontai aimee-addison aisha-sun aja aleena-ferari alessandra-schiavo aletta-ocean alexandra-nice alexandria-cass alexa-parks alex-dane alex-foxe alexia-knight alexis-devell alexis-firestone alexis-greco alexis-payne alexis-x alex-storm alex-white aliana-love alice-springs alicia-alighatti alicia-monet alicia-rio alicyn-sterling alighiera-olena ali-moore aline-santos alissa-ashley allysin-chaynes alysin-embers alyssa-love alyssa-reece amanda-addams amanda-blake amanda-blue amanda-jane-adams amanda-rae amanda-stone amanda-tyler amber-hunt amberlina-lynn amber-lynn amber-michaels amber-peach amber-wild amber-woods ambrosia-fox amia-miley ami-rodgers amy-allison amy-brooke amy-rose amy-starz anastasia-christ anastasia-sands andrea-adams andrea-brittian andrea-lange andrea-true andy angel angela-baron angela-summers angel-barrett angel-cash angel-cruz angel-cummings angel-ducharme angelica-sin angelika-reschner angelina-brasini angelina-korrs angelina-valentine angel-kelly angel-long angel-west angie-knight anita-andic anita-blond anita-cannibal anita-dark anna-belle anna-malle anna-nikova anna-pierce anna-ventura anna-veruska anne-bie-warburg anne-libert anne-magle anne-sand annette-haven annie-sprinkle ann-kiray ann-marie-michelle antonia-dorian april-flowers april-may april-west arcadia-lake ariana-bali ariana-jollee arlana-blue ashley-anne ashley-brooks ashley-coda ashley-fires ashley-lauren ashley-long ashley-marie ashley-nicole ashley-perk ashley-renee ashley-robbins ashley-welles ashley-wells ashley-winger ashlyn-gere astrid-bone athena-star aubrey-nichols aurora aurora-snow autumn-bliss autumn-rayne ava-devine ava-lauren avalon ava-marteens avy-lee-roth bailey-monroe bambi-allen barbara-bourbon barbara-boutet barbara-dare barbara-doll barbara-moose barbarella barbie-angel barbie-doll barett-moore bea-fiedler beata beatrice-poggi beatrice-valle becky-savage becky-sunshine belinda-butterfield bella-donna bethany-sweet beverly-bliss beverly-glen biggi-stenzhorn bionca black-widow blond-cat blondi blue-angel bobbi-bliss bobbi-dean bobbie-burns bonnie-holiday brandee brandi-edwards brandy-alexandre brandy-dean brandy-lee brandy-smile brandy-wine bree-anthony breezy-lane brenda-basse briana-blair bridgette-belle bridgette-monet bridgette-monroe bridget-waters brigitte-lahaie brigitte-monnin brigitte-verbecq brittany brittany-stryker britt-corvin britt-morgan bronze brooke-bennett brooke-fields brooke-haven brooke-west brook-van-buuren buffy-davis bunnie-blake bunny-bleu bunny-hatton busty-belle cali-caramel calisyn-heart cameo cameron-love camila-sampaio camilla-rhodes camille-morgan camrie-foxxx candace-daley candi candida-royalle candie-evens candi-summers candy-apples candy-barr candy-hill candy-samples candy-stanton cara-lott caressa-savage carmel-nougat carmen-blonde carmen-de-la-torre carmen-moore carmen-rose carol-connors carol-cross carol-cummings carole-dubois carole-gire carole-pierac carol-titian carolyn-connoly carolyn-monroe carrie-cruise cassandra-leigh cassidy cassie-courtland cataline-bullock catherine-count catherine-crystal catherine-ringer catherine-tailleferre cathy-delorme cathy-menard cathy-stewart celeste-fox celine-gallone chanel-preston chanel-price chantal-virapin chanta-rose chantelle-stevens charisma charisma-cole charlie-latour charlie-waters charlotte-de-castille charmane-star chasey-lain chayse-manhattan chaz-vincent chelsea-sinclaire chennin-blanc cheri-janvier cheri-taylor cherry-hill chessie-moore cheyenne-hunter cheyenne-silver china-lee china-leigh china-moon chloe-cruize chloe-dior chloe-kez chloe-stevens chris-collins chris-jordan chris-petersen chrissie-beauchamp christa-abel christa-ludwig christie-ford christi-lake christina-berg christina-blond christina-evol christina-skye christine-black christine-chavert christine-neona christine-rigoler christy-canyon cicciolina cindi-stephens cindy-carver cindy-crawford cindy-more cindy-shepard cindy-wong cinthya-marinho clair-dia claire-robbins claude-janna claudia-jackson claudia-jamsson claudia-mehringer claudia-nero claudia-van-statt claudia-zante claudine-beccarie clea-carson cleo-nichole cleo-patra cody-lane cody-love cody-nicole coffee-brown colleen-brennan connie-bennett connie-peterson constance-money copper-penny coreena corey-everson corinne-lemoine corneliah cory-everson cory-wolf courtney courtney-cummz courtney-james cris-cassidy crissy-moran cris-taliana crystal-breeze crystal-dawn crystal-holland crystal-knight crystal-lake crystal-lovin crystal-sync csilla-kalnay cuban-bee cynara-fox cyndee-summers cynthia-black cynthia-brooks cynthia-hammers cynthia-lavigne dagmar-lost daisy-layne dallas-miko dana-dylan dana-lynn danica-rhea daniela-nanou daniela-schiffer daniele-troeger daniella daniella-schiffer danielle danielle-foxxx danielle-rodgers danny-ricci danyel-cheeks daphne daphne-rosen darby-lloyd-rains darla-crane darla-delovely davia-ardell dayton-rain debbie-northrup debbie-revenge debbie-van-gils debi-diamond debi-jointed debra-lynn deidra-hopkins deidre-holland delania-raffino delia-moore delphine-thail delta-force delta-white demi-moor denice-klarskov denise-derringer denise-dior denise-sloan desiree-cousteau desiree-foxx desiree-lane desiree-west deva-station devin-devasquez devinn-lane devon-shire dia diana-holt diana-kisabonyi diana-siefert diana-stevenson diane-dubois diane-richards diane-sloan diane-suresne dido-angel dillan-lauren dina-deville dina-jewel dina-pearl ditty-blue diva divinity-love djiana dolly-darkley dominique dominique-dewitt dominique-saint-claire donna-hart donna-marie dorle-buchner dorothy-lemay dorothy-onan drea drimla dru-berrymore dusty-rose dyanna-lauren ebony-ayes edina-blond edita-ungerova edwige-faillel eileen-wells elaine-southern elena-berkova elena-maria-ricci eleonore-melzer elisabeth-bure elis-black elise elise-di-medici elle-devyne elle-rio elodie-delage elsa-maroussia elza-brown emili-doll emily-evermoore emily-george emily-jewel emmanuelle-pareze envy-mi erica-boyer erica-eaton erica-havens erica-idol erica-lauren erika-bella erika-cool erika-heaven erika-lockett esme-monroe eva-allen eva-angel eva-dionisio eva-gross eva-kleber eva-lux eva-uettori eve-laurence evelyne-lang evie-delatosso fabiana-venturi faith-stevens fallon fanny-garreau fanny-steel faye-runaway flame flick-shagwell flore-soller flower france-lomay france-quenie francoise frankie-leigh gabriella gabriella-mirelba gabriella-vincze gail-force gail-palmer gail-sterling georgette-saunders georgia-peach georgina-spelvin gia-givanna gianna-lynn gili-sky gina-carrera gina-gianetti gina-janssen gina-lee gina-martell gina-valentino ginger-jay ginger-lee ginger-lynn ginny-noack giovanna gisela-schwarz giselle-monet gladys-laroche gloria-leonard gloria-todd golden-jade greta-carlson greta-milos guia-lauri-filzi gwenda-farnel hare-krane harley-raine hayley-jade hazel-young heather-deeley heather-ellis heather-hart heather-lere heather-lyn heather-manfield heather-thomas heather-torrance heather-wayne heather-young helen-madigan helen-thomas helga-sven helga-wild hillary-summers holly-hollywood holly-joy holly-page holly-ryder honey-winter hottie-hollie hyapatia-lee ida-fabry ildiko-smits illana-moor ines-ridere ingrid-choray isabella-dior isabella-soprano isabelle-allay isabelle-brell isabelle-marchall isobel-wren iveta ivette-blanche jackie-right jacqueline-lorians jacy-allen jada-stevens jade-east jade-hsu jade-marcela jade-summers jade-wong jahn-gold jamie-brooks jamie-james jamie-summers jana-irrova jana-mrazkova jane-baker jane-darling jane-iwanoff jane-lindsay jane-lixx janet-jacme janey-robbins jasmine-delatori jayden-simone jaylyn-rose jayna-woods jazella-moore jazmin-luna-gold jean-afrique jeanette-littledove jeanie-marie-sullivan jean-jennings jeanna-fine jeannie-pepper jenna-jameson jenna-jane jenna-presley jenna-wells jennifer-haussmann jennifer-janes jennifer-jordan jennifer-morante jennifer-noxt jennifer-stewart jennifer-welles jennifer-west jenny jenny-feeling jenny-fields jenny-wings jersey-jaxin jesie-st-james jesse-capelli jessica-bangkok jessica-bogart jessica-darlin jessica-fiorentino jessica-gabriel jessica-laine jessica-may jessica-road jessica-wylde jessi-foster jill-ferari jill-kelly joana-redgrave joan-devlon joanna-storm joanna-sweet jody-maxwell joelle-lequement joelle-petinot johnni-black jordana-james jordan-green jordan-nevaeh jordan-star josephine-carrington joslyn-james julia-chanel julia-dal-fuoco juliana-grandi julia-paes julia-parton julia-perrin julia-swen julia-thomas julie-meadows julie-rage julie-simone juliet-anderson juliet-graham juliette-carelton kacey-jordan kagney-linn-karter kaitlyn-ashley kalena-rios kami-andrews kamila-smith kandee-licks kandi-barbour kapri-styles kara-nox karen-summer kari-foxx karine-gambier karin-schubert karli-sweet karmen-kennedy karol-castro kascha kassi-nova kat kate-frost kate-jones kathia-nobili kathleen-gentry kathleen-white kathy-divan kathy-harcourt kathy-heart kathy-kash katie-cummings katja-love kat-langer katrina-isis katrina-kraven katy-borman katy-caro kaycee-dean kayla-kupcakes kay-parker k-c-valentine keama-kim keira-moon keisha keli-richards kelli-tyler kelly-adams kelly-blue kelly-broox kelly-hearn kelly-kay kelly-kline kelly-nichols kelly-royce kelly-skyline kendra-kay kenzi-marie keri-windsor ketthy-divan kianna-dior kiley-heart kim-alexis kimber-blake kimberly-carson kimberly-kane kimberly-kyle kim-de-place kim-holland kimi-gee kimkim-de kim-kitaine kimmie-lee kimmy-nipples kina-kara kira-eggers kira-red kirsty-waay kitty-langdon kitty-lynxxx kitty-marie kitty-shayne kitty-yung kora-cummings kris-lara krista-lane krista-maze kristara-barrington kristarah-knight kristi-klenot kristina-blonde kristina-king kristina-klevits kristina-soderszk kristine-heller kristin-steen krisztina-ventura krystal-de-boor krystal-steal kylee-karr kylee-nash kylie-brooks kylie-channel kylie-haze kylie-wylde kym-wilde kyoto-sun lachelle-marie lacy-rose lady-amanda-wyldefyre lady-stephanie laetitia-bisset lana-burner lana-cox lana-wood lara-amour lara-roxx lara-stevens lataya-roxx latoya laura-clair laura-lazare laura-lion laura-may laura-orsolya laura-paouck laura-zanzibar lauren-black laurence-boutin lauren-montgomery laurien-dominique laurien-wilde laurie-smith lauryl-canyon lauryn-may leah-wilde lea-magic lea-martini leanna-foxxx lee-caroll leigh-livingston leilani lenora-bruce leslie-winston lesllie-bovee letizia-bruni lexi-lane lexi-matthews lezley-zen lia-fire liliane-gray liliane-lemieuvre lili-marlene lily-gilder lily-labeau lily-rodgers lily-valentine linda-shaw linda-vale linda-wong linnea-quigley lisa-bright lisa-de-leeuw lisa-k-loring lisa-lake lisa-melendez lisa-sue-corey lise-pinson little-oral-annie liza-dwyer liza-harper lizzy-borden logan-labrent lois-ayres lola-cait long-jean-silver loni-bunny loni-sanders loona-luxx lorelei-lee lorelei-rand lorena-sanchez lori-alexia lori-blue lorrie-lovett luci-diamond lucie-doll lucie-theodorova lucy-van-dam lydia-baum lynn-franciss lynn-lemay lynn-ray lynn-stevens lynx-canon lysa-thatcher madelina-ray madison-parker magdalena-lynn maggie-randall mai-lin mandi-wine mandy-bright mandy-malone mandy-may mandy-mistery mandy-starr marcia-minor maren margit-ojetz margitta-hofer margo-stevens margot-mahler mariah-cherry marianne-aubert maria-tortuga marie-anne marie-christine-chireix marie-christine-veroda marie-claude-moreau marie-dominique-cabannes marie-france-morel marie-luise-lusewitz marie-sharp marilyn-chambers marilyne-leroy marilyn-gee marilyn-jess marilyn-martyn marilyn-star marina-hedman marion-webb marita-ekberg marita-kemper marlena marlene-willoughby marry-queen martine-grimaud martine-schultz maryanne-fisher mary-hubay mary-ramunno mary-stuart mascha-mouton maud-kennedy mauvais-denoir maxine-tyler maya-black maya-france megan-leigh megan-martinez megan-reece mei-ling melanie-hotlips melanie-scott melba-cruz melinda-russell melissa-bonsardo melissa-del-prado melissa-golden melissa-martinez melissa-melendez melissa-monet mercedes-dragon mercedes-lynn merle-michaels mesha-lynn mia-beck mia-lina mia-smiles michele-raven michelle-aston michelle-ferrari michelle-greco michelle-maren michelle-maylene michelle-monroe micki-lynn mika-barthel mika-tan mikki-taylor mimi-morgan mindy-rae ming-toy miranda-stevens miss-bunny miss-meadow miss-pomodoro missy missy-graham missy-stone missy-vega misti-jane mistress-candice misty-anderson misty-dawn misty-rain misty-regan mona-lisa mona-page moni monica-baal monica-swinn monika-peta monika-sandmayr monika-unco monique-bruno monique-cardin monique-charell monique-demoan monique-gabrielle monique-la-belle morgan-fairlane morrigan-hel moxxie-maddron mulani-rivera mysti-may nadege-arnaud nadia-styles nadine-bronx nadine-proutnal nadine-roussial nadi-phuket nanci-suiter nancy-hoffman nancy-vee natacha-delyro natalia-wood natalli-diangelo natascha-throat natasha-skyler naudia-nyce nessa-devil nessy-grant nesty nicki-hunter nicky-reed nicole-berg nicole-bernard nicole-black nicole-grey nicole-london nicole-parks nicole-scott nicole-taylor nicolette-fauludi nicole-west nika-blond nika-mamic niki-cole nikita-love nikita-rush nikki-charm nikki-grand nikki-king nikki-knight nikki-randall nikki-rhodes nikki-santana nikki-steele nikki-wilde niko nina-cherry nina-deponca nina-hartley nina-preta oana-efria obaya-roberts olesja-derevko olga-cabaeva olga-conti olga-pechova olga-petrova olivia-alize olivia-del-rio olivia-flores olivia-la-roche olivia-outre ophelia-tozzi orchidea-keresztes orsolya-blonde paige-turner paisley-hunter pamela-bocchi pamela-jennings pamela-mann pamela-stanford pamela-stealt pandora paola-albini pascale-vital pat-manning pat-rhea patricia-dale patricia-diamond patricia-kennedy patricia-rhomberg patrizia-predan patti-cakes patti-petite paula-brasile paula-harlow paula-morton paula-price paula-winters pauline-teutscher penelope-pumpkins penelope-valentin petra-hermanova petra-lamas peyton-lafferty phaedra-grant pia-snow piper-fawn pipi-anderson porsche-lynn porsha-carrera precious-silver priscillia-lenn purple-passion queeny-love rachel-ashley rachel-love rachel-luv rachel-roxxx rachel-ryan rachel-ryder racquel-darrian rane-revere raven reagan-maddux rebecca-bardoux regan-anthony regine-bardot regula-mertens reina-leone reka-gabor renae-cruz renee-foxx renee-lovins renee-morgan renee-perez renee-summers renee-tiffany rhonda-jo-petty rikki-blake riley-ray rio-mariah rita-ricardo roberta-gemma roberta-pedon robin-byrd robin-cannes robin-everett robin-sane rochell-starr rosa-lee-kimball rosemarie roxanne-blaze roxanne-hall roxanne-rollan ruby-richards sabina-k sabre sabrina-chimaera sabrina-dawn sabrina-jade sabrina-johnson sabrina-love-cox sabrina-mastrolorenzi sabrina-rose sabrina-scott sabrina-summers sacha-davril sahara sahara-sands sai-tai-tiger samantha-fox samantha-ryan samantha-sterlyng samantha-strong samueline-de-la-rosa sandra-cardinale sandra-de-marco sandra-kalermen sandra-russo sandy-lee sandy-pinney sandy-reed sandy-samuel sandy-style sandy-summers sara-brandy-canyon sara-faye sarah-bernard sarah-cabrera sarah-hevyn sarah-mills sarah-shine sara-sloane sasha sasha-hollander sasha-ligaya sasha-rose satine-phoenix satin-summer savannah-stern savanna-jane scarlet-scarleau scarlet-windsor seka selena serena serena-south severine-amoux shana-evans shanna-mccullough shannon-kelly shannon-rush shantell-day sharon-da-vale sharon-kane sharon-mitchell shaun-michelle shawna-sexton shawnee-cates shay-hendrix shayne-ryder sheena-horne sheer-delight shelby-star shelby-stevens shelly-berlin shelly-lyons sheri-st-clair sheyla-cats shonna-lynn shyla-foxxx shy-love sierra-sinn sierra-skye sigrun-theil silver-starr silvia-bella silvia-saint silvie-de-lux silvy-taylor simone-west sindee-coxx sindy-lange sindy-shy siobhan-hunter skylar-knight skylar-price skyler-dupree smokie-flame smoking-mary-jane solange-shannon sonya-summers sophia-santi sophie-call sophie-duflot sophie-evans sophie-guers stacey-donovan stacy-lords stacy-moran stacy-nichols stacy-silver stacy-thorn starla-fox starr-wood stefania-bruni stella-virgin stephanie-duvalle stephanie-rage stephanie-renee stevie-taylor summer-knight summer-rose sunny-day sunset-thomas sunshine-seiber susan-hart susanne-brend susan-nero susi-hotkiss suzanne-mcbain suzan-nielsen suzie-bartlett suzie-carina suzi-sparks sweet-nice sweety-pie sybille-rossani sylvia-benedict sylvia-bourdon sylvia-brand sylvia-engelmann syreeta-taylor syren-de-mer syvette szabina-black szilvia-lauren tai-ellis taija-rae taisa-banx talia-james tamara-lee tamara-longley tamara-n-joy tamara-west tami-white tammy tammy-lee tammy-reynolds tania-lorenzo tantala-ray tanya-danielle tanya-fox tanya-foxx tanya-lawson tanya-valis tara-aire tasha-voux tatjana-belousova tatjana-skomorokhova tawnee-lee tawny-pearl tayla-rox taylor-wane teddi-austin teddi-barrett tera-bond tera-heart tera-joy teresa-may teresa-orlowski teri-diver teri-weigel terri-dolan terri-hall tess-ferre tess-newheart thais-vieira tia-cherry tianna tiara tiffany-blake tiffany-clark tiffany-duponte tiffany-rayne tiffany-rousso tiffany-storm tiffany-towers tiffany-tyler tiger-lily tigr timea-vagvoelgyi tina-blair tina-burner tina-evil tina-gabriel tina-loren tina-marie tina-russell tish-ambrose tommi-rose tonisha-mills topsy-curvey tori-secrets tori-sinclair tori-welles tracey-adams traci-lords traci-topps traci-winn tracy-duzit tracy-love tracy-williams tricia-devereaux tricia-yen trinity-loren trisha-rey trista-post trixie-tyler ultramax ursula-gaussmann ursula-moore uschi-karnat valentina valerie-leveau valery-hilton vanessa-chase vanessa-del-rio vanessa-michaels vanessa-ozdanic vanilla-deville velvet-summers veri-knotty veronica-dol veronica-hart veronica-hill veronica-rayne veronica-sage veronika-vanoza via-paxton vicky-lindsay vicky-vicci victoria-evans victoria-gold victoria-knight victoria-luna victoria-paris victoria-slick victoria-zdrok viper virginie-caprice vivian-valentine vivien-martines wendi-white wendy-divine whitney-banks whitney-fears whitney-wonders wonder-tracey wow-nikki xanthia-berstein yasmine-fitzgerald yelena-shieffer yvonne-green zara-whites zsanett-egerhazi zuzie-boobies

public File Transfer Protocol site for the MBH98 paper. Mann, Bradley and Hughes commented that "The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond. Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity."[96] In 2007 the IPCC AR4 noted the MM03 claim that MBH98 could not be replicated, and reported that "Wahl and Ammann (2007) showed that this was a consequence of differences in the way McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) had implemented the method of Mann et al. (1998) and that the original reconstruction could be closely duplicated using the original proxy data."[97] Publicity and Washington briefing On the day of publication, the ExxonMobil funded lobbying website Tech Central Station issued a press release headed "TCS Newsflash: Important Global Warming Study Audited -- Numerous Errors Found; New Research Reveals the UN IPCC 'Hockey Stick' Theory of Climate Change is Flawed" announcing that "Canadian business executive Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have presented more evidence that the 20th century wasn't the warmest on record."[87][98] In a Senate debate on 29 October, a day before the McCain-Lieberman bill vote, Senator Jim Inhofe misrepresented the claims made in the MM03 paper and said that it demonstrated high Medieval Warm Period temperatures in the 15th century (during the Little Ice Age). In attacking the MBH papers, he erroneously described Mann as being in charge of the IPCC. In the same debate, Senator Olympia Snowe used the hockey stick graph to demonstrate the reality of climate change. On the morning of the vote, USA Today carried an op-ed by Tech Central Station editor Nick Shulz saying that MM03 "upsets a key scientific claim about climate change", and that "Mann never made his data available online". The vote was 55–43 against the McCain-Lieberman bill. After Mann and associates showed the newspaper that the data was available online, as it had been for years,[99][100] USA Today issued a correction on 13 November.[101] McIntyre was flown to Washington, D.C. to brief business leaders and the staff of Senator Jim Inhofe.[102] On 18 November McIntyre and McKitrick traveled there to present a briefing, sponsored by the George C. Marshall Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute,[103] to United States Congress staffers and others.[104] At an event at the George C. Marshall Institute, co-hosted by Myron Ebell of the Cooler Heads Coalition, McIntyre said that he had contacted Mann for the data set but found problems in replicating the curves of the graph because of missing or wrong data. He first met McKitrick, for "lunch at the exact hour that Hurricane Isabel hit Toronto" (19 September 2003). They prepared their corrections in a proxy data set using 1999 data, and using publicly disclosed methods produced a reconstruction which differed from MBH98 in showing high peaks of temperature in the 15th century. They were not saying that these temperatures had occurred, but that Mann's results were incorrect. When they published their paper, it attracted attention, with David Appell being the first reporter to take an interest. They said that after Appell's article was published with comments from Mann, they had followed links to Mann's FTP site and on 29 October copied data files which were subsequently deleted from the site.[105] In an immediate response to these briefings, Mann, Bradley and Hughes said that the analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick was botched and showed numerous statistical errors including selective removal of records to invent 15th century warming. Climatologist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research described McIntyre and McKitrick's arguments as "seriously flawed" and "silly", noting that as well as the MBH99 paper around a dozen independent studies had suggested higher temperatures in the late 20th century. Statistician George Shambaugh of Georgetown University said he leant in favor of Mann on a statistical basis, geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer compared those arguing over the existence of human-caused global warming with tobacco industry scientists who tried to obscure the link with lung cancer. Against these points, William O'Keefe of the Marshall Institute (previously with the American Petroleum Institute) said there was value in the skeptics keeping the debate going, "We have to encourage healthy debate".[104] von Storch and Zorita 2004 The statistical methods used in the MBH reconstruction were questioned in a 2004 paper by Hans von Storch with a team including Eduardo Zorita,[106] which said that the methodology used to average the data and the wide uncertainties might have hidden abrupt climate changes, possibly as large as the 20th century spike in measured temperatures.[55] They used the pseudoproxy method which Mann and Rutherford had developed in 2002, and like them found that regression methods of reconstruction tended to underestimate the amplitude of variation, a problem covered by the wide error bars in MBH99. It was a reasonable critique of nearly all the reconstructions at that time, but MBH were singled out.[71] Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa responded, highlighting this conclusion of von Storch et al.[107] Zorita and von Storch later claimed their paper was a breakthrough in moving the question from "the reality of the blade of the hockey stick" to focus on "the real problems, namely the ‘wobbliness’ of the shaft of the hockey-stick, and the suppressing of valid scientific questions by gate keeping."[108] In their initial press release, von Storch called the hockey stick "quatsch" (nonsense or garbage) but other researchers subsequently found that the von Storch paper had an undisclosed additional step which had overstated the wobbliness. By detrending data before estimating statistical relationships it had removed the main pattern of variation.[109] The von Storch et al. view that the graph was defective overall was refuted by Wahl, Ritson and Ammann (2006),[77] who pointed to this incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure.[110] Stefan Rahmstorf added that the paper had shown only results supporting its conclusions, but its supplementary online material included contradictory results which supported MBH.[111] Reconstructions, Inhofe and State of Fear Borehole climate reconstructions in a paper by Pollack and Smerdon, published in June 2004, supported estimates of a surface warming of around 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the period from 1500 to 2000.[112] In a study published in November 2004 Edward R. Cook, Jan Esper and Rosanne D'Arrigo re-examined their 2002 paper, and now supported MBH. They concluded that "annual temperatures up to AD 2000 over extra-tropical NH land areas have probably exceeded by about 0.3 °C the warmest previous interval over the past 1162 years".[113] In a Senate speech on 4 January 2005, Inhofe repeated his assertion that "the threat of catastrophic global warming" was the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". He singled out the hockey stick graph and Mann for criticism, accusing Mann of having "effectively erased the well-known phenomena of the Medieval Warming Period-when, by the way, it was warmer than it is today-and the Little Ice Age". He quoted von Storch as criticising the graph.[114] In a CBS News opinion piece, Chris Mooney said that Inhofe had extensively cited Michael Crichton's fictional thriller, State of Fear, mistakenly describing Crichton as a "scientist", and had misrepresented three scientists as disputing the "hockey stick" when they had been challenging a completely different paper which Mann had co-authored.[115] McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 In 2004 Stephen McIntyre blogged on his website climate2003.com about his efforts with Ross McKitrick to get an extended analysis of the hockey stick into the journal Nature.[116][117] At this stage Nature contacted Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, about minor errors in the online supplement to MBH98. In a corrigendum published on 1 July 2004 they acknowledged that McIntyre and McKitrick had pointed out errors in proxy data that had been included as supplementary information, and supplied a full corrected listing of the data. They included a documented archive of all the data used in MBH98, and expanded details of their methods. They stated that "None of these errors affect our previously published results."[118] Following the review process, Nature rejected the comment from McIntyre and McKitrick, who then put the record of their submitted paper and the referees' reports up on their web site. This caught the attention of Richard A. Muller, who had previously supported criticism of the hockey stick paper. On 15 October Muller published his view that the graph was "an artifact of poor mathematics", summarising the as yet unpublished comment including its claim that the principal components procedure produced hockey stick shapes from random data. He said that the "discovery hit me like a bombshell".[119] On 14 October the McIntyre and McKitrick comment was submitted to Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union,[120] and the AGU consented to it being shown at their 13–17 December conference. McIntyre attended the conference, and on 17 December presented a poster session showing his principal components argument about the MBH papers. He found that "People who were not mathematically inclined were intrigued by a graphic showing 8 hockeysticks - 7 simulated and 1 MBH (the same sort of graphic as the one put up here a while ago, but just showing 1 simulation.) Quantity seems to matter in the demonstration. No one could tell the difference without being told."[121] On 17 January 2005 the M&M comment was accepted by GRL for publication as a paper.[120] Climate blogs McIntyre commented on climate2003.com on 26 October 2004, "Maybe I’ll start blogging some odds and ends that I’m working on. I’m going to post up some more observations on some of the blog criticisms."[121] On 10 December Mann and nine other scientists launched the RealClimate website as "a resource where the public can go to see what actual scientists working in the field have to say about the latest issues."[86] On 2 February 2005 McIntyre set up his Climate Audit blog, having found difficulties with posting comments on the climate2003.com layout.[122] Principal components analysis methodology In their renewed criticism, McIntyre & McKitrick 2005 (MM05) found a minor technical statistical error in the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) method, and said it would produce hockey stick shapes from random data. This claim was given widespread publicity and political spin, enabling the George W. Bush administration to assert that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was discredited. Scientists found that the issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick were minor and did not affect the main conclusions of MBH98 or Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999.[77][116] Reconstructions using different statistical methods had produced similar "hockey stick" graphs. Mann himself had already stopped using the criticised statistical method in 2001, when he changed over to the RegEM climate field reconstruction method.[123] The available climate proxy records were not spaced evenly over the northern hemisphere: some areas were covered by closely spaced networks with numerous tree-ring proxies, but in many areas only sparse proxy temperature records were available, such as lake sediments, ice cores or corals. To achieve balance, the MBH 1998 (and 1999) studies represented each dense network by using principal component analysis (PCA) to find the leading patterns of variation (PC1, PC2, PC3 etc.) ranked by the percentage of variation they explained. To establish how many significant principal components should be kept so that the patterns put together characterized the original dataset, they used an objective selection rule procedure which involved creating randomised surrogate datasets with the same characteristics and treating them with exactly the same conventions as the original data.[124] The temperature records were of various lengths, the shortest being the instrumental record from 1902 to 1980, and their convention centered data over this modern calibration period.[125] The selection rule found two significant patterns for the North American tree ring network (NOAMER); PC1 emphasized high altitude tree ring data from the Western U.S. showing a cooler period followed by 20th century warming, PC2 emphasised lower elevation tree ring series showing less of a 20th-century trend. This is an acceptable convention, the more conventional method of centering data over the whole period of the study (from 1400 to 1980) produces a very similar outcome but changes the order of PCs and requires more PCs to produce a valid result. Mann did not use the PCA step after 2001, his subsequent reconstructions used the RegEM Climate Field Reconstruction technique incorporating all available individual proxy records instead of replacing groups of records with principal components;[126] tests have shown that the results are nearly identical.[127] The McIntyre and McKitrick analysis called the PCA centering over the 1902–1980 modern period "an unusual data transformation which strongly affects the resulting PCs". When they centered NOAMER data over the whole 1400–1980 period, this changed the order of principal components so that the warming pattern of high altitude tree ring data was demoted from PC1 to PC4.[120] Instead of recalculating the objective selection rule which increased the number of significant PCs from two to five, they only kept PC1 and PC2. This removed the significant 20th century warming pattern of PC4, discarding data that produced the "hockey stick" shape.[128][129] They said that "In the controversial 15th century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North American PC1",[120] but subsequent investigation showed that the "hockey stick" shape remained with the correct selection rule, even when bristlecone pine proxies were removed.[129] Their MM05 paper said that the MBH98 (1902–1980 centering) "method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1)", by picking out "series that randomly 'trend' up or down during the ending sub-segment of the series".[120] Though modern centering produces a small bias in this way, the MM05 methods exaggerated the effect.[125] Tests of the MBH98 methodology on pseudoproxies formed with noise varying from red noise to white noise found that this effect caused only very small differences which were within the uncertainty range and had no significance for the final reconstruction.[130] Red noise for surrogate datasets should have the characteristics of natural variation, but the statistical method used by McIntyre and McKitrick produced "persistent red noise" based on 20th century warming trends which showed inflated long-term swings, and overstated the tendency of the MBH98 method to produce hockey stick shapes. Their use of this persistent red noise invalidated their claim that "the MBH98 15th century reconstruction lacks statistical significance", and there was also a data handling error in the MM05 method. Studies using appropriate red noise found that MBH98 passed the threshold for statistical skill, but the MM05 reconstructions failed verification tests.[125][129][131] To demonstrate that some simulations using their persistent red noise "bore a quite remarkable similarity to the actual MBH98 temperature reconstruction", McIntyre and McKitrick produced illustrations for comparison.[120] Figure 4.4 of the Wegman Report showed 12 of these pre-selected simulations. It called this "One of the most compelling illustrations that McIntyre and McKitrick have produced", and said that the "MBH98 algorithm found ‘hockey stick’ trend in each of the independent replications".[132] McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%.[133] Publicity In a public relations campaign two weeks before the McIntyre and McKitrick paper was published, the Canadian National Post for 27 January carried a front page article alleging that "A pivotal global warming study central to the Kyoto Protocol contains serious flaws caused by a computer programming glitch and other faulty methodology, according to new Canadian research." It reprinted in two parts a long article by Marcel Crok which had appeared in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek under the heading "Proof that mankind causes climate change is refuted, Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics" and the assertion that the MBH99 finding of exceptional late 20th century warmth was "the central pillar of the Kyoto Protocol", despite the protocol having been adopted in December 1997, before either of the MBH papers had been published. The Bush administration had already decided to disregard the Kyoto Protocol which was to come into effect later that month, and this enabled them to say that the protocol was discredited.[134] McIntyre & McKitrick 2005 (MM05) was published in Geophysical Research Letters on 12 February 2005. They also published an extended critique in Energy & Environment responding to criticism of their 2003 paper and alleging that other reconstructions were not independent as there was "much overlapping" of authors.[135] Two days later, a lead article in the Wall Street Journal said that McIntyre's new paper was "circulating inside energy companies and government agencies. Canada's environment ministry has ordered a review", and though McIntyre did not take strong position on whether or not fossil-fuel use was causing global warming, "He just says he has found a flaw in a main leg supporting the global-warming consensus, the consensus that led to an international initiative taking effect this week: Kyoto."[136] Technical issues were discussed in RealClimate on 18 February in a blog entry by Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Ammann,[137] and in a BBC News interview Schmidt said that by using a different convention but not altering subsequent steps in the analysis accordingly, McIntyre and McKitrick had removed significant data which would have given the same result as the MBH papers.[138] On 4 April 2005, McKitrick gave a presentation to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre outlining the arguments of MM05, alleging that the TAR had given undue prominence given to the hockey stick graph, and discussing publicity given to the TAR conclusions in Canada. He said that "In the 1995 Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, there was no hockey stick. Instead the millennial climate history contained a MWP and a subsequent Little Ice Age, as shown as in Figure 3." The figure, headed "World Climate History according to IPCC in 1995", resembled the schematic 7.1(c) from IPCC 1990, and corrections to refer to IPCC 1990 were made on 22 July 2005.[139] At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J. Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and timing of global warming.[140] In May the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical Union’s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes, and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were groundless.[141] Congressional investigations The increasing politicisation of the issue was demonstrated when,[142] on 23 June 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote joint letters with Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, referring to issues raised by the 14 February 2005 article in the Wall Street Journal and demanding full records on climate research. The letters were sent to the IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, National Science Foundation Director Arden Bement, and to the three scientists Mann, Bradley and Hughes.[143] The letters told the scientist to provide not just data and methods, but also personal information about their finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[144] Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into something that should properly be under the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, and wrote "My primary concern about your investigation is that its purpose seems to be to intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review." Barton's committee spokesman sent a sarcastic response to this and to Democrat Henry A. Waxman's letter asking Barton to withdraw the letters and saying he had "failed to hold a single hearing on the subject of global warming" during eleven years as chairman, and had "vociferously opposed all legislative efforts in the Committee to address global warming .... These letters do not appear to be a serious attempt to understand the science of global warming. Some might interpret them as a transparent effort to bully and harass climate change experts who have reached conclusions with which you disagree." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Ralph J. Cicerone wrote to Barton that "A congressional investigation, based on the authority of the House Commerce Committee, is probably not the best way to resolve a scientific issue, and a focus on individual scientists can be intimidating", and proposed that the NAS should appoint an independent panel to investigate. Barton dismissed this offer.[145][146] Mann, Bradley and Hughes sent formal letters giving their detailed responses to Barton and Whitfield. On 15 July, Mann wrote emphasising that the full data and necessary methods information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work. NSF policy was that computer codes "are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure", as the NSF had advised McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003, but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available at the Mann et al. public ftp site. [147] Many scientists protested against Barton's investigation, with 20 prominent climatologists questioning his approach.[148] Alan I. Leshner wrote to him on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science expressing deep concern about the letters, which gave "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[149] He stated that MBH had given out their full data and descriptions of methods, and were not the only evidence in the IPCC TAR that recent temperatures were likely the warmest in 1,000 years; "a variety of independent lines of evidence, summarized in a number of peer-reviewed publications, were cited in support". Thomas Crowley argued that the aim was intimidation of climate researchers in general, and Bradley thought the letters were intended to damage confidence in the IPCC during preparation of its next report.[150] A Washington Post editorial on 23 July which described the investigation as harassment quoted Bradley as saying it was "intrusive, far-reaching and intimidating", and Alan I. Leshner of the AAAS describing it as unprecedented in the 22 years he had been a government scientist; he thought it could "have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to work in areas that are politically relevant."[144] Benjamin D. Santer told the New Scientist "There are people who believe that if they bring down Mike Mann, they can bring down the IPCC."[151] Congressman Boehlert said the investigation was as "at best foolhardy" with the tone of the letters showing the committee's "inexperience" in relation to science. Barton was given support by global warming sceptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said "We've always wanted to get the science on trial ... we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law", and "this could work".[150] In his Junk Science column on Fox News, Steven Milloy said Barton's inquiry was reasonable.[152] Reconstruction methodology The July 2005 issue of the Journal of Climate published a paper it had accepted for publication the previous September, co-authored by Scott Rutherford, Mann, Osborn, Briffa, Jones, Bradley and Hughes, which examined the sensitivity of proxy based reconstruction to method and found that a wide range of alternative statistical approaches gave nearly indistinguishable results. In particular, omitting principal component analysis made no significant difference.[127] In comments on MM05 made in October, Peter Huybers showed that McIntyre and McKitrick had omitted a critical step in calculating significance levels, and MBH98 had shown it correctly.[153] Though the disputed principal components analysis method would in theory have some effect, its influence on the amplitude of the final reconstruction was very small.[14] In their comment, Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita examined McIntyre and McKitrick's claim that normalising data prior to principal component analysis by centering in relation to the calibration period of 1902–1980, instead of the whole period, would nearly always produce hockey stick shaped leading principal components. They found that it caused only very minor deviations which would not have a significant impact on the result.[130] McIntyre and McKitrick contributed replies to these comments.[14] In November 2005, Science Committee chair Sherwood Boehlert requested the National Academy of Science to arrange a review of climate reconstructions including the hockey stick studies, and its National Research Council set up a special committee to investigate and report.[154] Inconvenient Truth Ten of the hemispheric temperature reconstructions published by December 2005, four were omitted because they had been superseded by later reconstructions or due to data plotting issues. On 28 February 2006 Wahl & Ammann 2006 was accepted for publication, and an "in press" copy was made available on the internet. Two more reconstructions were published, using different methodologies and supporting the main conclusions of MBH. Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson and Gordon Jacoby suggested that medieval temperatures had been almost 0.7 °C cooler than the late 20th century but less homogenous,[155] Osborn and Briffa found the spatial extent of recent warmth more significant than that during the medieval warm period.[156][157] They were followed in April by a third reconstruction led by Gabriele C. Hegerl.[158] Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, which premiered in May 2006, included a section on Lonnie Thompson's ice core measurements showing a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature going back 650,000 years. Gore showed this "thermometer" graph going back a thousand years for a "couple of reasons", the first being that "so called skeptics" will sometimes say "Oh, this whole thing is cyclical phenomenon. There was a medieval warming period after all", but as shown on the graph, "compared to what is going on now, there is just no comparison". [159] The book issued at the same time includes a similar statement beside a graph like Figure 7 from Thompson's 2004 paper, and adds that the skeptics "launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1,000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as 'the hockey stick,' a graphic image representing the research of Michael Mann and his colleagues. But in fact, scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple ways–with Thompson's ice core record as one of the most definitive."[160][161] National Research Council Report Main article: North Report At the request of the U.S. Congress, initiated by Representative Sherwood Boehlert as chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, a special "Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 Years" was assembled by the National Research Council to quickly prepare a concise report. The NRC Committee, chaired by Gerald North, consisted of 12 scientists and statisticians from different disciplines. Its task was "to summarize current scientific information on the temperature record for the past two millennia, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record to the state of scientific knowledge on global climate change." [162] The NRC report went through a rigorous review process involving 15 independent experts.[163] The report provided a summary and an overview, followed by 11 technical chapters covering the instrumental and proxy records, statistical procedures, paleoclimate models, and the synthesis of large-scale temperature reconstructions with an assessment of the "strengths, limitations, and prospects for improvement" in techniques used.[164] The North Report concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries", justified by consistent evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies, but "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from 900 to 1600".[165] It broadly agreed with the basic findings of the original MBH studies which had subsequently been supported by other reconstructions and proxy records, while emphasising uncertainties over earlier periods.[166] The contested principal component analysis methodology had a small tendency to bias results so was not recommended, but it had little influence on the final reconstructions, and other methods produced similar results.[167][168] Committee on Energy and Commerce Report (Wegman Report) Main article: Wegman Report There had been an outcry in July 2005 when Joe Barton of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce had issued letters demanding information from Mann, Bradley and Hughes, for what was described as an illegitimate investigation.[169] Barton dismissed the offer of a joint investigation organised by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS).[145] An initial contact was made on 1 September 2005 to ask statistician Edward Wegman about possible testimony in Congress about a paleoclimate issue, and subsequently Barton's staffer met Wegman to ask for an opinion on the validity of criticisms of the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 reconstruction. Wegman formed a team with Yasmin H. Said (who had been his graduate student) and statistician David W. Scott, three statisticians with no expertise in climatology or physical sciences. They were provided by Barton's staffer with material to review over the next nine months.[170][171] This existence of this team was first made public in a 10 February 2006 report by the Wall Street Journal,[169] and the Wegman report was announced on 14 July 2006 by an article in the Wall Street Journal,[172] and a press release issued by Barton.[173][174] The Wegman Report lacked peer review, but was sent out to a number of referees shortly before it was released:[175] one of the referees, Grace Wahba, later said she received the report only 3 days in advance, and her criticisms were ignored.[176] The Wegman Report was discussed at hearings of the United States House Energy Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations under its chairman U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield. The first hearing was held on 19 July 2006, five days after the report was announced and released. Mann was unable to attend this hearing.[172][177] A second hearing was arranged on 27 July 2006, which he attended.[178] Figure 4.5 p. 34 of the Wegman Report, "digitised" from "the temperature profile as presented in the IPCC Assessment Report 1990", was shown to support claims that "The cycle of Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age that was widely recognized in 1990 has disappeared from the MBH98/99 analyses".[179] The report asserted that the critiques of MBH98 and MBH99 by McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) were "valid and compelling",[180] but failed to examine if the suggested corrections made any significant difference to the outcome, though studies including Wahl & Ammann 2006 had found that the hockey stick shape remained after the corrections.[181] The report reiterated the claim that the MBH method created a hockey-stick shape from random red noise, but Wegman failed to respond when the issue was shown to have been caused by an error in McIntyre and McKitrick's methodology, and despite repeated requests did not provide his code for comparison.[182][183] A new criticism introduced in the Wegman report presented a social network analysis which implied problems with peer review not being independent,[184] alleging that the many co-authors Mann had worked with after the MBH studies had compromised the independence of scientists: this argument was dismissed by North, who said that report's claim "that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent" misunderstood the peer review process in science. The peer review process of the Wegman report itself was questioned.[176][185] In 2007, Wegman and Said published a paper based on this social network analysis.[186] In 2010 this paper was found to include plagiarism which also appeared to be in the Wegman Report: Wegman said that material in it had been "basically copied and pasted" by a student who was the "most knowledgeable" member of his team, as she had taken a one-week course on network analysis with Kathleen Carley. Carley described the paper as an opinion piece lacking data needed to support its argument,[186][187] and John Quiggin gave his expert view that the Wegman report's analysis showed nothing more than a normal network of co-authorship.[188] Allegations were made in the Wegman Report that paleoclimatologists supposedly did not seem to interact with "the statistical community": Mann testified that many statisticians working in climatology had been offended by this claim, he himself had been on the American Meteorological Society Committee on Probability and Statistics along with other scientists and statisticians, the National Center for Atmospheric Research Geophysical Statistics Project had provided such interaction for over a decade, and as a postdoctoral student Mann had participated in its inaugural workshop in 1994. In testimony, von Storch referred to "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research" which he had co-authored with the statistician Francis Zwiers.[189] The Wegman report also alleged inadequate sharing of methods, code and data:[184] Mann testified that these had been available since May 2000 in full accordance with National Science Foundation requirements, and they had gone beyond these requirements to make their full proprietary computer codes public. Despite congressman Waxman pressing Wegman to release the code Ritson had requested, Wegman still declined to "disclose the details of our methods" and Mann said "It would appear that Dr. Wegman has completely failed to live up to the very standards he has publicly demanded of others."[183][190] IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 included a chapter on Paleoclimate, with a section on the last 2,000 years. This featured a graph showing 12 proxy based temperature reconstructions, including the three highlighted in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR); Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 as before, Jones et al. 1998 and Briffa 2000 had both been calibrated by newer studies. In addition, analysis of the Medieval Warm Period cited reconstructions by Crowley & Lowery 2000 (as cited in the TAR) and Osborn & Briffa 2006. Ten of these 14 reconstructions covered 1,000 years or longer. Most reconstructions shared some data series, particularly tree ring data, but newer reconstructions used additional data and covered a wider area, using a variety of statistical methods. The section discussed the divergence problem affecting certain tree ring data.[14] It concluded that "The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. On the evidence of the previous and four new reconstructions that reach back more than 1 kyr, it is likely that the 20th century was the warmest in at least the past 1.3 kyr."[14] The SPM statement in the IPCC TAR of 2001 had been that it was "likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" in the past 1,000 years.[68] The AR4 SPM statement was that "Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Some recent studies indicate greater variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR, particularly finding that cooler periods existed in the 12th to 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. Warmer periods prior to the 20th century are within the uncertainty range given in the TAR."[191] Hans von Storch review In May 2007, Hans von Storch reviewed the changes in thought caused by the hockey stick controversy writing: In October 2004 we were lucky to publish in Science our critique of the ‘hockey-stick’ reconstruction of the temperature of the last 1000 years. Now, two and half years later, it may be worth reviewing what has happened since then. At the EGU General Assembly a few weeks ago there were no less than three papers from groups in Copenhagen and Bern assessing critically the merits of methods used to reconstruct historical climate variable from proxies; Bürger’s papers in 2005; Moberg’s paper in Nature in 2005; various papers on borehole temperature; The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable.[192] The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[2][3][4][5][6][7] No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,[8] though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions.[9] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more prevalent in the United States than globally.[10][11] Political and popular debate concerning the existence and cause of climate change includes the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, and whether human activities have contributed significantly to it. Scientists have resolved many of these questions decisively in favour of the view that the current warming trend exists and is ongoing, that human activity is the primary cause, and that it is without precedent in at least 2000 years.[12] Disputes that also reflect scientific debate include estimates of how responsive the climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), and what the consequences of global warming will be. Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate, often split along party political lines, especially in the United States.[13] Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them – an ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as climate change denial. The sources of funding for those involved with climate science – both supporting and opposing mainstream scientific positions – have been questioned by both sides. There are debates about the best policy responses to the science, their cost-effectiveness and their urgency. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have reported official and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its effects, and measures to reduce it have reached American courts. The fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.[14][15] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Public opinion 1.2 Related controversies 2 Mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it 2.1 Scientific consensus 2.2 Authority of the IPCC 2.3 Greenhouse gases 2.4 Solar variation 2.5 Aerosols forcing 2.6 Analysis of temperature records 2.6.1 Instrumental record of surface temperature 2.6.2 Instrumental record of tropospheric temperature 2.6.3 Geologic temperature records 2.6.4 Antarctica cooling 2.7 Climate sensitivity 2.8 Infrared iris hypothesis 2.9 Internal radiative forcing 2.10 Temperature projections 2.11 Forecasts confidence 2.12 Arctic sea ice decline 2.13 Data archiving and sharing 3 Political questions 3.1 Kyoto Protocol 3.2 Funding 3.3 Debate over most effective response to warming 3.4 Political pressure on scientists 3.5 Litigation 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links History[edit] Public opinion[edit] Main article: Public opinion on climate change In the United States, the mass media devoted little coverage to global warming until the drought of 1988, and James E. Hansen's testimony to the Senate, which explicitly attributed "the abnormally hot weather plaguing our nation" to global warming.[16] The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by Margaret Thatcher to the Royal Society advocating action against human-induced climate change.[17] According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote nuclear power, in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the 1984–1985 miners' strike was one reason for the change in public discourse. At the same time environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding "solutions that contrasted with the government's".[18] In May 2013 Prince Charles took a strong stance criticising both climate change deniers and corporate lobbyists by likening the Earth to a dying patient. "A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can't wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there."[19] Many European countries took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 1990. West Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in the 1980s. All countries of the European Union ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well.[20] The United States Energy Information Administration reports that, in the United States, "The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak".[21] In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in the United States and other countries.[22][23] A 2009 survey found that Europeans rated climate change as the second most serious problem facing the world, between "poverty, the lack of food and drinking water" and "a major global economic downturn". 87% of Europeans considered climate change to be a very serious or serious problem, while ten per cent did not consider it a serious problem.[24] In 2007 the BBC announced the cancellation of a planned television special Planet Relief, which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off.[25] The editor of BBC's Newsnight current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped."[26] Author Mark Lynas said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing to take a more consistent stance."[27] The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt provide documentation for the assertion that professional deniers have tried to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that only half of the American population believe that global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these deniers.[11] One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases. A compendium of poll results on public perceptions about global warming is below.[28][29][30] Statement % agree Year (US) Global Warming is very/extremely important[29] 49 2006 (International) Climate change is a serious problem.[31] 90 2006 (International) Human activity is a significant cause of climate change.[30] 79 2007 (US) It's necessary to take major steps starting very soon.[30] 59 2007 (US) The Earth is getting warmer because of human activity[32] 49 2009 In 2007 a report on public perceptions in the UK by Ipsos MORI[33] reported that There is widespread recognition that the climate, irrespective of the cause, is changing—88% believe this to be true. However, the public is out of step with the scientific community, with 41% believing that climate change is being caused by both human activity and natural processes. 46% believe human activity is the main cause. Only a small minority reject anthropogenic climate change, while almost half (44%) are very concerned. However, there remains a large proportion who are not fully persuaded and hold doubts about the extent of the threat. There is still a strong appetite among the public for more information, and 63% say they need this to come to a firm view on the issue and what it means for them. The public continue to externalize climate change to other people, places and times. It is increasingly perceived as a major global issue with far-reaching consequences for future generations—45% say it is the most serious threat facing the World today and 53% believe it will impact significantly on future generations. However, the issue features less prominently nationally and locally, indeed only 9% believe climate change will have a significant impact upon them personally. The Canadian science broadcaster and environmental activist, David Suzuki, reports that focus groups organized by the David Suzuki Foundation in 2006 showed that the public has a poor understanding of the science behind global warming.[34] This is despite publicity through different means, including the films An Inconvenient Truth and The 11th Hour. An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.[35][36] A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming—roughly two-thirds of Japanese (66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm over global warming in either the United States or China—the two largest producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global warming—the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express little or no concern about the problem".[37] A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007 found that "Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a 'very serious' problem".[38] There are differences between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public. A Judita Vaiciunaite – lt Judita Vaiciunaite modern female poet exploring urban settings Juozas Tumas Vaižgantas real name Juozas Tumas – writer Indre Valantinaite born poet Tomas Venclova – poet political activist Antanas Vienuolis real name Žukauskas – writer a major figure in Lithuanian prose Vydunas real name Vilius Storostas – Lithuanian writer and philosopher leader of Lithuanian cultural movement in the Lithuania Minor at the beginning of the th century Žemaite real name Julija Beniuševiciute Žymantiene – one of the best known female writers Theater and cinema edit See also List of Lithuanian actors Regimantas Adomaitis – theatre and film actor successful both in Lithuania and Russia Donatas Banionis – actor and star of Tarkovsky s Solaris Arturas Barysas – "counter culture" actor singer photographer and filmmaker known as the father of modern Lithuanian avant garde Šarunas Bartas – modern film director Ingeborga Dapkunaite – internationally successful actress Gediminas Girdvainis – lt Gediminas Girdvainis prolific theatre and movie actor Rolandas Kazlas – well known comedy actor Oskaras Koršunovas – best known modern theater director Jurgis Maciunas – initiator of Fluxus movement Vaiva Mainelyte – lt Vaiva Mainelyte popular actress remembered for the leading role in Bride of the Devil Lithuanian Velnio nuotaka Arunas Matelis – acclaimed documentary director Adolfas Mekas film director writer editor actor educator Jonas Mekas – filmmaker the godfather of American avant garde cinema Aurelija Mikušauskaite – television and theatre actress Juozas Miltinis – theater director from Panevežys Nijole Narmontaite – lt Nijole Narmontaite actress Eimuntas Nekrošius – theater director Algimantas Puipa – lt Algimantas Puipa film director Kostas Smoriginas – lt Kostas Smoriginas popular actor and singer Jonas Vaitkus – theater director director of Utterly Alone Adolfas Vecerskis – theatre and film actor director of theatre Arunas Žebriunas – lt Arunas Žebriunas one of the most prominent film directors during the Soviet rule Vytautas Šapranauskas – lt Vytautas Šapranauskas theater and film actor television presenter humorist Žilvinas Tratas actor and model Džiugas Siaurusaitis lt Džiugas Siaurusaitis actor television presenter humorist Sakalas Uždavinys lt Sakalas Uždavinys theater and film actor director Marius Jampolskis actor and TV host Ballet and Dance edit Egle Špokaite soloist of Lithuanian National Opera and Ballet Theatre – Actress art director Edita Daniute Professional Ballroom Dancer and World DanceSport Champion Iveta Lukosiute Professional Ballroom Dancer and World Dance Champion Music edit Soprano vocalist Violeta Urmanaviciute Urmana Pop singer Violeta RiaubiškyteSee also List of Lithuanian singers Linas Adomaitis – pop singer participant in the Eurovision Song Contest Ilja Aksionovas lt Ilja Aksionovas pop and opera singer boy soprano Osvaldas Balakauskas – ambassador and classical composer Alanas Chošnau – singer member of former music group Naktines Personos Egidijus Dragunas – lt Egidijus Dragunas leader of Sel one of the first hip hop bands in Lithuania Justas Dvarionas – lt Justas Dvarionas pianist educator Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis – painter and composer Balys Dvarionas – composer conductor pianist professor Gintare Jautakaite pop artist signed with EMI and Sony Music Entertainment in Gintaras Januševicius internationally acclaimed pianist Algirdas Kaušpedas architect and lead singer of Antis Nomeda Kazlauskaite Kazlaus opera singer dramatic soprano appearing internationally Vytautas Kernagis – one of the most popular bards Algis Kizys – long time bass player of post punk no wave band Swans Andrius Mamontovas – rock singer co founder of Foje and LT United Marijonas Mikutavicius – singer author of Trys Milijonai the unofficial sports anthem in Lithuania Vincas Niekus – lt Vincas Niekus composer Virgilijus Noreika – one of the most successful opera singers tenor Mykolas Kleopas Oginskis – one of the best composer of the late th century Kipras Petrauskas – lt Kipras Petrauskas popular early opera singer tenor Stasys Povilaitis – one of the popular singers during the Soviet period Violeta Riaubiškyte – pop singer TV show host Mindaugas Rojus opera singer tenor baritone Ceslovas Sasnauskas – composer Rasa Serra – lt Rasa Serra real name Rasa Veretenceviene singer Traditional folk A cappella jazz POP Audrone Simonaityte Gaižiuniene – lt Audrone Gaižiuniene Simonaityte one of the more popular female opera singers soprano Virgis Stakenas – lt Virgis Stakenas singer of country folk music Antanas Šabaniauskas – lt Antanas Šabaniauskas singer tenor Jurga Šeduikyte – art rock musician won the Best Female Act and the Best Album of in the Lithuanian Bravo Awards and the Best Baltic Act at the MTV Europe Music Awards Jonas Švedas – composer Michael Tchaban composer singer and songwriter Violeta Urmanaviciute Urmana opera singer soprano mezzosoprano appearing internationally Painters and graphic artists edit See also List of Lithuanian artists Robertas Antinis – sculptor Vytautas Ciplijauskas lt Vytautas Ciplijauskas painter Jonas Ceponis – lt Jonas Ceponis painter Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis – painter and composer Asteroid Ciurlionis is named for him Kostas Dereškevicius lt Kostas Dereškevicius painter Vladimiras Dubeneckis painter architect Stasys Eidrigevicius graphic artist Pranas Gailius lt Pranas Gailius painter Paulius Galaune Petronele Gerlikiene – self taught Lithuanian American artist Algirdas Griškevicius lt Algirdas Griškevicius Vincas Grybas – sculptor Leonardas Gutauskas lt Leonardas Gutauskas painter writer Vytautas Kairiukštis – lt Vytautas Kairiukštis painter art critic Vytautas Kasiulis – lt Vytautas Kasiulis painter graphic artist stage designer Petras Kalpokas painter Rimtas Kalpokas – lt Rimtas Kalpokas painter graphic artist Leonas Katinas – lt Leonas Katinas painter Povilas Kaupas – lt Povilas Kaupas Algimantas Kezys Lithuanian American photographer Vincas Kisarauskas – lt Vincas Kisarauskas painter graphic artist stage designer Saulute Stanislava Kisarauskiene – lt Saulute Stanislava Kisarauskiene graphic artist painter Stasys Krasauskas – lt Stasys Krasauskas graphic artist Stanislovas Kuzma – lt Stanislovas Kuzma sculptor Antanas Martinaitis – lt Antanas Martinaitis painter Jonas Rimša – lt Jonas Rimša painter Jan Rustem painter Antanas Samuolis – lt Antanas Samuolis painter Šarunas Sauka painter Boris Schatz – sculptor and founder of the Bezalel Academy Irena Sibley née Pauliukonis – Children s book author and illustrator Algis Skackauskas – painter Antanas Žmuidzinavicius – painter Franciszek Smuglewicz – painter Yehezkel Streichman Israeli painter Kazys Šimonis – painter Algimantas Švegžda – lt Algimantas Švegžda painter Otis Tamašauskas Lithographer Print Maker Graphic Artist Adolfas Valeška – painter and graphic artist Adomas Varnas – painter Kazys Varnelis – artist Vladas Vildžiunas lt Vladas Vildžiunas sculptor Mikalojus Povilas Vilutis lt Mikalojus Povilas Vilutis graphic artist Viktoras Vizgirda – painter William Zorach – Modern artist who died in Bath Maine Antanas Žmuidzinavicius – painter Kazimieras Leonardas Žoromskis – painter Politics edit President Valdas Adamkus right chatting with Vice President Dick Cheney left See also List of Lithuanian rulers Mindaugas – the first and only King of Lithuania – Gediminas – the ruler of Lithuania – Algirdas – the ruler together with Kestutis of Lithuania – Kestutis – the ruler together with Algirdas of Lithuania – Vytautas – the ruler of Lithuania – together with Jogaila Jogaila – the ruler of Lithuania – from to together with Vytautas the king of Poland – Jonušas Radvila – the field hetman of Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Dalia Grybauskaite – current President of Lithuania since Valdas Adamkus – President of Lithuania till Jonas Basanavicius – "father" of the Act of Independence of Algirdas Brazauskas – the former First secretary of Central Committee of Communist Party of Lithuanian SSR the former president of Lithuania after and former Prime Minister of Lithuania Joe Fine – mayor of Marquette Michigan – Kazys Grinius – politician third President of Lithuania Mykolas Krupavicius – priest behind the land reform in interwar Lithuania Vytautas Landsbergis – politician professor leader of Sajudis the independence movement former speaker of Seimas member of European Parliament Stasys Lozoraitis – diplomat and leader of Lithuanian government in exile – Stasys Lozoraitis junior – politician diplomat succeeded his father as leader of Lithuanian government in exile – Antanas Merkys – the last Prime Minister of interwar Lithuania Rolandas Paksas – former President removed from the office after impeachment Justas Paleckis – journalist and politician puppet Prime Minister after Soviet occupation Kazimiera Prunskiene – the first female Prime Minister Mykolas Sleževicius – three times Prime Minister organized

2009 poll in the US by Pew Research Center found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees".[32] A 2010 poll in the UK for the BBC showed "Climate scepticism on the rise".[39] Robert Watson found this "very disappointing" and said that "We need the public to understand that climate change is serious so they will change their habits and help us move towards a low carbon economy". A 2012 Canadian poll found that 32% of Canadians said they believe climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54% said they believe it’s because of human activity and partially due to natural climate variation. 9% believe climate change is occurring due to natural climate variation, and only 2% said they don't believe climate change is occurring at all.[40] Related controversies[edit] Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such as ozone depletion, DDT, and passive smoking.[41][42] Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated controversies results from an organized attempt to replace scientific analysis with political ideology. Mooney says that the promotion of doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically, controversial became increasingly prevalent under the Bush Administration, which, he says, regularly distorted and/or suppressed scientific research to further its own political aims. This is also the subject of a 2004 book by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. entitled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy (ISBN 978-0060746872). Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan. Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack.[43] Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.[44] In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.[45][46] Mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it[edit] Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change. Click to see a more detailed summary of the sources. Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[47][48][49] The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are producing global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[50] Reproduction of the temperature record using historical forcings Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs). Scientific consensus[edit] Scientific consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, publication in the scientific literature, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. In the case of global warming, many governmental reports, the media in many countries, and environmental groups, have stated that there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused global warming is real and poses a serious concern.[51][52][53] According to the United States National Research Council, [T]here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.[54] Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment, some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) relative to natural forcings and its harm to benefit ratio.[55] Other opponents assert that some kind of ill-defined "consensus argument" is being used, and then dismiss this by arguing that science is based on facts rather than consensus.[56] Some highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls or consensus.[57][58] Dennis T. Avery, a food policy analyst at the Hudson Institute wrote an article entitled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[59] published in 2007 by The Heartland Institute. After the publishing of this article, numerous scientists who had been included in the list demanded their names be removed after the list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and/or citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned and deemed inaccurate.[60][61][62] The Heartland Institute refused requests by scientists to have their names removed, stating that the scientists "have no right—legally or ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree"[63] despite the aforementioned falsification and refutation of much of the list.[64] A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".[65][66] Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers".[66][67] Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category".[66] A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 abstracts from papers published in the peer-reviewed scienti?c literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Science citation index engine for the text strings "global climate change" or "global warming". The authors found that 3974 of the abstracts expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming, and that 97.1% of those endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming. The authors found that of the 11,944 abstracts, 3896 endorsed that consensus, 7930 took no position on it, 78 rejected the consensus, and 40 expressed uncertainty about it.[49] In 2014 a letter from 52 leading skeptics was published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry supporting the scientific consensus and asking the media to stop referring to deniers as "skeptics." The letter clarified the skeptical opinion on climate and denial: "As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is 'denial.' Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."[68] Authority of the IPCC[edit] Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The "standard" view of climate change has come to be defined by the reports of the IPCC, which is supported by many other science academies and scientific organizations. In 2001, sixteen of the world's national science academies made a joint statement on climate change, and gave their support for the IPCC[50] Opponents have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, people[69] or the Synthesis and Executive summaries; the scientific reports attract less attention. Some of the controversy and criticism has originated from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve on its panels. For example, Richard Lindzen has publicly dissented from IPCC positions.[70] Christopher Landsea, a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound",[71] because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct";[72] the IPCC replied that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4.[73] Roger Pielke, Jr. commented that "Both Landsea and Trenberth can and should feel vindicated... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent summary for policy makers".[72] In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations". It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive aspects of global warming".[74] The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government[75] and by the Stern Review. Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote: Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000 or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000 reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality.[76] On 10 December 2008, a report was released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority members, under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming skeptic Jim Inhofe. The timing of the report coincided with the UN global warming conference in Poznan, Poland. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC.[77] Many of its statements about the numbers of individuals listed in the report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.[78][79][80] While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming.[81] Science editor Brooks Hanson states in a 2010 editorial: "The IPCC reports have underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating societies' abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions".[82] Climate scientist James E. Hansen argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters—enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida.[83] Roger A. Pielke Sr. has also stated that "Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate".[84] Henderson-Sellers has collected comments from IPCC authors in a 2007 workshop revealing a number of concerns. She concluded, "Climate change research entered a new and different regime with the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. There is no longer any question about "whether" human activities are changing the climate; instead research must tackle the urgent questions of: "how fast?"; "with what impacts?'; and "what responses are needed?""[85] Greenhouse gases[edit] Attribution of recent climate change discusses the evidence for recent global warming. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence.[citation needed] Nonetheless, one argument against global warming says that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) do not correlate with global warming.[86] Studies of the Vostok ice core show that at the "beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations".[87] Recent warming is followed by carbon dioxide levels with only a 5 months delay.[88] The time lag has been used to argue that the current rise in CO2 is a result of warming and not a cause. While it is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly timed by astronomical forcing,[89] a main part of current warming is found to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO2, having a much closer time relation not observed in the past (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO2 emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 shows that the recent observed CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active now.[90] Carbon dioxide accounts for about 390 parts per million by volume (ppm) of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 284 ppm in the 1830s to 387 ppm in 2009.[91][92] Carbon dioxide contributes between 9 and 26% of the natural greenhouse effect.[93] In the Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era (about 450 million years ago), the Earth had an atmospheric CO2 concentration estimated at 4400ppm (or 0.44% of the atmosphere), while also having evidence of some glaciation. Modeling work has shown that it is possible for local areas at elevations greater than 300–500 meters to contain year-round snow cover even with high atmospheric CO2 concentrations.[94] A 2006 study suggests that the elevated CO2 levels and the glaciation are not synchronous, but rather that weathering associated with the uplift and erosion of the Appalachian Mountains greatly reduced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and permitted the observed glaciation.[95] As noted above, climate models are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century when GHG forcing is included, being consistent with the findings of the IPCC which has stated that: "Greenhouse gas forcing, largely the result of human activities, has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years"[96] The "standard" set of scenarios for future atmospheric greenhouse gases are the IPCC SRES scenarios. The purpose of the range of scenarios is not to predict what exact course the future of emissions will take, but what it may take under a range of possible population, economic and societal trends.[97] Climate models can be run using any of the scenarios as inputs to illustrate the different outcomes for climate change. No one scenario is officially preferred, but in practice the "A1b" scenario roughly corresponding to 1%/year growth in atmospheric CO2 is often used for modelling studies. There is debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic Fred Singer stated that "some good experts believe" that atmospheric CO2 concentration will not double since economies are becoming less reliant on carbon.[98] CO2 in Earth's atmosphere if half of global-warming emissions are not absorbed.[99][100][101][102] (NASA computer simulation). However, the Stern report,[103] like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO2 levels, concluding that: Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO2 well beyond 750 ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts. According to a 2006 paper from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet's available fossil fuels by the year 2300".[104] On 12 November 2015, NASA scientists reported that human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase above levels not seen in hundreds of thousands of years: currently, about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere and is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.[99][100][101][102] Solar variation[edit] Main article: Solar variation 400 year history of sunspot numbers. Last 30 years of solar variability. Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the primary cause of global warming; others attribute global warming to natural variation; ocean currents; increased solar activity or cosmic rays. The consensus position is that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m² for the net anthropogenic forcing.[105] The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades".[106] The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.[citation needed] A few studies say that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[107] Muscheler et al. concluded that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun".[108] Solanki et al. concluded "that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", and that "at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin".[109] Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation.[110] Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the statement that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations.[111] Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude that "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified." Aerosols forcing[edit] The hiatus in warming from the 1940s to 1960s is generally attributed to cooling effect of sulphate aerosols.[112][113] More recently, this forcing has (relatively) declined, which may have enhanced warming, though the effect is regionally varying. See global dimming. Another example of this is in Ruckstuhl's paper who found a 60% reduction in aerosol concentrations over Europe causing solar brightening:[114] [...] the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ~ 1 W m-2 decade-1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe. Analysis of temperature records[edit] Instrumental record of surface temperature[edit] Main articles: Instrumental temperature record and Urban heat island Temperature variations during the present geological age NOAA graph of Global Annual Temperature Anomalies 1950–2012 There have been attempts to raise public controversy over the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record on the basis of the urban heat island effect, the quality of the surface station network, and assertions that there have been unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record. Weather stations that are used to compute global temperature records are not evenly distributed over the planet. There were a small number of weather stations in the 1850s, and the number didn't reach the current 3000+ until the 1951 to 1990 period [115] The 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) acknowledged that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cited analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.[116] Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas.[117] Parker (2006) found that there was no difference in warming between calm and windy nights. Since the urban heat island effect is strongest for calm nights and is weak or absent on windy nights, this was taken as evidence that global temperature trends are not significantly contaminated by urban effects.[118] Pielke and Matsui published a paper disagreeing with Parker's conclusions.[119] In 2005, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States.[120][121] In 2007, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.[122] The Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres subsequently published a study by Menne et al. which examined the record of stations picked out by Watts' Surfacestations.org and found that, if anything, the poorly sited stations showed a slight cool bias rather than the warm bias which Watts had anticipated.[123][124] The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group carried out an independent assessment of land temperature records, which examined issues raised by skeptics, such as the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The preliminary results, made public in October 2011, found that these factors had not biased the results obtained by NOAA, the Hadley Centre together with the Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) and NASA's GISS in earlier studies. The group also confirmed that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results closely matched those obtained from these earlier studies. The four papers they had produced had been submitted for peer review.[125][126][127][128] Instrumental record of tropospheric temperature[edit] General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.[129] Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature", leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.[130] Geologic temperature records[edit] Before humans learned to record the temperature of earth's climate system, various biological and geological processes left clues to past climate conditions. The analysis of these clues is the focus of the science of paleoclimatology. The field still has a variety of uncertainties. Antarctica cooling[edit] Main article: Antarctica cooling controversy Antarctic Skin (the roughly top millimeter of land, sea, snow, or ice) Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors; note that they do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends. There has been a public dispute regarding the apparent contradiction in the observed behavior of Antarctica, as opposed to the global rise in temperatures measured elsewhere in the world. This became part of the public debate in the global warming controversy, particularly between advocacy groups of both sides in the public arena, as well as the popular media.[131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138] In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the trend is computed.[139] A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."[140] According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in the past 30 years."[141][142] This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al.,[143][144] which found that "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn."[143] Later the controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear,[145] who advocated skepticism in global warming.[146][147] This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues that "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran, et al.[143] Peter Doran, the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'... Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent."[148] Climate sensitivity[edit] As defined by the IPCC, climate sensitivity is the "equilibrium temperature rise that would occur for a doubling of CO2 concentration above pre-industrial levels."[149] In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC said that climate sensitivity is "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C".[150] Using a combination of surface temperature history and ocean heat content, Stephen E. Schwartz has proposed an estimate of climate sensitivity of 1.9 ± 1.0 K for doubled CO2.,[151] revised upwards from 1.1 ± 0.5 K.[152] Grant Foster, James Annan, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael E. Mann[153][154] argue that there are errors in both versions of Schwartz's analysis. Petr Chylek and co-authors have also proposed low climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, estimated to be 1.6 K ± 0.4 K.[155] In January 2013 widespread publicity was given to work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, which reportedly found lower climate sensitivities than IPCC estimates and the suggestion that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO2 emissions will increase temperatures by lower values than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC was featured in news outlets including The Economist.[156][157] This premature announcement came from a preliminary news release about a study which had not yet been peer reviewed.[158] The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO) issued a statement that they were involved with the relevant research project, and the news story was based on a report submitted to the research council which included both published and unpublished material. The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a journal before disseminating the results.[159] Infrared iris hypothesis[edit] In 2001, Richard Lindzen proposed a system of compensating meteorological processes involving clouds that tend to stabilize climate change; he tagged this the "Iris hypothesis, or "Infrared Iris."[160] This work has been discussed in a number of papers[161] Roy Spencer et al. suggested that "a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system" in tropical intraseasonal oscillations "may potentially support" the idea of an "Iris" effect, although they point out that their work is concerned with much shorter time scales.[162] Other analyses have found that the iris effect is a positive feedback rather than the negative feedback proposed by Lindzen.[163] Internal radiative forcing[edit] Roy Spencer hypothesized in 2008 that there is an "internal radiative forcing" affecting climate variability,[164][165] [...] mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. [...] it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability. [...] low frequency, internal radiative forcing amounting to little more than 1 W/m2, assumed to be proportional to a weighted average of the southern oscillation and Pacific decadal oscillation indices since 1900, produces ocean temperature behavior similar to that observed: warming from 1900 to 1940, then slight cooling through the 1970s, then resumed warming up to the present, as well as 70% of the observed centennial temperature trend. Temperature projections[edit] James Hansen's 1988 climate model projections compared with the GISS measured temperature record.[166] IPCC AR4 projections compared to the GISS temperature record.[166] James Hansen's 1984 climate model projections versus observed temperatures are updated each year by Dr Mikako Sato of Columbia University.[167] The RealClimate website provides an annual update comparing both Hansen's 1988 model projections and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) climate model projections with observed temperatures recorded by GISS and HadCRUT. The measured temperatures show continuing global warming.[166] Conventional projections of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future anthropogenic GHG emissions (see SRES), those positive and negative climate change feedbacks that have so far been incorporated into the models, and the climate sensitivity. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. Others have proposed that temperature increases may be higher than IPCC estimates. One theory is that the climate may reach a "tipping point" where positive feedback effects lead to runaway global warming; such feedbacks include decreased reflection of solar radiation as sea ice melts, exposing darker seawater, and the potential release of large volumes of methane from thawing permafrost.[168] In 1959 Dr. Bert Bolin, in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences, predicted that by the year 2000 there would be a 25% increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the levels in 1859. The actual increase by 2000 was about 29%.[169] David Orrell or Henk Tennekes[170] say that climate change cannot be accurately predicted. Orrell says that the range of future increase in temperature suggested by the IPCC rather represents a social consensus in the climate community, but adds that "we are having a dangerous effect on the climate".[171] Global mean land-ocean temperature changes from 1880, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. Source: NASA GISS. A 2007 study by David Douglass and coworkers concluded that the 22 most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC were unable to accurately predict accelerated warming in the troposphere although they did match actual surface warming, concluding that "projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution". This result went against a similar study of 19 models which found that discrepancies between model predictions and actual temperature were likely due to measurement errors.[172] In a NASA report published in January 2013, Hansen and Sato noted that "the 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing."[156][173] According to several papers published in 2012,[who?] previous projections by the main climate simulation models have failed to predict this lack of additional warming that took place between 2000 and 2010.[citation needed] Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, the "surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years".[156][174] Using the long-term temperature trends for the earth scientists and statisticians conclude that it continues to warm through time.[175] Forecasts confidence[edit] The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads: There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.[176] Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, believe this confidence in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned.[177][178][179][180] Arctic sea ice decline[edit] Main article: Arctic sea ice decline Arctic Sea ice as of 2007 compared to 2005 and also compared to 1979–2000 average Northern Hemisphere ice trends Following the (then) record low of the arctic sea ice extend in 2007,[181] Mark Serreze, the director of US National Snow and Ice Data Center, stated "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate".[182] In 2012, during another record low, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted a possible final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months around 2016.[183] Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent are available on a daily basis from the National Snow & Ice Data Center.[184] Data archiving and sharing[edit] Main article: Hockey stick controversy Scientific journals and funding agencies generally require authors of peer-reviewed research to provide information on archives of data and share sufficient data and methods necessary for a scientific expert on the topic to reproduce the work. In political controversy over the 1998 and 1999 historic temperature reconstructions widely publicised as the "hockey stick graphs", Mann, Bradley and Hughes as authors of the studies were sent letters on 23 June 2005 from Rep. Joe Barton, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Ed Whitfield, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, demanding full records on the research.[185] [186] [187] The letters told the scientist to provide not just data and methods, but also personal information about their finances and careers, information about grants provided to the institutions they had worked for, and the exact computer codes used to generate their results.[188] Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" seemingly intended to "intimidate scientists rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional political review for scientific review." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Ralph J. Cicerone wrote to Barton proposing that the NAS should appoint an independent panel to investigate. Barton dismissed this offer.[189][190] On 15 July, Mann wrote giving his detailed response to Barton and Whitfield. He emphasised that the full data and necessary methods information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work. NSF policy was that computer codes are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure, but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available at the Mann et al. public FTP site. [191] Many scientists protested about Barton's demands.[189][192] Alan I. Leshner wrote to him on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science stating that the letters gave "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding," He stated that Mann, Bradley and Hughes had given out their full data and descriptions of methods.[193][194] A Washington Post editorial on 23 July which described the investigation as harassment quoted Bradley as saying it was "intrusive, far-reaching and intimidating", and Alan I. Leshner of the AAAS describing it as unprecedented in the 22 years he had been a government scientist; he thought it could "have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to work in areas that are politically relevant."[188] Congressman Boehlert said the investigation was as "at best foolhardy" with the tone of the letters showing the committee's inexperience in relation to science.[193] Barton was given support by global warming sceptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who said "We've always wanted to get the science on trial ... we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law", and "this could work".[193] In his Junk Science column on Fox News, Steven Milloy said Barton's inquiry was reasonable.[195] In September 2005 David Legates alleged in a newspaper op-ed that the issue showed climate scientists not abiding by data access requirements and suggested that legislators might ultimately take action to enforce them.[196] Political questions[edit] See also: Politics of global warming and Economics of global warming The Washington Monument illuminated with a message from Greenpeace criticizing American environmental policy In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans tend to oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproven, while Democrats tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming and its effects through the control of greenhouse gas emissions.[197] A bipartisan measure was introduced in the US House of Representatives as recently as 2007.[198] Climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth stated: The SPM was approved line by line by governments[...] The argument here is that the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia. This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what should be uncontroversial text... The most contentious paragraph in the IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much debate, the following was carefully crafted: "In the light of new evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations".[199] As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including: The social and environmental impacts The appropriate response to climate change Whether decisions require less uncertainty The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature: Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a few degrees, I'll live fine." ... [The] point is that one or two degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000 years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been—globally averaged, we're talking—fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up more than a degree or two. (Stephen H. Schneider[200]) The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions on the use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect on global temperature.[citation needed] Because of the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who argue that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.[201] They state that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.[202] The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the United States is as clear as it can be. And it is required for the way we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and for our future. Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer, President of Western Fuels Association[202]) Conversely, others argue that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.[203] In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, Joseph J. Romm discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so... On a local or regional level, some specific effects of global warming might be considered beneficial.[204] Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into consideration other potential impacts of any change. Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Walter Russell Mead argues that the 2009 Copenhagen Summit failed because environmentalists have changed from "Bambi to Godzilla". According to Mead, environmentalist used to represent the skeptical few who made valid arguments against big government programs which tried to impose simple but massive solutions on complex situations. Environmentalists' more recent advocacy for big economic and social intervention against global warming, according to Mead, has made them, "the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats" and thus has lost them the support of a public which is increasingly skeptical of global warming.[205] Various campaigns such as 350.org and many Greenpeace projects have been started in an effort to push the world's leaders towards changing laws and policies that would effectively reduce the world's carbon emissions and use of non-renewable energy resources. Kyoto Protocol[edit] Main article: Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it goes too far[206] or not nearly far enough[207] in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of controversy is the fact that China and India, the world's two most populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to reduce or even limit the growth of carbon emissions under the present agreement even though when listed by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, they have rankings of 121st largest per capita emitter at 3.9 Tonnes of CO2e and 162nd largest per capita emitter at 1.8 Tonnes of CO2e respectively, compared with for example the US at position of the 14th largest per capita CO2e emitter at 22.9 Tonnes of CO2e. Nevertheless, China is the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, and India 4th (see: countries by greenhouse emissions). Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[208][209][210] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[211][212] Additionally, high costs of decreasing emissions may cause significant production to move to countries that are not covered under the treaty, such as India and China, says Fred Singer.[213] As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is said to cause additional carbon emissions. In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford.[214] This paper was written by 14 academics from various disciplines in the sciences and humanities, and also some policies thinkers, and they argued that the Kyoto Protocol crashed in late 2009 and "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years."[214] They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy.[215][216] The Hartwell paper proposes that "the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be".[214][215][216] The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the US (see signatories). The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil producers[citation needed]. Funding[edit] See also: Global warming denial The Global Climate Coalition was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed skepticism about global warming. In the year 2000, several members left the coalition when they became the target of a national divestiture campaign run by John Passacantando and Phil Radford at Ozone Action. According to the New York Times, when Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition, it was “the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming.”[14][217] After that, between December, 1999 and early March, 2000, the GCC was deserted by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, energy firm the Southern Company and General Motors.[218] The Global Climate Coalition closed in 2002, or in their own words, 'deactivated'.[219] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate change writer Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants to Soon from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and from ExxonMobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."[15] In February 2015, Greenpeace disclosed papers documenting that Soon failed to disclose to academic journals funding including more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel industry related interests including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Southern Company.[220][221][222] To investigate how widespread such hidden funding was, senators Barbara Boxer, Edward Markey and Sheldon Whitehouse wrote to a number of companies. Koch general counsel refused the request and said it would infringe the company's first amendment rights.[223] The Greenpeace research project ExxonSecrets, and George Monbiot writing in The Guardian, as well as various academics,[224][225] have linked several skeptical scientists—Fred Singer, Fred Seitz and Patrick Michaels—to organizations funded by ExxonMobil and Philip Morris for the purpose of promoting global warming skepticism. These organizations include the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation.[226] Similarly, groups employing global warming skeptics, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, have been criticized for their ties to fossil fuel companies.[227] On 2 February 2007, The Guardian stated[228][229] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[230] to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process", specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. A furor was raised when it was revealed that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (an energy cooperative that draws a significant portion of its electricity Marianne Majerus born photographer Michel Majerus born – artist Laurent Menager – composer Antoine Meyer – poet and mathematician Bady Minck born artist & filmmaker Alexander Mullenbach born composer Jean Muller born pianist Joseph Alexandre Müller – composer Désirée Nosbusch born actress Joseph Probst – artist Harry Rabinger – painter Pierre Joseph Redouté – painter Michel Reis born jazz pianist Business edit George Atanasoski John Bitove John Bitove Sr Andy Peykoff Mike Ilitch Founder of Little Caesars and owner of Detroit Red Wings and Detroit Tigers Mike Zafirovski President and C E O of Nortel Networks Steve Stavro Sport edit Soccer players edit Zoran Baldovaliev ????? ??????????? Boško Gjurovski ????? ???????? Mario Gjurovski ????? ???????? Milko Gjurovski ????? ???????? Dragi Setinov ????? ??????? ?or?i Hristov ????? ??????? Cedomir Janevski ??????? ???????? Marek Jankulovski ????? ??????????? Jovan Kirovski Goran Maznov ????? ?????? Igor Mitreski ???? ???????? Ilco Naumoski ???? ???????? Oka Nikolov ??? ??????? Jane Nikolovski J??? ?????????? Darko Pancev ????? ?????? Goran Pandev ????? ?????? Saško P?ndev ????? ?????? Robert Petrov ?????? ?????? Goran Popov ????? ????? Robert Popov ?????? ????? Stevica Ristic ??????? ?????? Goce Sedloski ???? ???????? Goran Slavkovski ????? ?????????? Vujadin Stanojkovic ??????? ??????????? Mile Šterjovski ???? ?????????? Velice Šumulikoski ?????? ??????????? Goce Toleski ???? ??????? Vanco Trajanov ????? ???????? Jovica Trajcev ?????? ??????? Ivan Trickovski ???? ?????????? Aleksandar Vasoski ?????????? ??????? Blagoja Vidinic ??????? ??????? Peter Daicos Handball edit Kiril Lazarov ????? ??????? Swimming edit Atina Bojadži Hockey edit Steve Staios Ed Jovanovski Dan Jancevski Steven Stamkos José Théodore Christopher Tanev Boxing edit Ace Rusevski ??? ???????? Redžep Redžepovski ????? ?????????? Basketball edit Petar Naumoski ????? ???????? Todor Gecevski ????? ???????? Vrbica Stefanov ?????? ???????? Vlado Ilievski ????? ???????? Pero Antic ???? ????? Baseball edit Kevin Kouzmanoff Football edit Pete Stoyanovich Art edit Architects edit Miroslav Grcev ???????? ????? Painters edit Dimitar Avramovski–Pandilov ??????? ?????????? ???????? Nikola Martinovski ?????? ??????????? Dimitar Kondovski ??????? ????????? Lazar Licenoski ????? ????????? Petar Mazev ????? ????? Tomo Vladimirski ???? ??????????? Vangel Kodžoman ?????? ??????? Rahim Blak Gavril Atanasov ?????? ???????? Maja Hill Sculptors edit Gligor Stefanov ?????? ???????? Film edit Actors edit Touriya Haoud Meto Jovanovski ???? ?????????? Labina Mitevska ?????? ???????? Tony Naumovski ???? ????????? Naum Panovski ???? ???????? Igor Džambazov ???? ???????? Petre Prlicko ????? ??????? Vlado Jovanovski ????? ?????????? ?or?i Kolozov ????? ??????? Toni Mihajlovski ???? ??????????? Editors edit Filmmakers edit Petar Gligorovski ????? ??????????? Milco Mancevski ????? ????????? Apostol Trpeski ??????? ??????? Stole Popov ????? ????? Showbiz edit Ziya Tong television producer TV host Academia edit Scientists edit Georgi Efremov ?????? ??????? Ratko Janev ????? ????? Zoran T Popovski ????? ? ???????? Social academics edit Dimitrija Cupovski ????????? ???????? Gjorgji Pulevski ????? ???????? Mihail Petruševski ?????? ??????????? State edit Politicians edit Metodija Andonov Cento ???????? ??????? ????? Stojan Andov ?????? ????? Strašo Angelovski ?????? ?????????? Ljupco Arsov ????? ????? Ljube Boškoski ???? ???????? Vlado Buckovski ????? ????????? Branko Crvenkovski ?????? ??????????? Ljubco Georgievski ????? ??????????? Kiro Gligorov ???? ???????? Nikola Gruevski ?????? ???????? Gjorge Ivanov ????? ?????? Gordana Jankuloska ??????? ?????????? Zoran Jolevski ????? ???????? Srgjan Kerim ????? ????? Lazar Koliševski ????? ?????????? Hari Kostov ???? ?????? Trifun Kostovski ?????? ????????? Ilinka Mitreva ?????? ??????? Lazar Mojsov ????? ?????? Tito Petkovski ???? ????????? Lui Temelkovski ??? ??????????? Boris Trajkovski ????? ?????????? Vasil Tupurkovski ????? ??????????? Zoran Zaev ????? ???? Partisans World War II freedom fighters edit Mirce Acev ????? ???? Mihajlo Apostolski ????j?? ?????????? Cede Filipovski Dame ???? ?????????? ???? Blagoj Jankov Muceto ?????? ?????? ?????? Orce Nikolov ???? ??????? Strašo Pindžur ?????? ?????? Hristijan Todorovski Karpoš ????????? ?????????? ?????? Revolutionaries edit Yordan Piperkata ?????? ???????? ????????? Goce Delcev ???? ????? Petar Pop Arsov ????? ??? ????? Dame Gruev ???? ????? Jane Sandanski ???? ????????? Dimitar Pop Georgiev Berovski ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? Ilyo Voyvoda ???? ??? ?????????? Pere Tošev ???? ????? Pitu Guli ???? ???? Dimo Hadži Dimov ???? ???? ????? Hristo Uzunov ?????? ?????? Literature edit Gjorgji Abadžiev ????? ??????? Petre M Andreevski ????? ? ?????????? Maja Apostoloska ???? ??????????? Dimitrija Cupovski ????????? ???????? Jordan Hadži Konstantinov Džinot ?????? ???? ???????????? ????? Vasil Iljoski ????? ?????? Slavko Janevski ?????? ???????? Blaže Koneski ????? ??????? Risto Krle ????? ???? Vlado Maleski ????? ??????? Mateja Matevski ?????? ???????? Krste Misirkov ????? ????????? Kole Nedelkovski ???? ??????????? Olivera Nikolova Anton Panov ????? ????? Gjorche Petrov ????? ?????? Vidoe Podgorec ????? ???????? Aleksandar Prokopiev ?????????? ????????? Koco Racin ???? ????? Jovica Tasevski Eternijan ?????? ???????? ????????? Gane Todorovski ???? ?????????? Stevan Ognenovski ?????? ?????????? Music edit Classical music edit Composers edit Atanas Badev ?????? ????? Dimitrije Bužarovski ????????? ?????????? Kiril Makedonski ????? ?????????? Toma Prošev ???? ?????? Todor Skalovski ????? ????????? Stojan Stojkov ?????? ??????? Aleksandar Džambazov ?????????? ???????? Conductors edit Borjan Canev ?????? ????? Instrumentalists edit Pianists Simon Trpceski ????? ???????? Opera singers edit Blagoj Nacoski ?????? ??????? Boris Trajanov ????? ???????? Popular and folk music edit Composers edit Darko Dimitrov ????? ???????? Slave Dimitrov ????? ???????? Jovan Jovanov ????? ??????? Ilija Pejovski ????? ???????? Musicians edit Bodan Arsovski ????? ???????? Goran Trajkoski ????? ????????? Ratko Dautovski ????? ????????? Kiril Džajkovski ????? ????????? Tale Ognenovski ???? ?????????? Vlatko Stefanovski ?????? ??????????? Stevo Teodosievski ????? ???????????? Aleksandra Popovska ?????????? ???????? Singers and Bands edit Lambe Alabakoski ????? ?????????? Anastasia ????????? Arhangel ???????? Kristina Arnaudova ???????? ????????? Kaliopi Bukle ??????? Dani Dimitrovska ???? ??????????? Riste Tevdoski ????? ???????? Karolina Goceva ???????? ?????? Vaska Ilieva ????? ?????? Andrijana Janevska ????????? ???????? Vlado Janevski ????? ???????? Jovan Jovanov ????? ??????? Leb i sol ??? ? ??? Aleksandar Makedonski ?????????? ?????????? Elvir Mekic ????? ????? Mizar ????? Jasmina Mukaetova ??????? ????e???? The Malagasy French Malgache are the ethnic group that forms nearly the entire population of Madagascar They are divided into two subgroups the "Highlander" Merina Sihanaka and Betsileo of the central plateau around Antananarivo Alaotra Ambatondrazaka and Fianarantsoa and the "coastal dwellers" elsewhere in the country This division has its roots in historical patterns of settlement The original Austronesian settlers from Borneo arrived between the third and tenth centuries and established a network of principalities in the Central Highlands region conducive to growing the rice they had carried with them on their outrigger canoes Sometime later a large number of settlers arrived from East Africa and established kingdoms along the relatively unpopulated coastlines The difference in ethnic origins remains somewhat evident between the highland and coastal regions In addition to the ethnic distinction between highland and coastal Malagasy one may speak of a political distinction as well Merina monarchs in the late th and early th century united the Merina principalities and brought the neighboring Betsileo people under their administration first They later extended Merina control over the majority of the coastal areas as well The military resistance and eventual defeat of most of the coastal communities assured their subordinate position vis à vis the Merina Betsileo alliance During the th and th centuries the French colonial administration capitalized on and further exacerbated these political inequities by appropriating existing Merina governmental infrastructure to run their colony This legacy of political inequity dogged the people of Madagascar after gaining independence in candidates ethnic and regional identities have often served to help or hinder their success in democratic elections Within these two broad ethnic and political groupings the Malagasy were historically subdivided into specifically named ethnic groups who were primarily distinguished from one another on the basis of cultural practices These were namely agricultural hunting or fishing practices construction style of dwellings music hair and clothing styles and local customs or taboos the latter known in the Malagasy language as fady citation needed The number of such ethnic groups in Madagascar has been debated The practices that distinguished many of these groups are less prevalent in the st century than they were in the past But many Malagasy are proud to proclaim their association with one or several of these groups as part of their own cultural identity "Highlander" ethnic groups Merina Sihanaka Betsileo Zafimaniry Coastal ethnic groups Antaifasy or Antefasy Antaimoro or Temoro or Antemoro Antaisaka or Antesaka Antambahoaka Antandroy or Tandroy Antankarana Antanosy or Tanosy Academia edit Afifi al Akiti Khasnor Johan historian Khoo Kay Kim Jomo Kwame Sundaram Danny Quah Harith Ahmad Architects edit Main article List of Malaysian architects Artists edit Main article List of Malaysian artists Business edit Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar Al Bukhary born Tan Sri Dato Loh Boon Siew – Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah Tan Sri William Cheng Dato Choong Chin Liang born Tan Sri Dato Tony Fernandes born Lim Goh Tong – Tan Sri Tiong Hiew King Tan Sri Teh Hong Piow born Chung Keng Quee – Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan born Robert Kuok born Tan Sri Quek Leng Chan born Shoba Purushothaman Shah Hakim Zain Halim Saad Tan Sri Mohd Saleh Sulong Tan Sri Vincent Tan born Lillian Too born Tan Sri Dr Francis Yeoh Tun Daim Zainuddin born Tan Sri Kong Hon Kong Designers edit Bernard Chandran fashion designer Jimmy Choo born shoe designer Poesy Liang born artist writer philanthropist jewellery designer industrial designer interior architect music composer Inventors edit Yi Ren Ng inventor of the Lytro Entertainers edit Yasmin Ahmad – film director Stacy Angie Francissca Peter born Jamal Abdillah born Sudirman Arshad – Loganathan Arumugam died Datuk David Arumugam Alleycats Awal Ashaari Alvin Anthons born Asmawi bin Ani born Ahmad Azhar born Ning Baizura born Kasma Booty died Marion Caunter host of One In A Million and the TV Quickie Ella born Erra Fazira born Sean Ghazi born Fauziah Latiff born Angelica Lee born Daniel Lee Chee Hun born Fish Leong born Sheila Majid born Amy Mastura born Mohamad Nasir Mohamad born Shathiyah Kristian born Meor Aziddin Yusof born Ah Niu born Dayang Nurfaizah born Shanon Shah born Siti Nurhaliza born Misha Omar born Hani Mohsin – Aziz M Osman born Azmyl Yunor born P Ramlee born Aziz Sattar born Fasha Sandha born Ku Nazhatul Shima Ku Kamarazzaman born Nicholas Teo born Pete Teo Penny Tai born Hannah Tan born Jaclyn Victor born Chef Wan Adira Suhaimi Michael Wong born Victor Wong born Dato Michelle Yeoh Hollywood actress born James Wan director of Hollywood films like several Saw films Insidious The Conjuring Fast and Furious born Ziana Zain born Zee Avi Shila Amzah Yunalis Zarai Zamil Idris born Military edit Leftenan Adnan – Warrior from mainland Malaya Antanum Warrior from Sabah Borneo Rentap Warrior from Sarawak Syarif Masahor Warrior from Sarawak Monsopiad Warrior from Sabah Borneo Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong Warrior from Telemong Terengganu Mat Salleh Warrior from Sabah Borneo Rosli Dhobi Warrior from Sarawak Politicians edit Parameswara founder of Sultanate of Malacca Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al Haj st Prime Minister of independent Malaya Tun Abdul Razak nd Prime Minister V T Sambanthan Founding Fathers of Malaysia along with Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tan Cheng Lock Tun Dato Sir Tan Cheng Lock Founder of MCA Tun Hussein Onn rd Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad th Prime Minister Father of Modernisation Abdullah Ahmad Badawi th Prime Minister since Najib Tun Razak Current Prime Minister since Dato Seri Ong Ka Ting Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim Dato Wan Hisham Wan Salleh Nik Aziz Nik Mat Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin Federal Territory and Urban Wellbeing Minister Wan Azizah Wan Ismail Karpal Singh Lim Kit Siang Lim Guan Eng Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah Religious edit Antony Selvanayagam Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Penang Anthony Soter Fernandez Archbishop Emeritus of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur and Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Penang Gregory Yong – Second Roman Catholic Archbishop of Singapore Tan Sri Datuk Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam Metropolitan archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia Singapore and Brunei and publisher of the Catholic weekly newspaper The Herald Datuk Ng Moon Hing the fourth and current Anglican Bishop of West Malaysia Sportspeople edit Squash edit Datuk Nicol Ann David Ong Beng Hee Azlan Iskandar Low Wee Wern Badminton edit Chan Chong Ming men s doubles Dato Lee Chong Wei Chew Choon Eng men s doubles Wong Choong Hann Chin Eei Hui women s doubles Hafiz Hashim Roslin Hashim Wong Pei Tty women s doubles Choong Tan Fook men s doubles Lee Wan Wah men s doubles Koo Kien Keat men s doubles Tan Boon Heong men s doubles Retired edit Tan Aik Huang Eddy Choong Punch Gunalan Yap Kim Hock Foo Kok Keong Jalani Sidek Misbun Sidek Rashid Sidek Razif Sidek Cheah Soon Kit Lee Wan Wah Football soccer edit Brendan Gan Sydney FC Shaun Maloney Wigan Athletic Akmal Rizal Perak FA Kedah FA RC Strasbourg FCSR Haguenau Norshahrul Idlan Talaha Kelantan FA Khairul Fahmi Che Mat Kelantan FA Mohd Safiq Rahim Selangor FA Mohd Fadzli Saari Selangor FA PBDKT T Team FC SV Wehen Rudie Ramli Selangor FA PKNS F C SV Wehen Mohd Safee Mohd Sali Selangor FA Pelita Jaya Baddrol Bakhtiar Kedah FA Mohd Khyril Muhymeen Zambri Kedah FA Mohd Azmi Muslim Kedah FA Mohd Fadhli Mohd Shas Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce Mohd Irfan Fazail Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce Wan Zack Haikal Wan Noor Harimau Muda A FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce F C Ryukyu Nazirul Naim Che Hashim Harimau Muda A F C Ryukyu Khairul Izuan Abdullah Sarawak FA Persibo Bojonegoro PDRM FA Stanley Bernard Stephen Samuel Sabah FA Sporting Clube de Goa Nazmi Faiz Harimau Muda A SC Beira Mar Ahmad Fakri Saarani Perlis FA Atlético S C Chun Keng Hong Penang FA Chanthaburi F C Retired edit Serbegeth Singh owner founder of MyTeam Blackburn Rovers F C Global dvisor Mokhtar Dahari former Selangor FA and Malaysian player Lim Teong Kim former Hertha BSC player