Posts Tagged ‘Climate Audit’

Global warming “hockey stick” is turning into a baseball bat

June 29, 2013

(A fun comment at CA is particularly apposite!

Posted Jun 28, 2013 at 5:18 PM 

@Steve McIntyre

From Fig. 4 above:

it’s quite obvious that in 2009 and again in 2011, you shamelessly plagiarised Briffa 2013

Easily the worst sin in the academic book, run a close second only by disrupting the space-time continuum in order to perform the plagiarism)


Steve McIntyre’s objections to the Yamal tree (“the most important tree in the world”) in the global warming hockey stick are being vindicated as the new version of the data series resembles a baseball bat much more than a hockey stick.

Full story at Climate Audit and at WUWT



How to beat data into a hockey-stick…

June 11, 2012

When science leads to activism great things can be accomplished but when activism leads to “biased science” to justify the activism, we plumb the depths.

The Gergis affaire has some way to run as her activism-led science is revealed. ACM has preserved some of her activist writings on her now-disappeared blog :


Fakegate and the enrichment of language

February 26, 2012

Fakegate enriches language!

gleick, n, a vain and inept person

to gleick, v, to forge ineptly

Peter was a gleick, Peter is a gleick, Peter will always be a gleick.

Peter gleicked, Peter is gleicking, Peter will gleick.

It trips of the tongue very nicely.

Fakegate and Peter Gleick’s inept (but “heroic”) escapades are the source of much amusement over at Climate Audit. One reader, a Dr. UK has found a very apposite quotation from Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream:

Bottom (wearing the head of an ass): Nay, I can gleek upon occasion.

Titania:Thou art as wise as thou art beautiful.

But there are many contenders for the role of Titania! Monbiot and Laden lead the list.

To gleick, or not to gleick ..

Peter (soliloquy):

To gleick, or not to gleick, that is the question:
Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Heartland,
Or to take Fakes against a Sea of Truths,
And by publishing end them:    

(with apologies to WS)

Fakegate: Climate Alarmists reduced to forgery, lying, cheating and stealing

February 23, 2012

The Global Warming priesthood have long experience in fudging data, cheating and suppressing opposing views. But Peter Gleick, a true acolyte of the religion, has now been reduced not only to lying, cheating and stealing but also to forgery and fakery.

The blogosphere has been full of the Fakegate or the Peter Gleick affair for the last week. First he used impersonation and lying to extract confidential documents from Heartland. He clearly has broken some laws. But he found nothing very damaging regarding climate sceptics so he forged a “summary” document so as to be able to add some spice to the affair. He then disseminated the documents widely and these were immediately publicised by a gullible and hypocritical orthodoxy.

Peter Gleick - Faker

Of course Gleick is a climate alarmist and activist and for him and his friends Heartland remains the “villain” and his ends of “exposing” the alleged bad guys apparently justifies his dishonest and criminal means. His authorship of the forged document was recognised by Steven Mosher and Climate Audit just from his writing style and bad punctuation. Needless to say Gleick is considered by the global warming priesthood as an expert exponent of integrity in science research. In this sordid case some are delusional enough to see him as a hero.

Gleick’s own work is unimportant and lacking any real scientific content. His lack of ethics (apart from his poor writing and general incompetence) is of no great significance. But his behaviour exposes and is in the tradition established by the Hockey Stick crowd (Mann, Jones, Hansen, Trenberth et al) of fudging and cheating and suppression of opposing views.

BREAKING: Gleick Confesses

Peter Gleick Confesses

Gleick’s AGU Resignation

Megan McArdle gives Mosher and the blogosphere props for pointing to Gleick

Peter Gleick Confesses to Obtaining Heartland Documents Under False Pretenses

FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green

Fakegate Illustrates Global Warming Alarmists’ Deceit and Desperation

Now IPCC becomes just a lobby for Greenpeace!

June 16, 2011

There seems to be an incestuous relationship between the IPCC and a number of advocacy groups with the parties lobbying for each other. In the latest episode the IPCC has become the vehicle for publishing conclusions from a Greenpeace advocacy report on renewables:

The Independent:

Climate change panel in hot water again over ‘biased’ energy report 

The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence. 

Yesterday, after the full report was released, the sceptical climate change blog Climate Audit reported that the 77 per cent figure had been derived from a joint study by Sven Teske, a climate change expert employed by Greenpeace, which opposes the use of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions.

Last night, the IPCC said it had been made clear that the 77 per cent figure was only one of the estimates made from the models and that Mr Teske was just one of 120 researchers who had worked on the report. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “Exxon, Chevron and the French nuclear operator EDF also contribute to the IPCC, so to paint this expert UN body as a wing of Greenpeace is preposterous.” But Mark Lynas, a climate change writer in favour of using nuclear and renewables to combat global warming, said: “It is stretching credibility for the IPCC to suggest that a richer world with two billion more people will use less energy in 2050. Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports.”

The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.

Climate Audit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke

The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.

The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.

It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

Oxburgh “Inquiry”: Defendants decide on admissibility of evidence

September 16, 2010

Steve McIntyre is upto his admirable sleuthing again.

The question as to who chose the super-11 “peer-reviewed” papers  has been solved.

Dear Mr McIntyre
In response to your recent enquiry I can provide the following information.

I understand that the list of 11 papers for the Oxburgh review was collated by Prof Trevor Davies, in consultation with others. He was also the author of the statement at the bottom of the list.

Yours sincerely,
Lisa Williams

So the list was not selected by the Royal Society after all, but by Trevor Davies, the pro-VC of the University and former director of CRU. In consultation with “others”. Dare one hypothesize that these mysterious “others” will turn out to be Jones and Briffa after all?

An impartial objective inquiry? Where the defendant decided which evidence would be admissible.


%d bloggers like this: