Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Two HOT graphics

Two HOT graphics

One of the iconic “proofs” of man-made global warming is the infamous “hockey stick” graph”.

“Hockey Stick” graph.

Skeptics questioned the statistics and data used to generate the graph.  So, as Powerline’s John Hinderaker noted, “a group of climate alarmists headed by Shaun Marcott, a geologist at Oregon State, released a study that purported to resurrect the infamous hockey stick.”

Their article recently appeared in Science, and was then republished by the usual elite media global warming perpetrators.

This second graph just got fisked, big-time.

Anthony Watts, on his Watts Up With That blog, summarizes the work of climate-science watchdog and data analyst extraordinaire, Steve McIntyre.  McIntyre figured out how the “hockey stick” scientists “hid the decline“.

It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.

What was the nature of the change? Scientist Lorraine Yapps Cohen explains in her Examiner piece:

McIntyre’s analysis of the data is too complicated to go into here. Suffice it to say that he examined how Marcott’s data was “recalibrated,” “redated,” and otherwise manipulated to produce the desired result as a dramatic rise in recent global temperatures. Perhaps worst of all, data that showed the embarrassing decreasing temperatures in the 20th century were simply…. dropped.

Yes, dropping data tends to impact final results.

Yapps Cohen reports that there are many calls to Science to retract the “hockey stick” paper. However, David Rose of the UK Daily Mail offers proof that even if the magazine fails to do so, the hot-air is already leaking from the Global Warming balloon.

The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.

The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills….

The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.

The two graphs paint a grim picture of climatology as it is practiced today. As Hinderaker concluded:

In short, the global warming movement is corrupt to the core. Billions of dollars in government funding–I am too polite to say “bribes”–have bought not just the acquiescence but the eager collaboration of many scientists in a massive fraud.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Posted this to the tip-line the other day…

LEMONT, Ill. (AP) — Envisioning cars that can go “coast to coast without using a drop of oil,” President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress to authorize spending $2 billion over the next decade to expand research into electric cars and biofuels to wean automobiles off gasoline.

Obama, expanding on an initiative he addressed in his State of the Union speech last month, said the United States must shift its cars and trucks entirely off oil to avoid perpetual fluctuations in gas prices. Citing policies that already require automakers to increase gas mileage, he said he expects that by the middle of the next decade, Americans will only have to fill up their cars half as often.

“We’ve set some achievable but ambitious goals,” Obama said, speaking at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago

“The only way to break this cycle of spiking gas prices — the only way to break that cycle for good — is to shift our cars entirely, our cars and trucks, off oil,” the president said.

That level of delusion is dangerous.

Not just foolish. Dangerous.

    Juan De La Salsa in reply to Ragspierre. | March 19, 2013 at 9:16 am

    I’m with you on this, Rags.

    How can one person in a position of President be so dangerously clueless?

    I can imagine nary a drop of gasoline in a coast-to-coast drive… with personal-sized nuclear power generators in our cars. VOILA! no gas.

    But, but, but…
    My car doors and axles need grease. My transmission will seize before I leave my driveway if I don’t fill it up with that evil oil.

    When I can lube the whole car with wind; when the trains run on unicorn farts; when planes fly on rainbow power…

    Then we’ll talk, Mr. President.

    So, Rags, on ‘dangerous’ and ‘foolish’ we wholehaeartedly agree. But I would add ‘criminally’ to the front of those words. Any person anywhere claiming CO2 to be a greenhouse pollutant should be stripped of any/all authority over anything and publicly shamed.

    There’s an old saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. The squeaky wheels in the country/world are getting their grease.

    But my dad told me about an addendum to that old saying:
    “Yes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but sometimes it gets replaced.”

    I’m ready for replacements.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Juan De La Salsa. | March 19, 2013 at 10:48 am

      The majority of oil-derived product in a typical car or truck is not the fuel, motor oil, or lubricants – it’s in the plastics used to construct the vehicle.

      I’m dying to learn how the green movement plans to replace plastics with sunlight or wind derivatives.

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 19, 2013 at 11:16 am

        Two words, and you too can get in on the ground floor…

        Pond. Scum.

        Remember, you heard it here first…ish…

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | March 19, 2013 at 2:39 pm

          Yeah, but the amounts of fresh water necessary to make pond scum a viable energy source under current or near future technology makes it a greater environmental threat than the one it would replace. *sigh* It’s not easy being green. (Cue the Kermit song….):

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | March 19, 2013 at 2:42 pm

          Oh, NOESSSS….!!!

          I am breathlessly awaiting the GM car that runs on pond scum.

          The Chevy Molt.

          Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | March 24, 2013 at 11:44 pm

          Our opponents may be unicorn believers, but they are not pond scum. You sir have insulted pond scum for no good reason.

          What? Oh, you meant they’re going to make plastic from pond scum. Or they are going to hope somebody else will, since they have never created anything useful.

      Ragspierre in reply to Juan De La Salsa. | March 19, 2013 at 11:21 am

      I HIGHLY recommend that video.

      Ridley presents and interesting and…to me…novel concept:

      Fossil fuels…of which we HAVE WAY MORE than we need any time in the foreseeable future…require NO competition with other living things.

      Stupid ideas like ethanol for motor fuel, or wood for power, DO.

      You’d almost have to think that energy-dense, readily obtained, and versatile stuff was put there on purpose…

      well, it helps if you were and utter dipshit with no real world experience to begin with.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | March 19, 2013 at 10:45 am

    Remember when the idiot was running in 2008? He went off teleprompter and espoused the virtues of inflating your times to save gas. Hell, to listen to him, if you put enough air in your tires, your car would not need gasoline. I’m sure Prez-O-Bama’s car actually produced gasoline.

    I wonder if he checks the air in Air Farce One’s tires.

    robnbc in reply to Ragspierre. | March 19, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Pope Francis urged princes, presidents, sheiks and thousands of ordinary people gathered for his installation Mass on Tuesday to protect the environment, the weakest and the poorest, mapping out a clear focus of his priorities as leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics.

    Sounds like another one of those left-wing “alarmists.”
    When are the same old Heartland talking points going to finally bore people to death. Conservatives need credibility. The hockey stick graph has been confirmed again and again. There’s also plenty of other evidence to show us the Earth is warming.

    Its time to start thinking of the world our children will live in and stop sucking up to the Koch Bros.

      Paul in reply to robnbc. | March 19, 2013 at 10:04 pm

      you know what? we should take care of our environment. but reminding people to do so and confiscatory tax policy are two completely different beasts.

      dorsaighost in reply to robnbc. | March 25, 2013 at 10:11 am

      since the Mann hockey stick has been proven to be a fraud and a statistical artifact of cherry picked tree ring data I think you need to do better homework before posting …

Juan De La Salsa | March 19, 2013 at 9:04 am

I may be the farthest thing from a climate scientist, but I’ve never bought into this hype.

I’m old enough to remember the predictions from the 70s, claiming Earth would be one big ice ball by now if we didn’t eliminate chloroflourocarbons.

Apparently we were so effective at eliminating CFCs that now we’re in danger of watching Earth melt?

It seems to me there is a whole class of people who just aren’t happy unless they have the rest of us on our heels, defensive and confused at all times.

Then, of course, the best answer to eliminating our defensiveness and confusion is to just send more money.

Global warming alarmism is global wealth redistribution in scientist’s clothing.

I would like to see a map graph showing where the global warming alarmists can be found. I bet the temperatures in these areas are significantly increased by the increase in hot air.

We must do something about CO2 emissons which are obviously causing this climate unpredictabiliy.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to dons. | March 19, 2013 at 10:41 am

    I fixed it for you:

    We must do something about CO2 emissons agenda-driven funding which are obviously causing this climate unpredictability.

      GrumpyOne in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | March 19, 2013 at 6:20 pm

      All of the alarmists are on the public dole in one form or another.

      Unfortunately, the created hysteria has formed a new industry/bureaucracy which has found its pace and will be difficult to stop. Sort of like the EPA, OSHA and other “helpful” agencies.

      Ain’t it just grand???

TrooperJohnSmith | March 19, 2013 at 10:39 am

I’d like to see a graph that shows a correlation between government funding and “positive proof” of anthropogenic global warming to those same individuals and institutions.

Talk about a hockey stick! It would likely have Wayne Gretzky attached to it!

The theory of “anthropogenic” global warming was opposed from the get-go by people with the ability to understand basic statistics and experimental science. That is, chemists, physicists, and engineers. The math didn’t scan.

A person with a background in experimental science and math will automatically test claims in a popular news story against ordinary experience. For example, the Scripps Institute (not sure which subdivision) published a story that it was going to install lots and lots of new weather stations, with temperature readers that would be responsive to the hundredths of a degree (as opposed to sensors that read to a tenth of a degree). This would, supposedly, greatly reduce the experimental error.

Having good equipment is nice, but I already knew, from reading the temperature sensor in my truck, that the area where I lived in at the time had consistent temperature differences (microclimate patterns) of + or – 5 degrees Farenheit EVERY DAY.

With that kind of variability in the weather system, increasing the sensitivity of the temperature sensors would have exactly zero impact on experimental error. The reason is that the temperature sensors were already well capable of capturing temperature variances outside the margin of error (+ or – 5 degrees).

That’s what you get when you have a photographer running your research institute.

Henry Hawkins | March 19, 2013 at 11:00 am

If we adhere strictly to the science and to science methodology in disproving AGW theory, we must follow it all the way through and accept that disproving current AGW theory does not disprove AGW. It only means that what currently passes for evidence does not meet scientific standards and therefore does not prove AGW.

In that AGW *could* be catastrophic were it true, and because the current set of ‘evidence’ is so hopelessly adulterated by politics and grant-seeking greed, what is needed is a complete do-over, a comprehensive, independent, objectively scientific project to make a reliable and replicable determination.

The necessary size and scope of such an effort makes it difficult to see anything but a governmental or corporate management, which likely reintroduces politics and greed right back into the effort.

So, on an issue of potentially great import, we see the true damage done by the data-selective, lying environmental faux-science crowd – not only have they totally mucked up the current effort, they’ve made it virtually impossible to conduct a new reliable study of the issue.

Noblesse Oblige | March 19, 2013 at 11:25 am

Of course it is not about the planet, never was. It is about controlling us and about money. Global warming has become big business, not just the billions spent on supporting the scientists who rely on the scam for funding. It is about rent seekers who feed at the public trough to peddle stuff that cannot compete in the marketplace, in exchange of course for their political support.

As for Obama and his baseless lunatic pronouncements, we voted for it. Enjoy the ride downhill.

Thank you Leslie Eastman and Legal Insurrection for following this.

One of the problems we are really facing is not really just the High Priests of AGW, but the propagandists in the MSM that hide the truth in the argument. In these cases too often in the MSM it is always the headline of gloom and doom, then the retraction, if any, is on page 23 next to the obituaries.

We (as in the unwashed masses) are never told when these theories get debunked, or that even in the IPCC’s latest report they confirm that global warming has stopped since some 15 – 17 years ago, or that the original “Hockey” team erased the MWP etc.

Reality is that govt. and the social engineers cannot just say “we need more taxes so that we can grow govt. and redistribute income”, and there is not enough money that can be taken from the “greedy rich” to support the bloodlust for more govt.

So a crisis has to be invented, otherwise taxing the middle class would be a 3rd rail and they would be voted out in a heartbeat, so they go around it by claiming these taxes are needed to “save us”.

And then of course they tell us the taxes for the “sins” are being placed upon industry then turning them into villains and use them as strawmen … “make those evil corporations pay” when in reality they know the costs are just passed onto us … a backdoor tax.

Please continue following this and writing, we need more writers that are skilled at explaining the truth in clear terms.

Nature is on our side, she doesn’t lie. 1st the truth then we expose the fraud, and then the reasons for the fraud.

Conservatives must be more involved and educated in this debate, and we must have these truths explained to us by honest people.

Thank you again LI.

1. It’s exasperating to read the media babbling about giant meteors hitting the Earth. I mean, every one on record so far has missed or done minor damage.

The above is a ridiculous argument, right? And yet—

2. There has been strong support in the scientific community for the validity of AGW. I don’t follow the issue closely, but afaik that community support has not been disavowed.

If climate models are defective & if workers in the field are corrupt, it is cause for serious concern, not for Neener neener! or What me worry?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to gs. | March 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    I was a ‘name’ member on the skeptical science scene up till about ten years ago when I walked away (founding member of CSICOP, now CSI, big ol’ website and message fora, speaking engagements, panel debates, a book on critical thinking, etc.). One of the primary reasons I walked away was the fact that even the skeptical movement among scientists – those dedicated to objectivity – is populated by scientists and attendant parties of whom a good 90% are liberals. Once you reveal conservative leanings, out you go, ostracized and enisled. I helped Dr. Michael Shermer (Skeptic Magazine) by going ‘undercover’ at skeptic groups and orgs in SC, NC, and VA to see what happens when you reveal you are anything but a liberal. Shermer is not particularly conservative or liberal, but he rightly fights bias based on political affiliation.

    My point is that scientists are educated at universities, typically to Ph.D level, and often to stay on as professors, and that length and level of enmeshment in western higher ed inevitably produces to-the-bone liberals. It typically has no effect on non-political scientific research, but AGW in particular is nothing BUT politics due to this bias.

    The foremost value in science is the recognition of man’s ability to fool himself, and so, scientific methodology accounts for this, protects against it, by establishing controls, as in ‘controlled study’. In non-political fields like astrophysics or chemistry, a liberal scientist generally gets the same results as a conservative scientist (all other factors being equal, that is – some are better than others in skill). AGW is the quintessential example of a pseudoscience wherein otherwise decent, skilled scientists will justify fudging the means in order to achieve the perceived necessary ends.

    Experiment I’d Love To See:

    1. Pick two university science departments who are ‘in’ on my experiement.

    2. Award each $10 million in fed grants to study AGW.

    3. Have one produce research supporting that GW exists and is man-caused.

    4. Have the other produce research that refutes man-caused GW.

    5. See which university is turned down on requests for more fed grant money.

    This is why some few research scientists will fudge research data and results on any subject (google “cold fusion” for a non-AGW example), but especially those involving AGW because it is so topically and politically ‘hot’ at the moment, and only supportive results bring more money, fame, notoriety, promotions, etc.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

      PS: Per scientific methodology, the number of scientists who do or do not endorse AGW is scientifically irrelevant – all that matters is the evidence. In science, one plumber’s helper with good evidence trumps the unevidenced opinions of a million scientists.

      There are a great many scientists who endorse AGW, and a great many who do not. Doesn’t matter. The pro-evidence is tainted, unreliable. The whole subject requires a complete do-over.

        For a number of reasons, testing climate models is fundamentally different from projects like Galileo’s supposed drop test or experiments on spontaneous generation. The time scales involved, the lack of large-scale reproducibility, the complexity, and the computational limitations are factors which come to mind offhand.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to gs. | March 19, 2013 at 6:59 pm

          Of course, but in science “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer.

no one has yet explained to me how a carbon based planet/life is in danger from carbon? When everything we or the earth does has to do with carbon………………..

The hockey stick graph has been confirmed again and again. There’s also plenty of other evidence to show us the Earth is warming. Take the melting ice. Rising seas. Increased wildfires, more powerful storms in the ocean due to more in the air, which is in turn do to a warmer ocean. This is only some of the evidence.

    Unfortunately one of the first “confirmations” happened when random numbers were fed into the algorithm. That was not a good start.

    I’ve commented before that Georgia Tech’s Judy Curry strikes me as somebody who is trying to get the science right. If I had time to educate myself about C(?)A(?)GW(?), I’d spend time at her site.

“In short, the global warming movement is corrupt to the core.”

As skeptics have believed from the start, a suspicion strengthened by the alarmists’ reflexive labeling of skeptics as paid shills of Big Carbon.

To know what the Left is doing, watch what they accuse their questioners of doing.

[…] price increase is a tithe to the bizarre Church of Global Warming, which soldiers on even after the total debunking of “global warming” mythology over the past two years. In fact, according to CNS News, the Obama Administration is now amusing […]

[…] price increase is a tithe to the bizarre Church of Global Warming, which soldiers on even after the total debunking of “global warming” mythology over the past two years.  In fact, according to CNS News, the Obama Administration is now […]

[…] price increase is a tithe to the bizarre Church of Global Warming, which soldiers on even after the total debunking of “global warming” mythology over the past two years.  In fact, according to CNS News, the Obama Administration is now amusing […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend