Saturday, October 03, 2009

Climate Change Scam Exposed

Proven? Sound science? Settled science? Hell, no!

We're talking fraud science here, folks. Listen, we've been duped big-time! (Well, not me, anyway)

The "Hockey Stick" graph, so often used by the climate-change snake-oil salesmen, is debunked.

It's all about corrupt, greedy "scientists" lying about data.

Using flawed & doctored data.

Rejecting valid, inconvenient-to-the-big-lie data.

The IPCC itself was either (highly unlikely and implausibly) duped, or (much more likely and plausibly) was part of the obvious, undeniable, yes, believe it or not, big-lie, international socialist plot, conspiracy. What's a conspiracy? Just a bunch of crooks colluding to defraud, to cheat, to lie, to commit crimes. Nothing bizarre or implausible about this conspiracy- it's proven now. Only a moron or a lazy-minded average person would deny the blatantly obvious.

Then in 2008 Briffa, Schweingruber and some colleagues published a paper using the Yamal series (again) in a journal called the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which has very strict data sharing rules. Steve sent in his customary request for the data, and this time an editor stepped up to the plate, ordering the authors to release their data. A short while ago the data appeared on the internet. Steve could finally begin to unpack the Yamal composite.

It turns out that many of the samples were taken from dead (partially fossilized) trees and they have no particular trend. The sharp uptrend in the late 20th century came from cores of 10 living trees alive as of 1990, and five living trees alive as of 1995. Based on scientific standards, this is too small a sample on which to produce a publication-grade proxy composite. The 18th and 19th century portion of the sample, for instance, contains at least 30 trees per year. But that portion doesn't show a warming spike. The only segment that does is the late 20th century, where the sample size collapses. Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset.

But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself!Had these been added to Briffa's small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.

I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.


I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency. - Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.
(Emphasis mine)

Thusly the deliberate fraud was exposed.

The "Hockey Stick" graph supposedly proving that the earth warmed massively in the 20th Century is exposed as a deliberate fraud.

Thus the "proof" must be rejected by everyone.

And the IPCC must own up to its part in the fraud.

And go back to the drawing board, starting from scratch. Everything they have must be considered worthless because they're obviously grossly, cavalierly incompetent and don't know what the hell they're doing or talking about. Or they're criminal fraudsters themselves.

No need, therefore, to worry about carbon emissions anymore.

Don't worry, be happy. Turn the lights back on! Drive monster 4X4 SUVs and big, rear-drive, V8-powered American cars! Focus on the economy! Move on! Don't let the evil Islamic supremacist Saudis and Communist Chinese win the race!

Read the whole thing!

ht: The tireless, always-on-the-case "Maz2", via the comments

Well, all ye dupes? Still believe the big lie? Still without reasonable doubts?

Now, why don't we focus on whether or not Obama has been proven to be a "natural-born" citizen (not just a "citizen", which is NOT in dispute at all), as required by the Constitution to be President?

Anyone have concrete proof that he was? Hearsay and allusions to claims of proof are worthless! In fact, the case that Obama is legitimately, legally the President is as full of big holes as is the infamous, scary-as-hell IPCC claim!

If you believe the lies of the IPCC and of Obama, then that's all the proof you need to have to realize that you are NOT using your brain enough!

It's just too easy to fall victim to big lies.

Remember: The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Anyone know which Big Liar said that? (Clue: he had a stupid-looking little mustache and was always in a pissy mood)