« Stalin Added to D-Day Memorial | Main | Scandis Love Them Some Nail Beds »

November 25, 2009

Unconvincing Defenses of the Global Warming Hoax

Posted by Gregory of Yardale at November 25, 2009 10:44 AM

Since the emails they had been trying to hide from the public have been exposed, the climate scienticians behind the emails are now trying to spin that references to "tricking" the data and "hiding the decline" mean something other than what what they clearly and obviously mean.

Here's Michael Mann, one of the scienticians, trying to explain away the emails.

I assume what Phil Jones was referring to was the well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy data diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand the reason for the “divergence”.

When you cut through the crap, what he's saying comes down to is, "We threw out the data that didn't fit our conclusions."

And if these emails are not a big deal, why did the scienticians vow to destroy them rather than release them under the Freedom of Information Act?

Just the way progressives like it.

I've also seen this argument in another blog.

Your argument is basically: Thousands of scientists over decades have been involved in a vast scheme to achieve nebulous aims.

1. There are millions, perhaps billions, in grants to study "Global Warming" from governments, foundations, and corporations. That's a pretty powerful incentive to perpetuate the Global Warming Hoax.

2. Many scientists have staked their professional reputations on the existence of AGW. That's a pretty powerful incentive to perpetuate the Global Warming Hoax.

3. Since almost every solution advanced to fight AGW involves vast expansions of government power, politicians have a powerful incentive to perpetuate the Global Warming hoax.

4. Since capitalism is blamed for AGW, and since most "solutions" to Global Warming involve the subjugation of capitalism, anti-capitalists have a powerful incentive to perpetuate the Global Warming myth.

It's not really a conspiracy, it's just groups of people acting in their own self-interest. That they would lie to advance their interests is human nature.


The thing is here that even though the scientists are acting in regard to their own self-interest (and pockets), it'll affect us all. Cap and Trade, higher taxes, more government intrusion into our daily lives, etc.

GW is a hoax and a Ponzi scheme if I ever saw one. We need to step up and do what we can to expose it for what it is.

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at November 25, 2009 11:40 AM

As with EVERY SINGLE G-DAMN WORD that proceeds from the mouths of "progressives", it's all "nuance" and "shades of grey".

These are lying bastards who got caught with their pants down...and EVERY SINGLE news outlet besides Fox has totally ignored this story.

It will not go away, however. This may just be the crack in the dyke that causes the flood.

Think about this: Bernie Madoff went to jail (ostensibly for the rest of his life) for bilking 50 billion from investors. How much money has the "Global Climate Chaos Crisis Disaster" cost us? AND THEY KNEW IT WAS A LIE. THE KNEW!!!

Gore and ALL THAT CAST THEIR LOT WITH THAT EVIL S.O.B. had better be looking at prison time. They can "nuance" this all they want, the jig is up.

Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 25, 2009 11:54 AM

My response to his explaination--"yawn, ya, ya---here is you box of personal crap, know get out!"

Posted by: Dan at November 25, 2009 12:04 PM

I would cut them some slack on the 'trick' aspect. I recall back in college we used to have geeky competitions to see who could write a solution with the least amount of statements. The most elegant solution. The winner may have used a 'trick', thinking outside of the box, to do so. But they didn't cheat.

However, when they are trying to defend the 'hide the decline' with a term like 'the divergence PROBLEM' then why is the divergence a problem ? Because it doesn't lead to their conclusion.

If science seeks the truth then it cannot be achieved by omission.

Posted by: IOpian at November 25, 2009 12:04 PM

They are all agents of Gorestein - its all part of the vast Eurasian Conspiracy; thats all that really matters. The place they need to go is ROOM 101 - for deprogramming. Then they will be fine.

Posted by: Winston Smith - Ministry of Truth at November 25, 2009 12:10 PM

I would also argue, that a vast conspiracy involving thousands of scientists over decades is not not necessary.

In addition to moonbat scientists acting on their activist impulses that the hive mind of the leftist collective has ingrained in them as Yardale points out above, such a hoax need only be perpetrated by a few.

If a few scientists involved in activist data mining publish their works, it would essentially be a domino effect as genuinely honest folks below turn to the published hoaxed papers of the activist scientists for research and citations.

But the bottom line, every leftist requires a pseudoscience to base their platform upon in order for their policies to make sense, and be able to convince people to accept them. So they have to manufacture a false crisis such as man caused climate change. Otherwise no one in their right mind would subscribe to their nonsense.

It will be interesting to see how far this story gets, because if the general public accepts the now undeniable fact that man caused global climate change is an activist data miner's hoax, then the vast majority of the Democratic and leftist in general platform collapses, since their platform is virtually built upon the false notion of this fantasy based climate crisis.

Funny stuff.

Posted by: J at November 25, 2009 12:19 PM

The greens would just love to see the human race become exinct becuase they have read all this poppycock and beleive all that bunk from PAUL EHRLICH and are outright radicals

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at November 25, 2009 12:20 PM


I've always wondered what was in Gore's Room 101. I am sure if I was questioning him he would understand that I am holding up one finger.

Posted by: IOpian at November 25, 2009 12:21 PM

I would bet Al is divesting everything he has in the green industry.

Posted by: Dan at November 25, 2009 12:26 PM


Dead on. The consequence would be everything 'Green' is built on it collapses. It also implies that fossil fuels may not have been all that much of a problem after all other than the self-inflicted wounds of lunacy.

Posted by: IOpian at November 25, 2009 12:27 PM

I am not giving these idiots on the left ONE IOTA of slack. No more than they gave US when "Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq."

Yeah, it was bad intelligence from a few, but we ALL got tarred with "YOU ARE LIARS KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE!"


No, even without these emails, they knew. There are a few "true believers", but most lefties knew this was B.S. from the git go. But it was THE PERFECT RUSE! "Oh, you want to KILL THE PLANET AND ALL THE CHILDREN?"

Nope. I want to slap every last one of you commie punks in prison for the rest of your lives.


Posted by: Wyatt's Torch at November 25, 2009 12:28 PM

This is beyond trying to defend the meaning of 'is' a la Clintoon...... as referring to the meaning of 'trick'.

The computer model programmers (who want to sell this junk science) left overt comments in the code on how to apply 'tricks'.

Climategate: a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted.

Posted by: Oiao at November 25, 2009 12:37 PM

This is ridiculous. Do you see how much they depend on computer modeling? Is the data-set accurate or has it been fudged? This isn't science! This is a trick in and of itself! They would love to have attention diverted to "is the modeling accurate or inaccurate?" "We've just got a few bad apples that need to resign and that will solve the problem."

The theory of AGW is: the tiny fraction of a fraction of atmospheric CO2 which is produced by humanity forces a rise in global temperature through the greenhouse effect.

I have yet to see this theory proved. Everything I've read just accepts the underlying theory and goes from there.

Posted by: Kevin R. at November 25, 2009 1:07 PM

And they ignore........ water vapor......

What has more impact by 1,000s of times on the temps...... water vapor.

Posted by: Oiao at November 25, 2009 1:12 PM


Posted by: Flu-Bird at November 25, 2009 1:56 PM

For the record, what these guys are doing is called a subset analysis. That is what it sounds like; you look at just part of the data that is of interest.

This can be legitimate, but you have to make allowances where the data are time-sensitive.

At least two problems:
(1) In this case, the data are time-sensitive.
(2) With a data subset, you can only make conclusions relevant to the subset.

In the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, a first assumption is that warming picked up due to a change in industry (increasing CO2 levels). Therefore conclusions must be dependent on a continuous set of data such that different variables can be accounted for over time.
Here we see guys doing a subset analysis as a function of where a change in an uncontrolled variable occurs, violating the principle of their first assumption (find and account for an intervening causal variable).
At the very least they would be obligated scientifically to do the analysis on alternative cut-up subsets in order to balance out any possible sampling determinations embedded in their conclusions. (Already biased in any event, by the use of a subset and from adjusting the time-sensitive nature of the data needed to derive a general conclusion.)

Some people just might call this cherry-picking.

If this was used to obtain grant money, some people just might call this fraud.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 25, 2009 2:06 PM

So was there a problem?

Posted by: Al Gore at November 25, 2009 2:07 PM

American Thinker has a great article on this... they're deconstructing the sourcecode for the CRU's "models" and finding all kinds of blatant fudging.

I loved this one...

"n two other programs, and, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):


valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930"

Posted by: hiram at November 25, 2009 2:18 PM

Posted by: Oiao at November 25, 2009 2:26 PM

The alarmist rats are gnawing away at the threads of truth, while trying to repatch their once influential pied pipers.

Posted by: RICH at November 25, 2009 2:58 PM

hiram at November 25, 2009 2:18 PM

Thanks for the link. Real interesting stuff.

All science and pseudoscience aside, it's not totally surprising to see this stuff.

The CO2-warming physics just doesn't work out at the pressures and water vapor of the earth's atmosphere.
So really, there had to be fudge factors in these models.

This is a dramatic and special case of liberal lying. No matter what they're into, what they think or do, liberal machinations will always reduce to lies, fantasies or gross errors because their first assumptions about reality cannot be correct.
Just like the ubiquitous and delusional Scientologists.
And just as in the case of CO2--- this is a very illustrative example of liberals using a reflexive modus operandi: Lies.

This whole incident also tracks other standard liberal methods: 1) the models and the science and the politics are all designed to be more complex that the "common" peasant can understand.
2)And in the same way liberals protect their lies when they argue (without violence), every possible topic is thrown out at once.

By adopting the science of GW liberals could move around from argument-to-tangent-back-to-argument like some kind of frenetic Brownian motion pinball machine on meth.

Finally, this whole GW thing clearly illustrates the tremendous damage that liberals inevitably do when acting on their lies.
Just like what they've done to the U.S. economy.

Just pathetic.
Classic, but just pathetic.

Posted by: Fiberal at November 25, 2009 6:20 PM

I was watching The New Hour on pbs when they discussed how reducing emissions will improve health. The last ailment noted was obesity. This must be why I am so fat. I demand restitution.

Posted by: Dan at November 25, 2009 6:30 PM

Al Gore says global warming is real and that is enough for me. The rest of you are just anti-science religious nuts.

Posted by: Lao at November 25, 2009 7:46 PM

The problem AL GORE are big mouthed hypotcrits like you lying to the whole world

Posted by: REPLENDENT QUETZAL at November 25, 2009 9:20 PM

When Hansen & Co. could get rewarded for saying the oceans would rise as a consequence of Global Cooling... he did. When Hansen & Co. could get rewarded for saying the oceans would rise as a consequence of Global Warming... he did. As long as the attention and funding flowed the lies were PHD. Piled Higher and Deeper.

Posted by: DANEgerus at November 25, 2009 10:17 PM

Briffa has been so-o-o-o-o completely busted. They took basically one tree out of hundreds to 'prove' a temperature increase.

Go over to or some of the other sites and you'll see the whole sorry saga.

To top it off, Briffa et al are the basis for dozens of semi-legitimate papers. That just invalidated all those folks work as well.

SO WHERE'S THE FOOKING HEADLINES!!??!! Yeah. Right. [sound of crickets...]

Posted by: chuck in st paul at November 26, 2009 10:24 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)