Uh-Oh. Global Warming Boys in More Hot Water.

Some real, professional statisticians have analyzed the Hockey Stick that the global warming boys touted for so many years.

It appears that when the data is properly analyzed, the graph looks quite different.

First of all, here is the Hockey Stick graph that the global warming boys tried to pass off on the world:

You can see the story they wanted to tell. Constant temperatures as far back as we can measure, and then, a sudden, sharp uptick due to the dastardly workings of that scoundrel, mankind.

But the real statisticians have published in a peer reviewed journal of statistics, and here is what they found is the correct way to present the raw data as found by the global warming boys. Mind you, this even accepts that their data is true and complete, which is far from settled.

As you can see, this shows that the world has slowly been cooling since the year 1000. Then, in recent years, there was a turn upward. And we are now back where the world started. Now, you might say that is still a problem, since it seems the modern temperature swing is very swift, compared with past centuries. But that depends on their data being right in the first place, which looks increasingly unlikely.

So, if even if you assume their data is correct, they used bad statistical methods to make the data scream whatever they wanted it to scream.

This is independent validation of what the skeptics had been saying all along. The authors conclude “In sum, these results suggest that the ninety-three sequences that comprise the 1,000 year old proxy record simply lack power to detect a sharp increase in temperature”. And, they say “Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models.

This raises an interesting question: Is the university world intellectually bankrupt? After all, the criticism of the Global Warming boys came from the private sector-trained McIntyre. His background was mining. If the calculations are wrong for those guys, they lose millions of dollars and perhaps hundreds or thousands of jobs. So they are very, very careful and use methods that are as accurate as possible. However, in the University world, there is no such incentive to be correct. In fact, there is an incentive to be wrong, but persuasive. To tell a weird story convincingly is considered top notch work.

A connection to reality is not needed, and is sometimes viewed as harmful or even degrading.

In so many other disciplines, the universities have produced the exact opposite of truth. They have become weird factories of untruth. In history, for example, distorting the facts and hiding relevancies is considered laudable. In social science, cherry picking and shaping data is considered a wonderful thing. No one checks your work in the universities, at least not in any meaningful way, so long as the results are politically correct.

There is an over-reliance on statistical studies precisely because statistics is so useful when you want to prove a false asssumption. Data are easy to fudge. The universities have found they can prove virtually anything by means of a statistical study.

And so, they have corrupted science beyond all belief.