Personal Status Board,status board,PSB Pro Version,PSB,PHP empowered communication,parenting,social evolution,social connectedness,social connections,social connection,the social connection,social connectedness,social evolution,social network,social network software,online social networks,social networking tools,online social networking,social network site,online social network,the social network,networks social,business social network,business social networking,business social networks,social business network
email others
link to us
Home     MCs     Novel     Articles     MC Matching     Magic Carpet     Products & Services     Contact Us     Links


Authoritative and Democratic Parenting Programs
(Comparison Chart)

_____________________

Send us your questions and comments.
_____________________

site search by freefind

_____________________

Free Personal Status Boards (PSB™)

Free Standard Free PSB

Free PSB Pro Version

Free Social PSB

Free Social PSB Plus (with Email)

Free Business PSB

Free Business PSB Plus (with Email)

PSB demo

Social PSB demo

Business PSB demo

So what's all this PSB stuff about?

Chart comparing business status boards

PSB hosting diagram

PSB Licence Agreement



Copyright © 2002 -
MCS Investments, Inc. sitemap


The Big Answer


To link to this article from your blog or webpage, copy and paste the url below into your blog or homepage.

"A Disgrace to the Profession"

a book by Mark Steyn

(our site's book review)

The "Hockey Stick" Graph of Global Temperatures Is Being Disputed by More and More Scientists

The Amazon blurb says that The "hockey stick" graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, promoted by the UN's transnational climate bureaucracy, featured in Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation.

The 'hockey stick' graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation
The 'hockey stick' graph of global temperatures is the single most influential icon in the global-warming debate, used by governments around the world to sell the Kyoto Accord to their citizens, and shown to impressionable schoolchildren from kindergarten to graduation

And yet what it purports to "prove" is disputed and denied by many of the world's most eminent scientists. In this riveting book, Mark Steyn has compiled the thoughts of the world's scientists, in their own words, on hockey-stick creator Michael E Mann, his stick and their damage to science. From Canada to Finland, Scotland to China, Belgium to New Zealnd, from venerable Nobel Laureates to energetic young researchers on all sides of the debate analyze the hockey stock and the wider climate wars it helped launch.

T comp 61-90
Hockey stick graph—Arguments over the graph have been taken up by fossil fuel industry funded lobbying groups attempting to cast doubt on climate science, but alsoo by top level scientists with no agenda except keeping science real and truthful

"That’s the dispute between the scientists in these pages: whether Mann’s work is junk science, bad science, pseudo science, pathological science - or 'brazen fraud'. But there’s not a lot of people willing to defend it as 'good climate science'," says Steyn. "The ugly retaliation that the climate mullahs use against anyone who steps out of line - as we’ll see later in the hockey-sticking of distinguished Swedish scientist Lennart Bengtsson - ought to appall any real man of science. . . . I’d like to end the protection racket of the Clime Syndicate and put them out of the intimidation business."

“Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”—Dr Madhav Khandekar, retired meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada (over 50 years in weather and climate science)

The reason the exposed fakers like Mann would never say die and never admit their scam was that the liberal narratives, whether about political correctness, blacks are victims and whites are victimizers, or the climate alarmist narrative, were to be believed without question. If you doubted political correctness, blacks are victims and whites are victimizers, or the climate alarmist narrative, you were in danger of Antifa attacks, intimidation, doxing, trolling, assaults, career ruining, reputation ruining, and harrassment of all kinds—which is why most scientists got on record that they supported the climate alarmist position. They wanted to keep their jobs and not be harrassed.

Publisher: World Climate Programme and World Meteorological Organization, IPCC first assessment report 1990, chap 7 Observed Climate Variation and Chanqe, pg 202
Publisher: World Climate Programme and World Meteorological Organization, IPCC first assessment report 1990, chap 7 Observed Climate Variation and Chanqe, pg 202—note the medieval warm period that is warmer than the current climate, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE HOCKEY STICK GRAPH!

As Dr. Ball explains: "to watching scientists, the remarkable thing about the Hockey Stick was not what was happening in the twentieth century portion — that temperatures were rising was clear from the instrumental record — but the long flat handle. The Medieval Warm Period [which stood out like a sore thumb in the IPCC first assessment report 1990] had completely vanished. Even the previously acknowledged 'regional effect' now left no trace in the record. The conclusions were stark: current temperatures were unprecedented." [This wasn't what the science said—it's what the liberal narrative required and the politics needed.] See The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.

"It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real. . . . Notice this monumental fraud. If a flat graph going back a few centuries means nothing caused climate change but human activity, the same would also have to be true for the past four billion years of geological and biological history. Otherwise, whatever caused change in the past could be what is causing it now. All long term graphs show up and down peaks which never end. They never show anything flat. So the hockey stick graphs are contradicting long-term trends in attempting to propagandize the public. The purpose of hockey stick graphs is to make the statement that nothing in nature changes these factors, only human influences do. That purpose is fraudulent. Earlier heat and CO2 had to get into the atmosphere through natural conditions." (Source: Fake Data—How the Hockey Stick Graph Was Contrived, Gary Novak, Nov79)

Anyone who claims (or creates a graph that claims) that nothing causes climate change but human activity is a fraud and a snake-oil-salesman—the climate has been vacillating between warmer and colder from day one
Anyone who claims (or creates a graph that claims) that nothing causes climate change but human activity is a fraud and a snake-oil-salesman—the climate has been vacillating between warmer and colder from day one

The Alarmists' Position That Said Their Ideas Were "Settled Science" Was Not Even Close to Being True, in an Atmosphere of Science Fakery, Intimidation, Data Tampering, Data Hiding, and Litigation

So the alarmists' position that said their ideas were "settled science" was not even close to being true, in an atmosphere of science fakery, intimidation, data tampering, data hiding, and litigation. Mann sued if you told the truth about his abuses or if you didn't buy his B.S. And a consensus of 97% of climate scientists agreeing with the alarmist position is another whopper. But 97% of climate scientists agreeing they'd really like to avoid being sued or intimidated by Mann's goons—THIS we can readily believe, which is why the survey of scientists was a fraud as well, representing surveying bias and incompetence. "Figure out the results you wish to show, then figure out how to word things and figure out which of the thousands of scientists to survey to get those results," is the type of thinking the alarmists' in the Mann camp would have had to engage in.

In Mark Steyn's book, dozens of famous climate scientists express their disgust at Mann's abuse of science, of scientists, and of the court system. "And then came the 'hockey stick'." And suddenly no one remembered “geologic time” or “natural climate variability” anymore. In the history of Mann-made climate change, “nothing happened in the world before the 20th century” (as Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones put it) after which the mercury shot up and straight through the top of the thermometer: in other words, it’s all your fault. As MIT’s Richard Lindzen observed: "This is the problem. These guys think saying ‘climate changes’, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree, should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming. And it completely ignores the fact that until this hysteria, climate scientists used to refer to the warm periods in our history as ‘optima’." [Optima is the plural form of optimum. Which is great.]" How many people are aware that the hockey stick's shape for the entire hemisphere depends on two clumps of trees: some California bristlecones, as well as a few cedars from the Gaspé Peninsula (or rather, for the years up to 1421, just one cedar from the Gaspé Peninsula in Canada)?

When Mann filed his lawsuit and there was a deadline for third parties to file 'amicus briefs' with the courts, not a single person or company would file anything for Mann. On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other entities filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech
When Mann filed his lawsuit and there was a deadline for third parties to file 'amicus briefs' with the courts, not a single person or company would file anything for Mann. On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other entities filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech

Currently, There Is a War Against Fake Science (Including Mann-Tainted Science)

So, when Mann filed his lawsuit and there was a deadline for third parties to file “amicus briefs” with the courts, not a single person or company would file anything for Mann. On the other hand, the American Civil Liberties Union, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other entities filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. Michael Mann pretended he is taking a stand for science, but those of us who know better know who he is taking a stand for: Michael Mann! He asserts there is a war on science going on, and he is fighting it. In reality, there is a war against fake science going on, and thousands of people, including Mark Steyn, are fighting in it. There is a war on Mann-tainted science that says "I won't show you my data or formulas or my work, but here are my results so just trust me!" No wonder Trump says climate science is a hoax.

Michael Liebreich said: "The @MichaelEMann who withheld data and conspired to exclude competing authors from journals is no science hero of mine." Liebreich is on the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the New Energy Architecture and the UN Secretary General’s High Level Group on Sustainable Energy for All, but has no love for faker Mann.

If you buy Mann's hyperbole, thermometers will soon be exploding all over the place
If you buy Mann's hyperbole, thermometers will soon be exploding all over the place

As Steyn writes, "Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever reminds us that 'in pseudoscience you begin with a hypothesis which is very appealing to you, and then you only look for things which confirm the hypothesis'. Mann began with a hypothesis that the global temperature record had been pretty stable for 900 years and then in the 20th century it soared up and out the roof. And so he looked for 'things which confirm the hypothesis.'"

Mann chose a statistical method that, as the US National Research Council noted rather primly, 'tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions.' And the scientists who actually collected the tree-ring data that Mann cannibalized insist that Mann had it wrong—the tree rings are primarily an indicator of CO2 fertilization, and not temperature.

Mann chose a statistical method that, as the US National Research Council noted rather primly, 'tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions.' Furthermore, the scientists who actually collected the tree-ring data that Mann cannibalized insist they’re primarily an indicator of CO2 fertilization, not temperature
Mann chose a statistical method that, as the US National Research Council noted rather primly, 'tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions.' Furthermore, the scientists who actually collected the tree-ring data that Mann cannibalized insist they’re primarily an indicator of CO2 fertilization, not temperature

Professor John Christy Testified to Congress That Mann “Misrepresented the Temperature Record of the Past Thousand Years"

At the IPCC level, Mann retained his stubborn prejudices against anything that contradicted his hypothesis. As Professor John Christy testified to Congress, Mann “misrepresented the temperature record of the past thousand years by promoting his own result as the best estimate, neglecting studies that contradicted his, and amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data.” This isn't science—it's advocacy. Did he do it to please Big Climate or Big Science or Big Liberalism because his palm was crossed with silver or what? Who knows? He was good at hiding the evidence, that is sure. But he was not nearly so good at hiding the evidence that the hockey stick was simply a PR concoction that told the story that Big Climate wanted told. And since this story was becoming one aspect of the liberal narrative, those who wouldn't buy what Mann was selling ended up facing possible doxing, trolling, harassment, intimidation, smearing, or even attacks by liberal narrative activists.

If scientists could not reproduce his results, his
If scientists could not reproduce his results, his "science" is pseudoscience, and his hockey stick is a parlor trick—'trust me' simply doesn't cut it

“The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information.” ['Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' (William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, testifying to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, on February 25, 2009.) The past is the handle of the hockey stick. The blade is the present.] Mann's hiding of data and formulas kept scientists ignorant of his methods so his formula couldn't be stolen—or even used so other scientists could validate his "findings." If scientists could not reproduce his results, his "science" is pseudoscience, his hockey stick is a parlor trick, and his findings are "to be believed" not because they can be demonsrated to have validity, but because he so sweetly asks them to TRUST ME!


Professor William Happer, Testifying before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, Said Mann's Hockey Stick Wasn't Reality, but the Result of Incorrect Handling of Proxy Temperature Records and Incorrect Statistical Analysis

Professor William Happer, testifying before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, said it best: "The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today."

According to the IPCC (2001) and many other published sources, the earth warmed up only a puny 0.6°C (1°F) during the 20th century. However, that contrasts sharply with the most recent reconstruction by Mann and Jones, which shows warming over the last century of 0.95°C (1.5°F). Science is surely a creative endeavor—you simply make it up as you go along!

Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, is now discredited, since it relied upon the infamous hockey stick fraud
Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, is now discredited, since it relied upon the infamous hockey stick fraud

In 2008 Dr. Michael R Fox, PhD said "This hockey stick graph has been featured prominently and globally in a major scientific journal… It has been given pivotal importance in several of the IPCC assessment reports, and featured prominently in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which now is discredited too."

"Close analyses of the hockey stick scandal are essential for policy makers, educators, media, and many scientific institutions and their PhD staffers. All of them played a role in creating and/or spreading the deceptions. It has shaken the pillars of institutional science to its foundation and undermined the public trust science once had."—Dr. Michael R Fox, PhD


Climategate Exposed a Malevolent Clique at the Highest Levels of Climate Science Determined to Prevent Any Dissenters Getting a Foot in the Door

"The release of the Climategate emails in November 2009 made the theory that Mann was a naïf with a propensity for major errors harder to credit. The correspondence exposed a malevolent clique at the highest levels of climate science determined to prevent any dissenters getting a foot in the door."—Dr Eduardo Zorita, PhD

The Climategate correspondence exposed a malevolent clique at the highest levels of climate science determined to prevent any dissenters getting a foot in the door—this is advocacy and propaganda, NOT science
The Climategate correspondence exposed a malevolent clique at the highest levels of climate science determined to prevent any dissenters getting a foot in the door—this is advocacy and propaganda, NOT science

Mann, the IPCC, and the CRU Have Been Discrediting and Freezing Out Any Scientific Journal Which Dares to Publish Their Critics' Work

"Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the 'hockey stick' were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves 'the Hockey Team', and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case. . . . Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. . . . Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence. . . . they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to 'adjust' recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. . . . the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. . . . Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age." (Source: Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation, Christopher Booker, Telegraph)

So what can we make of all this fraud? What are these formerly prestigious but now thoroughly disgraced fakers trying to hide? The obvious answer is that the REAL results of historical and current temperature changes did not show what their liberal global warming alarmist narrative needed it to show, so they decided to fake it in order to create fake results. None of this means that climate change or global warming themselves are fraudulent, but that some of the results, some of the data, some of the "science," some of the methodology used, and some of the conclusions are bogus, fake, fraudulent, and a disgusting scam. "Let's create a horrendous scare so we can push the world toward globalism, one word government, control by the liberal extremists that convinced academia to obsess about political correctness, and incidentally try to plant more trees and stop producing so many greenhouse gasses." Folks, this is advocacy and propaganda and part of the leftwing conspiracy, BUT IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T SCIENCE! In our opinion, all these Mann shenanigans are sickening and sneaky and underhanded and foolish and it is absolutely BUTCHERING the reputation of science and scientists.

Al gore presentation
Al Gore's speech on Global Warming at the University of Miami BankUnited Center, Feb 28th, 2007

Al Gore Is a Man with Integrity, but He Was Taken in by Charlatans and Asked to Believe Results Based on the Rotten, Corrupt Hockey Stick

Al Gore is a man with integrity, but he was taken in by charlatans and asked to believe results based on the rotten, corrupt hockey stick. He did believe these results and he naively and innocently reported them to the world in his An Inconvenient Truth book and movie and in his speeches. He says he is exposing the shocking reality of how humankind has aided in the destruction of our planet and the future we face if we do not take action to stop global warming. Some of this is true, and it may only be the SPEED of the warming which is bogus.

If only there were more actual scientists we could put our faith in so we could know for sure. But, no, all we get is the same thing we get from our military leaders—advocacy and propaganda—and no one knows anything for sure. Only one thing is crystal clear: "the science is settled" is not only untrue, it's become a joke!

The military that wanted a war promised us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even though they knew it was a lie. The climate alarmists that want to control the U.S. energy sector are telling us the end is near just like Cheney told us we'd be seeing "mushroom clouds over Manhattan" if we didn't attack Iraq. If we overreact to climate alarmism just because it's now part of the liberal narrative, will we end up spending a ton of money we don't have to cure a problem we don't have . . . AGAIN?!


Climategate

"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. . . . More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions." (Source: Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate, James Taylor, Forbes)

'Since the end of the world is near and we're all going to melt from global warming, let's all take a sauna in the heat and steam,' says Trump—'it'll be a Yuge party and we'll all have a fantastic, fantastic time!'
'Since the end of the world is near and we're all going to melt from global warming, let's all take a sauna in the heat and steam,' says Trump—'it'll be a Yuge party and we'll all have a fantastic, fantastic time!'

While the global warming alarmists continue to conceal, prevaricate, politicize, and manipulate facts and data, they claim Climategate is a fraud manufactured by deniers, which is ridiculous nonsense, because their emails are real and they say exactly the opposite of what the alarmists are claiming. They cannot deny they were destroying information and data when it is right there in their emails! Are they going to deny the reality of their own emails?! If a person tried to dream up a scenario that was calculated to destroy all faith in the climate alarmists' position of the end of the world being near and we're all going to melt from global warming like the witch in movie The Wizard of Oz, or burn like witches burned in the Inquisition, he could hardly do better than all the tricks, evasions, concealments, and cover-ups of the global warming alarmists, who continue to conceal, prevaricate, politicize, and manipulate facts and data. Their credibility is at zero.

We're all going to burn from global warming like the witches that were burned in the Inquisition
We're all going to burn from global warming like the witches that were burned in the Inquisition


We're all going to melt from global warming like the witch in the movie The Wizard of Oz
We're all going to melt from global warming like the witch in the movie The Wizard of Oz

The actual Climategate emails between Hockey Team people (Mann, et al.) "reveal serious scientific misconduct by the ‘Hockey Team’ – as some of the scientists involved once labelled themselves. Team members developed a paranoid, siege mentality, and came to view anybody who questioned, criticized or wanted to check their work as an enemy – a ‘contrarian’ or ‘denialist’. They perverted the peer-review system to facilitate publication of their own articles while frustrating the publication of alternative views. To reinforce their message of catastrophic global warming, they were prepared to manipulate and massage data in highly dubious ways. Although replication of research results is a key part of the scientific method, they sought to avoid granting legitimate requests for their data and computer code, including requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and were willing to destroy data and correspondence. . . . The ‘Climategate’ scandal has further exposed the falsity of claims that ‘the science is settled’ and ‘the debate is over’. The released emails reveal that leading climate scientists admit to far more uncertainties in private than they have ever done in public. . . . The truth is that the amount of warming is uncertain, and the hypothesis that it is mostly caused by humans is highly speculative – the main evidence being computer models programmed by AGW believers." (Source: Climategate and the Corruption of Climate Science, David Pratt)

Many of the Climategate players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug; they're embarrassed to be caught doing tricks, evasions, concealments, and cover-ups to hide their misdeeds, but they continue to conceal, prevaricate, politicize, and manipulate facts and data (slow learners)
Many of the Climategate players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug; they're embarrassed to be caught doing tricks, evasions, concealments, and cover-ups to hide their misdeeds, but they continue to conceal, prevaricate, politicize, and manipulate facts and data (slow learners)

"McIntyre has shown beyond the shadow of doubt that [tree ring expert Keith] Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data about Russian trees. . . . But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent decision from the U.K.’s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffa’s cherry-picked data indicated. Briffa’s decision to publish an alarming but unreliable version of the Yamal series — instead of a more reliable and thoroughly unremarkable one — has been the talk of the climate blogosphere, with many prominent commentators openly speaking of dishonesty. . . . Many of the players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug." (Source: Climategate Continues , Andrew Montford & Harold Ambler, National Review)

In essense, then, the Climategaters are very embarrassed to have been caught with their pants down, so they tried to deny it, ignore it, run from it, and lie their way out of it, digging themselves into deeper holes by the minute
In essense, then, the Climategaters are very embarrassed to have been caught with their pants down, so they tried to deny it, ignore it, run from it, and lie their way out of it, digging themselves into deeper holes by the minute

See Also: