Free Markets, Free People

More Disreputable “Science” From The AGW Alarmist Crowd

Last week I pointed to the fact that the “scientist” who provided much of the basis for the AGW crowd’s alarmist appeal (as incorporated in the UN’s 2007 IPCC report) refused to provide the original data on which that model was based to peers.  He later claimed that the original data had been lost because it was unable to be transferred to newer data storage (an unmitigated crock).  IOW, peers can’t review his data and check out his theory to ensure what he’s theorizing has a valid basis in fact.  That’s a cardinal sin in real science circles.

And now, in less than a week, a second cardinal sin is uncovered.  That of cherry-picking data.  In the cross-hairs is Keith Briffa.  Steve McIntyre explains the problem:

The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.

In fact, as with Phil Jones who I reported about last week, Briffa refused repeated requests for his original data (from tree rings). And it was the Briffa graphs which were used to support the contention that the “hockey stick” was valid.

When others finally got a hold of all the data and graphed it out, their findings were quite different than Briffa’s:


And, of course, when they were merged they told quite a different story than was Briffa and the IPCC:


My, what a difference using all the data makes, no?

Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts have all the gory details, but as one commenter on Watt’s site says:

Coming just after the “lost” data from the Hadley Centre by Phil Jones, this is beginning to look more than just carelessness.

I call it the “great unraveling”. The hoax is coming unglued. And this shameful conduct will set real science back 100 years.

The question is, will the politicians see it before it is too late? Will the administration which promised that science would again take the forefront actually keep its word and ensure that happens? Methinks we’re going to find out that a political agenda and ideology are much more powerful than science. Science, quite honestly, is only useful to politicians – any politician – as long as it advances their agenda. If it doesn’t then the politician will claim it to be false science – regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is to the contrary.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

28 Responses to More Disreputable “Science” From The AGW Alarmist Crowd

  • Nothing to see here, move along.

  • It truly amazing what Steve and his volunteers have done.

    They have repeatedly staked all the so called evidence in cold hard scientific analysis.

    The “Team” as they call themselves (the AGW lunkheads) look like the D students in this, making up facts, changing data and outright lying.

  • Honduras, all over again. Facts won’t deter them. This is too big an opportunity for gaining control, and too big a hoax for them to be seen to have fallen for.

    Legislation will go forward, the theory can’t be wrong, it’s too dangerous to take a chance (variation of the “too big to fail” theme).

    • lookerFacts won’t deter them. This is too big an opportunity for gaining control, and too big a hoax for them to be seen to have fallen for.

      Legislation will go forward, the theory can’t be wrong, it’s too dangerous to take a chance (variation of the “too big to fail” theme).

      Exactly right.

      The only hope lies in the “moderate” democrats, i.e. those who don’t sit in safe-for-life seats like SanFran Nan, Pigface, Bawney, Jean-Francois, Trashcan Chuckie, etc. The “bluedogs” are already skittish about cap ‘n’ tax because they are (barely) smart enough to see that it will have bad (!) consequences for our economy, and more importantly for their own phoney-baloney jobs when angry, out-of-work voters who also can’t afford all those green upgrades to their houses* or higher energy bills take out their anger at the ballot box.

      I do not claim that the dimwit bluedogs** will understand how the science has been shown to be fraudulent. I do not even claim that they will really believe that it’s been debunked or that they’ll even care. What I DO think it that they’ll cast about for any good reason to vote “NO!” when it comes to sinking their own careers.

      We MAY be safe from yet another lefty plot to destroy our country. Perhaps God continues to look out for us.

      Then again, there’s always the EPA…


      (*) Anybody remember when Algore claimed that he couldn’t put in energy efficient retrofits to his Nashville mansion because his homeowners association “wouldn’t allow it”?

      (**) Lest it be thought that I have any respect AT ALL for the “bluedogs”, let me say that they are nothing but typical democrat scum in my book. Their only saving grace lies in the accidental fact that their districts are not dominated by burnt-out hippies, union thugs, and / or welfare cheats, so they can’t give full rein to their democrat impulses; they have to pretend to be “moderate”.

      • In a way, this is also exactly like Honduras, a country I think hoping to stave off further action till they can hold their election.

        In our case staving off action until the climate (sea ice return, record colds, further failures to predict or have tremendous global warming hyped Hurricane seasons, etc) smacks the believers upside the head for a few more years.

        While one would think the debunking would suffice, I don’t think it will. They’ve heard all they need to hear, and further evidence to the contrary is just deniers trying to cloud and confuse the ‘established’ science and ‘consensus’.
        Much like the arguments about health care and the evil insurers, global warming is all a plot by the ‘looters and polluters’ you know. Just ask Captain Planet.

  • When it comes to taking your money (in the form of new taxes) there are no morals, no ethical code, no constitutional obligation more important than growing government beurocracy, truth be damned.

    Those alleged “scientists” who went along, knowing the lie of it, must be marginalized.

    Who needs science, when a lie will do?

    • Particularly those “scientists” that have pocketed about $80 BILLION in government funding (to regurgitate the “Government needs more power” line)

      Interesting, isn’t it, that so much fraud has come from that sector, as opposed to the scientists that took $100 MILLION (1/800th) as much from evil Oil Companies.

  • But you see, we are the Great Unwashed

    Professor John Schellnhuber, one of the world’s leading global warming experts, described the US as “climate illiterate”

    He said Americans have a lower understanding of the problems of climate change than people in Brazil or China..

    Idiots like the good professor have stopped being skeptical.

    • And yet the people of China are giving the middle finger to carbon caps?

      Climate aware more like it

  • Some of the most ardent supporters of AGW really don’t care about Global Warming, they care about controlling human behavior they disapprove of (watermelons – green on the outside, RED on the inside). Many of the politicians that bought into the faux science cant walk back for it will expose them as the arrogantly manipulative brokers they are. And a large chunk of the population will still kneel before a false alter so conveniently constructed by the dominant leftstream media. Just as with the Health Care insurance reform debate, those proposing radical changes will be long dead before a public could hold them responsible for their utterly idiotic recklessness based upon blind devotion to dreams of leftist utopia. (and they mock Christians for their Faith!)

    Just wondering McQ, have you conversed with Jon Henke regarding AGW’s tumbling house of cards? Has he changed his mind, or does he finally acknowledge the reservations many here have long had regarding the “settled science” aspect?

  • The politicians may see this but it’ll be lining the garbage can when it comes time to pass cap and tax.

  • My new word of the day.

    Found this to be interesting and peripherally relevant.

    “Socialism and leftist ideologies will always fail. The reason is simple: you can’t undo four million years of Darwinian evolution with a slogan and some redistribution of wealth at the point of a gun.”

  • Engineer/Test Pilot Burt Rutan did an analysis of the various fudged/contrived atata being presented as “Science”. The HokeyStick (pun intended) is just one of many, including Algore’s famous graphs that showed CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature rise rather than leading it, but only when superimposed as an overlay).

    Read the PowerPoint notes as you look at the slides (requires a full PowerPoint editor, not just the viewer).

    The “Science” isn’t settled; we’re finding out there’s more fraud than data.

  • As this has been unfolding, I’ve been considering the massive scale of the fraud if it’s corroborated. I don’t mean by the people who’ve used this to push a control agenda, they’ll use anything. I mean by Briffa himself.

    There’s no way when you first see the hockey stick chart that you don’t think, “Holy crap!” A lot people have been duped, intelligent people who believe in the purity of science and care about real environmental issues. This guy preyed on their beliefs and that’s evil.

    People need a scapegoat with a fraud this big. If the meme doesn’t go out as “Briffa fooled us all” or something similar, I’m not sure it’s going to get any traction. And that’s not a calculated meme – it’s an honest one.

    • “As this has been unfolding, I’ve been considering the massive scale of the fraud if it’s corroborated.”


      Michael Crichton, who died last year, wrote a extraordinarily prescient novel about the whole thing, State of Fear. He quite boldly got into both the scale of the deception and the intent behind it.

      The zombies were on him like flies because of it. He was quite a tough-minded cut-to-the-chase kind of man and successful enough not to fear being ruined. He was blessed with great curiosity and a compelling desire to get at the truth.

      • I’m a Crichton fan. Being an author he was especially good at communicating complex ideas in a way anyone could understand. I’m sure you’ve read these, but for anyone else who’d like to read his essays and speeches they are on the Michael Crichton site. His environmentalism as religion speech is probably my favorite.

        I’ve had State of Fear for a while but I haven’t started it yet. Maybe this will get me going. I’m sure the fraud scale I’m imagining isn’t nearly big enough.

        • The link to Crichton’s site you provide has some excellent essays and speeches on climate, environmentalism (as religion) and, I believe, great scientific hoaxes of the past.

  • There is grant money to be had with Briffa-like data. Ask “scientists” like James Hansen to explain how his “scientific” models predict global cooling in one decade and global warming in the next. Is it hysteresis, hysteria, or the ideological wind? It may be a little of all those, but mostly it’s money. They aren’t scientists, they are prostitutes.

    BTW. There’s not much point in “merging” suspect and/or cherry picked data with all the data. All you get by doing that is a different, but still crappy and suspect result.

    • Well, the question is that its quite a coincidence ‘suspect’ data also would happen to drag down the average.

      Suspect data, should have errors on both sides of the more accurate data. It shouldn’t produce a dramatic shift in one direction. The fact discarding that particular data that helps the remaining data reinforce the claim that those scientist careers are based upon should set off alarm bells.

      • The fact that data was discarded to support a predetermined conclusion is enough to raise alarm bells. Simply plot ALL the data and let it speak for itself. No need to get carried away with Excel. The real question is, how do we know this data wasn’t just pulled out of someone’s ass in the first place?

  • It was just another scare hoax from the word go, just like many others in my lifetime. I really, really hope that this time it leads to vast public disillusionment about scientists.

    The reason I hope so is because I am a libertarian and a cynic. I do not want ANY profession to receive automatic obeisance from the public. Not scientists, not engineers, not doctors, not anyone.

    I would prefer that the majority of the public become like me, doubtful, cynical, and skeptical. Then we would be less easily manipulated.

    • As the Smoking Man said in regards to democracy: “The people believe in authority. They’ve grown tired of waiting for miracle or mystery. Science is their religion now, and no greater explanation exists for them.”

  • You guys are not only cherry picking tiny tidbits without considering the broad and deep consensus concerning the evidence amongst climate change scientist, but you are literally advocating policies that will kill numerous of your own children and grandchildren, and probably destroy life as we now know it, all because you’re caught up in some politicized crusade, playing politics and rhetoric games rather than really seriously and honestly looking at the issue. That is disgusting, sick, and may indeed cause massive future death. There is no debating the likes of you, you have to be politically defeated, and our universities have to focus on bringing people the truth (which we are doing — major activities on October 24th for 350 day). Here’s a video which clarifies things:

    So caught up in political games you are, that you don’t even think about the cost of what you are advocating. So enamored with the cult of the free market, you go on ideological jihads based on cherry picked facts handed to you by industry — the same kind of people that tried to deny the link between cigarettes and cancer.

    The sad and pathetic thing is I think you guys believe it. You think its all some conspiracy, you’ve convinced yourself of it, and some of you even have convinced yourself that there is real doubt in the scientific community. Oh well, hopefully the next generation will be made immune to your kind of irrational ideological denial of reality. Those who doubt that humans cause a good share of CO2 growth are on grounds just as secure as those in Germany who taught racial science. (Usually I just skip the crap you post on climate change, but since we’re gearing up for major activities nation wide and in the classrooms, I had to take a look at the BS being spouted out by the cottage industry of deniers, which feed you and give you stuff they want you to spread on blogs and the like…)


    • Hey Scott,

      If you are willing to sell your soul based on one graph and a guy with a “Sir” in front of his name, then you will love this link

      Tell me which part of this science you disagree with.


    • This is a truly remarkable example of projection. On almost all fronts, he is describing both the weaknesses of the AGW position and the over the top scare tactics used to distract from the fact that not only is there no evidence to support his belief; but his own disregard for facts and inability to use logic or reason. I’d like to nominate the above comment for inclusion into any primer on Erb or liberalism.

    • Those who doubt that humans cause a good share of CO2 growth are on grounds just as secure as those in Germany who taught racial science.

      This is patently false, and I’m disgusted with your attempt to equate AGW skeptics with Nazis.

      Human activity makes up about 3.5% of CO2 on the planet. That’s an undeniable fact.

      The rest of your little diatribe is simply ad hominem invective.

      Side note to Nuclear: don’t expect Erb to respond. He never makes a scientific argument for the simple reason that he has never demonstrated an understanding of science.

    • Yikes. Well, at least you’re communicating. It’s pretty clear you haven’t studied this issue in depth, possibly not at all. Maybe you should continue skipping the climate change crap, your emotional investment is over the top.

      Do you actually think everyone here argues this for free market reasons? What, we all have oil stocks? Everyone here would love to have the magic clean energy the left assures us is out there. If true, there would be no downsides and the best upside would be the environuts I’ve had to listen to my entire life might finally shut up. I’m all for it.

      But I’m not for giving up individual liberty to government control. I don’t care what they do to the corporations your side hates because I don’t care about them. Regulate them out of business, whatever. That’s they way it should be handled. But if we’re going to cede liberty in the name of science, then buddy it better be some dang good science. Killing 3000 Americans didn’t justify the Patriot Act for me, so imagine how good your science needs to be. And it isn’t. Spend another 10-20 years studying it. There’s time. The only reason to rush is the rare “perfect storm” of Democrat control in government to take over and you know it.

      Don’t worry, your political view will eventually win the ideological jihad, at least in America. But future generations will still die because China and India will kill us all with their CO2. I hope you take your insults global or my kids will hold you accountable.