There was a man and a hockey stick…
The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual [Climate Audit] postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.
h/t to “Shippedout”
. . and then read this follow-up. Great comments
3w.climateaudit.org/?p=3434#comments
Excellent reading, again we can see that lazy reporting, self serving civil (and not so civil) servants, have dropped us into a morass of stupidity. Our political masters must start questioning their servants and their information suppliers. Without some doubting Thomases, in power, stupidity like Kyoto will continue.
Personally I think it is past time that we solve the mystery of the great cooling of one thousand years ago. It is sad to think of the upheaval experienced by those living in what is now Arizona, or Greenland, the damage done to the Inuit in our North when life became so much harder.
What horrible man-made thing did we create to cause this cooling. And even more important, what are we going to do to see that it never happens again. A royal commision should be struck. Or, as I often say to my customers here in Winnipeg, when they are objecting to one law or another, write your congressman. It is fun (and saddening) to hear how many say ” great idea”, ” I will do that”. They leave fired up with the desire to change their little portion of the world. Still waiting for the first one to come back and say “hey”, what did you tell me to do????
I wonder if CBCpravda has an official position as well. I know they claim to be the official opposition while Borat Dion and the Lieberals exit to the hallways during votes.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/8/bbc-backing-climate-change-alarmism-official.html
Thank you for the link to a new layman’s fisking of the Mann hockey stick etc., Kate.
And here’s a similar, older piece in Orson Scott Card’s Rhinoceros Times’ article showing the debunking of the Mann hockey stick by Canadian, Steve McIntyre:
“All in a Good Cause”
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html
Another voice from overseas looking back at us and our climate foolishness;
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/08/scourge-of-greenies-us-style.html
I wonder – when will this nightmare end? My thoughts – never. The key to nipping this kind of crap in the bud is education and we have for too long been educating idiots with feel-good curricula.
Bad people never admit they are wrong.
The Russian Bear, the loony left, the CHRCs and all their shareep creep(s), have much in common with fascience and its puppets.
They all love to ravage and loot what is decent and free and uplifting. Their legacy is hate and revenge.
Evil’s job is to make the bad look good, and the good look bad.
Vigilance is the gift that keeps on giving, whereas variants of passivism can be the defiance that keeps on taking.
This is no different than gun control. Just another bunch of technocrats turning science into a propaganda tool. Way to go on Climate Audit and Bishop Hill here for ripping the covers off. Again.
The Jesus Paper – a resurrection explained 🙂
And to think that the whole Global Warming Religion movement was based on Mann’s stick. A cooked up, fictional piece of work.
Climate Audit unearths another ‘move it to the back pages’ moment.
This is all driving responsible Environmentalists crazy.
As Lorrie Goldstein points out.
[There are reasons scary stories about air pollution have moved over time to the back pages of newspapers, just as scary stories about global warming already are.
They’re the same reasons scary stories about acid rain, asbestos, PCBs, alar, nuclear winter, the hole in the ozone layer and the predicted extinction of almost everything, including us, did in the past.
First, because the reality seldom turns out to be as bad as the prediction.
(the Earth has been cooling since 1998)
What crisis?
(warmer is better, CO2 is essential)
Second, because the predictions are often presented without context.
(Jesus Paper)
Third, because if everything is a crisis, then, by definition, nothing is a crisis.
(media fear mongering)
Fourth, because such reports are often based on the absurd idea that present human action predicts future human action, ignoring our capacity for change, adaptation and technological innovation, brought about in part by rational, as opposed to hysterical, concern for the environment.
(Al Gore vs Bjorn Lomborg)]
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/08/17/6476616.php
Climate Change happens here about every 5 minutes. It isn’t a bad thing…..
It is becoming increasingly apparent that some, who by their own or by others definition, scientist, are not really concerned with science all that much, if it will bring loads of cash to their bank account and give them a lifetime hangout.
As written in the article by Hill, the two ‘scientists’ have extreme, not using the term lightly, difficulty coming up with important information that, perhaps may show that what they are proposing is not actually what they are proposing, though it will bring another grant from public purse.
There are those scientists and commentators that will say, that those who assert that there is no human influence sufficient enough to cause climate of the earth to change, that they are paid by such and such company to say so. That of course is patently stupid on their part. They themselves are of course on the take from taxed public and supported by politicians whose voting hand will lean with the prevailing wind at any particular time irregardless of truth, ethics or any of the burdensome requirements to make knowledge based decision as opposed to ‘correct’.
When I first saw the hockey-stick graph, in a seminar, my immdediate thought was, “that couldn’t be right!”; the historical record didn’t support it. The mediaeval warm period is well documented, and described even by Farley Mowat in his account of Norse voyages to Greenland and to North America, and the Little Ice Age is similarly well documented (think of 16th century paintings of skating on frozen Dutch canals). I commented on this to the speaker, who said that data from all over the world were included. I wondered how complete the temperature record for 1500 etc was for Oceania! The speaker, however, is a conscientious scientist, who would not knowingly disseminate falsities, and an educated man, who did and does know his history. He understood the conflict between history and the “hockey stick” when it was pointed out.
Why is “science” accepted so readily by lay people, and historical evidence, or even the evidence of their own senses, mistrusted or ignored?!?
Kate, to borrow from your regular titles, regarding Amman, Wahl, and Mann;
Fire them. All.
MarineCorpsVet said “The key to nipping this kind of crap in the bud is education” to which I would say that education got us into this mess in the first place.
A wise man once said, “To make a man more susceptible to frauds, educate him”.
I can’t help but notice that all the “climate change” discussion is dressed up in academic language and completely leaves out the practical language of practical people based in practical experience.
A formidable task indeed, what the man is undertaking, like herding ducklings into a row. Thank you for the link, and the recommendation: a bracing drink does seem to be in order.
Despite being someone not predisposed to scientific goings-on, the “science” of AGW theory has long struck an off note with me. Bit by bit I find the studies of “dissenters” (blegh) more compelling and informative than what’s passing as a given in the pop culture paradigm. Indeed the pro-AGW faction often seems to play upon emotion, while interjecting a dash of plausible-sounding factoids. Just to keep things science-y. After all, the fate of the world is in our hands. Or something.
I agree with the commenter above, that climate change discussion is indeed dressed up in academic language – funny how the average person has such a powerful opinion on the matter. Is it because of the oft-trundled-out phrase “most experts agree…” that punctuates AGW-driven theory? When many of these experts are economists, or zoologists, or statisticians…or in any case, not climate scientists at all? I think that is a significant part of the debate that interests me – that because it is frequently, incorrectly stated that “every real scientist says so” and “the consensus amoung scientists is…” then it must be so. To the detriment of science, to debate, to truth. Curious.
everyone on the planet should just get over it or ignore it, because the climate will continue to change whether or not there is one single human on the planet or six billion. what a freaking waste of words.
John Lewis I agree, but don’t tell a child in high school today about it, they have a different version about the middle ages and why Greenland was a place for settlers then, and etc.
Revisionism is alive and well in our schools.
Great article, was nice to read a layman’s writing of it.