This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, the IPCC and similar groups of pseudo-scientists have a long history of falsification and intellectual dishonesty. Piltdown man and stem cell cloning to name a few.
This does raise the larger question of how our esteemed elected officials plan to reconcile their previous statements. After reading an IPCC report Senator Barbara Boxer boldly proclaimed:
This powerful report confirms the very real dangers that global warming poses for us all. The effects of global warming will be felt throughout the world. 1
This wouldn't the first time the vapid witch of the west has put her foot in her mouth.
Beyond that, it should concern you that policy makers are making policy based on falsified research. Or even for that matter, policy makers are making policy based on science itself. Assume for a moment that the IPCC wasn't wrong, the sea level is rising dramatically. It doesn't tell us anything about policy. Climatologists don't ask the question of does it matter? Does it matter sea levels are rising? The question is left up to other disciplines of thought. Simply saying that the sea levels will rise or fall does not mean government will better everyone or anyone by intervention.
Morner goes on to say in the article:
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge.
This is why I consider myself a far superior scientist to the kind at IPCC. The methods they use are not scientific. They are not empirical methods. The correction factor they used is because of falling sea levels in areas of Hong Kong. In other words, a falling sea level in Hong Kong doesn't fit in very well with the computer modeling of global sea levels rising. Instead of checking to see if the data in the field is correct, it is automatically discarded. Wholly unscientific.