TeeJaw Blog

The Year the Wheels Fell Off

Posted in Culture, Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Friday, December 30, 2011, 9: 49 PM

Jed Babbin at the American Spectator recounts the steady stream of political knavery, green graft and governmental stupidity of 2011: The Year The Wheels Fell Off.

I liked them all, especially this one:

“An enterprising BBC reporter — seeking to prove the practicality of electric cars — drove from London to Edinburgh. The journey took four days — longer than a horse-drawn stage would have taken for the trip 150 years ago — including nine stops of up to ten hours.”

There are a lot more, follow the link above.

Climategate II Emails Loaded With Bombshells

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, December 5, 2011, 1: 26 PM

Heartland Institute:

New and explosive revelations continue to emerge from the Climategate 2 emails, two weeks after the 5,000-plus emails were first publicly unveiled. While Climategate 2 does not share the “novelty factor” of Climategate 1, the contents of the Climategate 2 emails are at least as appalling as Climategate 1. Most importantly, the Climategate 2 emails show scientists at the forefront of global warming activism acknowledging serious flaws in alarmist global warming theory, working together to hide data contradicting alarmist global warming theory, and taking concerted and nefarious action to ruin the careers of scientists and peer-reviewed science journal editors who publish studies and data that undermine alarmist global warming claims.

Anyone with continuing doubts on whether the “hockey stick graph” constructed by Michael Mann of Penn State University [he was at a different university at the time] was a phony,  read email 2383:

From: Tim Barnett [[2]mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX@ucsd.edu]

Sent: 11 October 2004 16:42

To: Gabi Hegerl; Klaus Hasselmann

Cc: Prof.Dr. Hans von Storch; Myles Allen; francis; Reiner Schnur; Phil Jones; Tom Crowley; Nathan Gillett; David Karoly; Jesse Kenyon; christopher.d.miller@noaa.gov; Pennell, William T; Tett, Simon; Ben Santer; Karl Taylor; Stott, Peter; Bamzai, Anjuli

Subject: Re: spring meeting

not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim

They all suspected  Mann’s Hockey stick graph was a fraud.  Climategate I emails showed that East Anglia’s Phil Jones has referred to it as “Mike’s Hockey Stick Trick.” Here is the graph purporting to show sudden warming in the late 20th century:

The Bolt Report On Climategate II

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Friday, December 2, 2011, 9: 57 AM

The Bolt Report is an Australian Sunday morning show in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.  The video below is a segment with an interview of Steve McIntyre who exposed the phony “hockey stick” devised by Michael Mann of Penn State University to “hide the decline” and perpetuate the global warming hoax.  This video discusses the latest round of leaked emails from East Anglia University, dubbed Climategate II.

If the Bolt Report is representative, the Aussie Sunday morning shows look to be a whole lot more informative and objective than the U.S. kind, which only a masochist or a research psychologist studying deception in the media could watch.

Google Dumps Green Energy Investment

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, November 28, 2011, 12: 44 PM

I thought commercial wind turbines cost about a million dollars each to get up and running and ready to catch the wind.  I didn’t even consider the added cost of getting the electricity transported to the electrical grid.  Now I find I was wrong on the cost, it’s more like $3.5 million per wind turbine. That makes Google’s investment of $38 million in wind turbines, which it called its “Renewable Energy Cheaper That Coal” project, look paltry. Thirty-eight wind turbines is a not a large wind farm — each turbine can produce about 2 megawatts of electricity when the wind is blowing, none the rest of the time. At $3.5 million a copy only 11 turbines at the most would be constructed.

But Google’s $38 million was only seed money. Lots of other investors were kicking in. Google hired a guy named Bill Weihl who predicted that “In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there.” All producing electricity cheaper than coal-fired plants. Sounds good to me.

But like most things to do with green energy, it only sounds good. It’s not actually good at all. It’s not actually possible at all.

So who is putting up all this money for wind farms? You are, that’s who. It turns out the green energy movement, especially the wind turbine portion of it, is little more than fabulous tax shelters for wealthy Democrats. Here’s what the Wall Street Journal said about Googles green energy project at the time”

“Google’s stakes in the wind farms are ‘tax equity’ investments, in which investors buy into a project and use federal tax credits granted to the project to offset their own taxes.”

Oh, and Google also announced at the time that electricity from these wind farms would not be used to power any of Googles several massive data centers. Right. After all, these data centers needs lot of reliable electricity, something wind farms cannot provide.

So now Google has thrown in the towel completely, and Bill Weihl has gone on to other boondoggles.

I used to make part of my living writing legal opinions for tax shelters, back in the days when tax shelters were the rage. In the opening paragraphs I explained how the investment would legally yield tax deductions for investors that they could take against their income from other sources. In the final paragraphs I explained the likelihood of those deductions having to be realized as income in later years if, as likely, their “capital account” in the investment fell below zero. Apparently many of them didn’t bother to read all the way through the opinion letter, or had short memories if they did, because they were often surprised and disappointed when their former tax losses were “recaptured” as income. In some circumstances the recaptured income could exceed the amount of losses previously deducted. Ouch.

I wonder if the rich Democrats making out like bandits on green energy tax shelters have thought of this. Of course, they have probably used their political connections to get the rules written in their favor so they won’t have to face such a prospect.

For more check out Steven Hayward’s piece today, More Green Energy Fail

I also recommend C.J. Box’s Cold Wind, which is a fiction novel.  Like all great fiction novels, it contains large kernels of truth.

Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis — Heard it in a Love Song…Cain’t be Wrong

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, September 19, 2011, 2: 20 PM

The hypothesis is that certain gases are released into the atmosphere by man, and those gases have a “greenhouse effect” causing the earth’s climate to warm.  We’ll call that group of gases, CO2 etc., greenhouse gases.

The observation is that so-called greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere.  If our hypothesis is correct we’ll expect to see a corresponding warming of the earth’s climate.

If there is an increase of greenhouse gases but no warming, we’ll conclude our hypothesis is wrong.  Right?  No, that’s wrong. We’ll conclude that the heat is “missing,” and may be hiding somewhere.  Well, if we’re Reuters that is.

“Missing” Global Heat May Hide in Deep Oceans

You read that headline right.  Reuters won’t accept that the hypothesis might be wrong.  No, Reuters heard it in a love song…cain’t be wrong.  The heat is missing, and probably hiding.  Reuter’s and some bought and paid for “scientists” will find it, by gosh.  What are they going to do, admit they’re wrong?  Never!

That’s their story and they’re sticking to it:

The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported on Sunday.

John Hinderaker has more to say about this:

Where’s The Heat?  It’s Hiding!

Fifty Million People Are Missing!

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 10: 51 AM

In 2005 The UN Environment Program (UNEP) warned there would be 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010,
UNEP said that sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by man-made climate change would lead to massive population disruptions. In a map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable, such as the Caribbean. The purple areas in the map show areas that would supposedly be full of 50 million refugees by 2010:

But it turns out that, not only did those areas fail to produce any “climate refugees,” their populations are actually booming.

Is there anyone who still believes in the man-made global warming hoax?

Sure there is. That’s because man-made global warming is a religion and it’s about faith not facts.

Predictions For 2011

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Saturday, January 1, 2011, 9: 05 AM

There will be no shortage of predictions for 2011, most will be wrong. The best I’ve seen so far come from political humorist Frank J. Fleming. Hey, a little levity is the best approach here. Fleming gives us month-by-month predictions for the year ahead. Here a small sample that should make you want to read it all:

On January 3rd the newly elected Republicans will be sworn in and take control of the House. On January 4th they will go back to business as usual and betray their conservative principles, and on January 5th the Republicans will be unmasked as Democrats in drag. Once again, we realize we got screwed.

In February…well, this one has to be quoted word for word:

It will be a record warm February — further proof of global warming. Or it will be a record cold February — also proof of global warming. Or it will be the most average February temperatures on record — which would be the greatest proof of all of global warming.

Read the whole thing and start the New Year with a laugh:

Good Riddance to 2010: What’s Going Happen In 2011?

Remember, in politics what is humor and parody today has a way of becoming deadly serious later on. We used to make jokes about the next things liberals would try to take away from us. Remember when Rush Limbaugh jokingly said, “Next thing you know they’ll be after our SUV’s, or our light bulbs, or trying to regulate our diet, telling us how much fat and sugar we can eat…” Not very funny anymore is it.

Reports of Death of The Rain Forest Greatly Exaggerated

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Sunday, November 14, 2010, 2: 04 PM

We’ve been told for years that man-made global warming would destroy the rain forests on earth because temperatures would rise and the precipitation would decline, turning the rain forests into deserts.  But now it appears that research has shown that warmer temperatures in the tropics have just the opposite effect.

According to the latest report published in Science [free abstract, to view full article costs $15] “There are many climactic models today suggesting that … if the temperature increases in the tropics by a couple of degrees, most of the forest is going to be extinct…”, and “What we found was the opposite to what we were expecting: we didn’t find any extinction event [in plants] associated with the increase in temperature, we didn’t find that the precipitation decreased.”

Much more in this story in the Guardian.

These climate changes that were studied happened thousands of years ago and occurred naturally.  When the climate changed the plants didn’t die, they did what all life forms do:  they adapted.  When water became more scarce, plants started becoming more efficient at its use.  The changes in temperature not only didn’t kill off the trees, it led to an explosion of diversity,

Another  scary AGW scenario bites the dust.

“I’m a Denier” — (Me Too)

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, November 8, 2010, 1: 50 PM


It’s a parody of “I’m a Believer” written by Neil Diamond and performed by the Monkees. This version was written by Elmer Beauregard and Brian D. Smith and performed by Elmer and the M4GW players.

This song is in honor of all the new Republican Freshman entering Congress and the Senate most of whom are Deniers and proud of it.

I think this is song may be our “Tour de Farce”

The guy holding the hockey sticks doesn’t appear to be wearing a mask, yet he looks just like Michael Mann. I wonder how they did that?

Pretty cool.

Physics Professor Resigns From American Physical Society — Cites Global Warming Hoax

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, October 11, 2010, 3: 42 PM

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has recently resigned his position in the American Physical Society (APS). The American Physical Society was founded on May 20, 1899, when 36 physicists gathered at Columbia University for that purpose. They proclaimed the mission of the new Society to be “to advance and diffuse the knowledge of physics.” It is a probably the preeminent organization for a professional physicist to belong to. My father in law, who was a physicist and part of the Chester Carlson team at Haloid Photographic Company when it invented Xerography (Haloid later changed its name to Xerox Corporation), was a member of APS from the time he earned his Ph.D in Physics until he died.

Professor Lewis has recently resigned from APS and his letter of resignation should be read by everyone because it recounts a great sickness not only in science but in a society that so easily falls for a grand hoax that just a little thinking and common sense would have warned against.

Excerpts from Professor Lewis’ letter to Curtis G. Callan, Jr., President of APS:

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood… Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists.

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.

Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

Professor Lewis goes on to recount how APS has refused to help expose the hoax of man-made global warming and in fact has taken certain steps that have given aid and comfort to the very ones seeking to advance the fraudulent claims of AGW in order to keep their grants coming and their salaries protected.

Former television meteorologist Anthony Watts, whose Blog is called Watts Up With That, says:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

Read Professor Lewis’ entire resignation letter to APS at IPCC News.

Interesting Question Asked by Audience Member

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 10: 52 AM

An interesting question was asked by an audience member at the Heartland Institute International Conference on Climate Change being held in Chicago. Has manipulated data over raw data created power review over peer review?

Seems to have worked that way for Michael Piltdown Mann. Until now, that is.

Bookmark and Share

Epistemic Closure — Revised and Updated

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Sunday, May 16, 2010, 1: 59 PM

Epistemic Closure is a fancy phrase in philosophy related to epistemology. It refers to knowledge, how we know things and what we know about things. An example might be Locke’s epistemology which refers to the belief of philosopher John Locke that each newborn child is a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which his life experiences write and from which all of his knowledge is derived. Epistemic closure then might describe what occurs when the child becomes a man and becomes convinced that what he now knows is so correct that nothing which challenges any of his collected knowledge will be considered by him. He will simply ignore all new evidence, i.e., epistemic closure occurs.

A way to think of epistemic closure in an institutional setting is what happens when a criminal trial ends in a verdict. The evidence becomes closed, double jeopardy prevents consideration of newly discovered evidence in a second criminal trial brought by the state and a convicted defendant will have an enormously difficult time getting a new trial on the basis of any newly discovered evidence no matter how innocent it may seem to make him. The new evidence will usually have to clearly establish that the first trial resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice otherwise prosecutors will fight harder to save the conviction than they fought to get it in the first place. Judges are just as reluctant to grant new trials except in extraordinary circumstances. Witness the reaction of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the face of overwhelming evidence that Fells Acres defendant Gerald Amirault had been wrongly convicted. The court’s response and the efforts of prosecutor Marsha Coakley to keep him in prison and the manner in which she rejected all the evidence that showed the first trial to have been a farce must be one of the more classic examples of institutional epistemic closure in legal history.

I once attended a continuing legal education seminar given by the highly regarded Charles Nesson, evidence professor at Harvard Law School. I had heard from other professors in law school that a trial is not about the discovery of truth but rather it is about resolution of a case. But never had I heard it more forcefully stated as by Professor Nesson, who stressed to the audience of lawyers that the facts established in a trial are not necessarily “true” but are what is to suffice as true. The facts established in a trial are what a group of people who can’t agree on the facts will now accept as the facts, willingly or forcefully. Once concluded, it is over. No additional evidence will be considered, except in extraordinary or even extra-extraordinary circumstances. Whether this makes sense or constitutes justice one can understand the reasoning behind the rule. The argument must end somewhere. A trial is to put the matter to rest in the best way possible. Epistemic closure for sure, but with justification.

The blank slate theory of human development is not in favor anymore, but epistemic closure is gaining in notoriety as a twenty dollar set of words to describe what might be better referred to by its ten cent cousin, close minded or having a closed mind. Liberals are defending their pet theories of global warming by attacking the intellect of skeptics. For this liberals want to occupy the intellectual high ground. Common words and phrases won’t do. They use highfalutin phrases like epistemic closure so they will sound clever and sharp-witted (they think) when they attack the skeptics as being stupid back-woodsy toothless goobers with no capacity for learning anything more sophisticated than ice cream.

Conservative skepticism of man-made global warming is at the heart of the new attraction for the phrase “epistemic closure” as a way for liberals to make themselves feel really smart. With the global warming cat pretty much out of the bag by the disclosure of the East Anglia emails and the hockey stick fraud, liberals are desperate to hang on to the global warming scare because without it the whole agenda of carbon taxes and green energy is in jeopardy. Without these and other parts of the liberal agenda for moving America ever more toward European style socialism, liberals are left with few ways to make themselves feel superior to us common schlubs who are too dense to know what is good for us.

So next time you hear or read the words “epistemic closure,” you can expect a condescending speech on how people who don’t buy into the global warming scare or some other liberal hype are just not open to expanding their minds.

UPDATE: Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny was a runaway best seller for over a year. It’s a book that most liberals would naturally hate because it characterizes most of their agenda as either tyranny or likely to need a tyrannical government to implement because free people would not stand for it. Levin’s book is now in paperback and still ranks #3409 in Amazon’s overall sales rating and #5 in the nonfiction political category. In addition to scalding criticism of liberalism and the liberal agenda, Levin flatly states that carbon dioxide has not been sufficiently shown to be capable of affecting global atmospheric temperature. For this statement alone liberals such as Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute (where he masquerades as a libertarian) have charged Levin with suffering from “epistemic closure.” Levin is not alone is being skeptical of CO2, at least at levels that could be associated with human activity, as a cause of global warming. He cites the work of scientists who have studied the question and also are skeptical, such as Dr. Nir Shariv, a top astrophysicist and associate professor at Hebrew University. Since I read Levin’s book on Kindle I cannot be sure of the page number in either the hardback or paperback where this discussion takes place but it is at locations 1899-1907 or 50% in the Kindle edition.

Levin also describes in specific detail how the proponents of CO2 based warming have deliberately manipulated the testing and measurement procedures to produce false data that purport to find a causal connection between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher global temperatures. A roundup of scientific evidence about CO2’s ability to warm the planet can be found in Dr. Roy Spencer’s new book The Great Global Warming Blunder.

Liberals could not let a book as popular as Levin’s go unchallenged but they have no scientific evidence with which to attack it, or at least none that has not already been discredited. The traditional liberal tactics of demonization are not reliable when attempted to be used against a book that has sold in such high numbers. Besides, there is nothing about Levin that can be used to make us hate him. He’s a big-hearted good guy as readers of Rescuing Sprite know and as parents of soldiers or marines killed in the war on terror can attest.

Hence, the attempt to cast Levin as suffering from the intellectual stubbornness of epistemic closure. It hasn’t worked and it won’t work. Not only does Levin have reason on his side, he is himself a very effective communicator and unlike many conservatives he is not intimidated by liberals. He eats them for lunch.

Bookmark and Share

Science Magazine Disturbed About Political Assaults On Scientists

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 2: 19 PM

Science Magazine says,

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything.

So they illustrate their piece with this photo:
I submit that this photo looks fake. And sure enough, it’s a photoshopped fakery. Science now says,

“Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it.”

The statement that science never absolutely proves anything might be true, but not profound. Of course scientific conclusions are always open to new findings and new research. But the insinuation that it is us schlubs who don’t get that is offensive considering that it has been the true believers in science, James Hansen at NASA, Michael Mann at Penn State, Phil Jones of the East Anglia University, and many others, who have been telling us for the past thirty years that the science of global warming is “settled” and no longer open to argument or doubt.

So now Science Magazine has substituted a new image to illustrate its story. This image is an authentic and unaltered photograph:
Well fine. I accept that. But what does two polar bears on a chunk of ice prove? Nothing, if you know another scientific fact the evidence of which is decades of observation in the field: Polar bears can swim. For about 60 miles at a time.

UPDATE: Why would you ever find polar bears on an ice flow anyway? Well, here’s a thought. Walruses are often found sunning themselves on ice flows. Polar bears like to eat walruses.

Bookmark and Share

The Great Global Warming Blunder

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Friday, April 23, 2010, 10: 08 PM

The evidence of the great global warming hoax keeps piling up and this new book by Roy Spencer collects much of it in one place.
global warming blunder I’m proud to say that I never for one minute believed the hype that human activity was causing global warming. The idea just seemed too preposterous to take seriously, but as we know the overwhelming majority of people in western civilization fell for it hook, line and sinker. So if you are one who swallowed it whole you needn’t feel bad since nearly everyone else did as well.

This book explains in layman’s terms why any recent warming is simply part of natural earth cycles that have been going on for millennia. It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. But there are still plenty of politicians, speculators, and commodity traders that saw a chance to turn carbon dioxide into gold and they won’t give up until the last lie is told. The true believers will also hang on as long as they can even though they don’t stand to gain financially. They just won’t easily accept the psychological pain of having to admit they were duped.

Even in usually sensible Wyoming the cowboys are still making plans to spend millions of dollars, perhaps billions, to pump carbon dioxide into underground caverns. At some point I predict they are going to feel pretty stupid, and look it too.

Bookmark and Share

The Hockey Stick Illusion — Climategate and The Corruption of Science

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Uncategorized by TeeJaw on Friday, April 2, 2010, 12: 19 AM

The Hockey Stick is that amazing graph that shows earth temperatures mildly fluctuating in a narrow band until the late 20th Century when temperature data from around the globe suddenly ticks substantially upward, lending support to the idea that human activity is causing unprecedented global warming. It was so good it convinced nearly everyone that man-made global warming was a huge problem that must be solved and could only be solved by instituting enormous reductions in so-called “greenhouse gases” especially the one we exhale every time we breathe.

The whacked-out crazy schemes by which many apparently still believe humans can alter the earth’s climate includes such nonsense as “Carbon Dioxide Sequestration” whereby coal fired power plants or any other facility that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will be required to capture it and pump it into massive underground vaults. This will be hugely expensive, if it can even be done. Oil and gas drillers regularly capture salt water from their operations and pump it underground through old abandoned wells. But containing a gas like carbon dioxide is a bit tricky by comparison to salt water.

At any rate, to the extent the Hockey Stick graph is the justification for this madness, there is the little matter of the Hockey Stick being a scientific fraud the likes of which haven’t been seen since the appearance of Piltdown Man in 1912, which was supposed to be the missing link between apes and humans. Piltdown was exposed in 1953 as a hoax and a fraud achieved by linking a human skull with the jaw bone of an orangutang.

Forty-one years is what it took to uncover that fraud, but the hockey stick graph began to be questioned almost immediately after it first appeared in a 1998 article in the theretofore prestigious science journal Nature. After serious doubts were raised about the authenticity of the Hockey Stick this venerable science journal disgraced its trusted name by joining forces with those who resisted efforts to expose the truth about the how the Hockey Stick graph was based upon falsified data. So much for that journal’s devotion to scientific inquiry.

By 2003 science sleuth Stephen McIntyre was asking the Hockey Stick author Michael Mann for the data so he could check it himself. Apparently no one else had ever asked for the data. At first Mann obliged but when McIntyre pointed out that the data Mann had furnished was full of errors and had other problems Mann stopped cooperating. Then the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University email dump showed that “Mike’s Hockey Stick Trick” was not just a poor job of research but an intentional deception.

The sordid story of the Hockey Stick is told by Andrew Montford in the book pictured above, The Hockey Stick Illusion — Climategate and the Corruption of Science, available at Amazon. Science writer Matt Ridley says of Montford’s book,

    Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.

Ridley is generously subdued in his choice of calling the Hockey Stick a “scientific mistake.” His true thinking is revealed by his use of the word “perpetrated” in the same sentence. Mere mistakes are made, frauds are perpetrated. True scientists are devoted to truth and therefore do not seek to “camouflage” their mistakes. The East Anglia emails fairly well show the Hockey Stick to have been an intentional fraud, if it were not already obvious.

Michael Mann had a clear motive. Massive amounts of money in the form of federal and charitable foundation grants were flowing to Penn State University where Mann did his “research.” If his work showed that earth’s warming was due to natural causes the money would have dried up and Mann would have been an obscure climate researcher in a university rather than the well-funded and well-paid internationally known global-warming guru that he became. Alas, he is now destined to go down in science history along side the forger of Piltdown Man. Michael Mann, however, will forever have his name associated with a scientific hoax that captured the minds of millions whereas the identity of the forger of Piltdown Man was never discovered.

Bookmark and Share

The Time’s Are a Changin’

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, February 22, 2010, 10: 38 PM

The facts are winning. The True Believers are now fodder for comedy.

The time’s are a changin’

H/T Rossputin

Bookmark and Share

Climategate May Bring Some Relief From Political Correctness

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Sunday, February 21, 2010, 1: 08 AM

I was at the Volvo dealer getting an oil change for my 11-year old Volvo and decided to look at the new cars while waiting. I hadn’t studied a new car brochure for quite a few years. The glossy pages are filled with assurances that the new car you are considering will do its part to reduce global warming, as well as get you from here to there in reliable comfort. It seemed that every page of a 25-page brochure had some sort of reference to saving the planet or climate change or greenhouse gases with a description of several automotive miracles the engineers had performed to ensure that driving the car after you buy it won’t unduly warm the planet.

I’ve believed for 25 years that man-made global warming was a massive fraud and a hoax so these sorts of pandering statements in advertising and owner’s manuals have always annoyed me. I also knew that most people did believe the nonsense that was being spewed in every magazine, newspaper and television channel, so I understood why corporations do this sort of thing. It isn’t that they necessarily believe what they’re saying but they think most of their potential customers believe it and they just want to sell their product so they say what they think we want to hear.

General Electric has been the most politically correct big corporation, leading the charge to convert its light bulb production exclusively to compact fluorescents.

With the revelation that man-made global warming is truly a hoax of massive proportions, maybe this will stop and advertising and sales brochures won’t make me cringe as much. It’ll take a while. Companies big enough to make cars or locomotives and jet engines are huge bureaucracies run by accomplished bureaucrats.

Will we get our incandescent light bulbs back? It would be so cool if the law to go into effect in 2014 were to be repealed leaving GE with a few billion of the curly bulbs now worth less than it cost to make them, as well as having sold off or retired all of its tooling for incandescent bulbs. It’s always dangerous to put all your bulbs into one political fad.

Bookmark and Share

Donald Trump Says Al Gore Should Give Back His Peace Prize

Posted in Global Warming Hoax, Government and Politics by TeeJaw on Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 9: 55 PM

Bookmark and Share

Howard Dean: Republicans Don’t Believe In Science

Posted in Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Monday, February 15, 2010, 11: 26 PM

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Liberals like Howard Dean are amazing in the way they can continue to act like nothing has happened after one of their pet nonsensical theories has been exposed as false, or in the case of man-made global warming an outright scientific fraud nearly on the order of the Piltdown Man hoax.

Against all the evidence that has recently surfaced that AGW is a massive scientific fraud, Al Gore is still carrying the torch of the AGW hoax with this post on his blog last Friday: Worse Than We Thought

More evidence of the climate crisis is unfolding before our eyes. The situation in the Arctic is worse than data from satellite pictures have told us.

Is there anyone left who doesn’t believe Al Gore is a ridiculous man?

So then over the weekend East Anglia CRU “scientist” Phil Jones confessed that there is no data to support the “hockey stick” graph, confirming that Michael Piltdown Mann just made it up, and that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. All of this was already known. The only new revelation is Phil Jones’ admission.

I don’t know what Republicans believe but I think conservatives do believe in science, they just don’t believe in junk science. They recognize that science does not depend on what ones believes, that there is such a thing as scientific truth that can only be approached through The Scientific Method.

Bookmark and Share

What Did They Mean By “Unprecedented” Global Warming?

Posted in Culture, Culture Rot, Global Warming Hoax by TeeJaw on Sunday, February 14, 2010, 9: 14 PM

If the hockey stick graph had been authentic in showing fairly level temperatures for 1,000 years followed by a sudden increase in global temperatures in the last 20 years of the Twentieth Century, what would that have proved? The perpetrators of the AGW hoax, Michael Mann of Penn State University, Phil Jones of East Anglia University, and other assorted true believers all have said the hockey stick shows “unprecedented” warming which had never occurred under natural conditions and thus had be caused by human activity.

Now that we know the hockey stick is a fraud created with false and manipulated data, and Phil Jones has admitted that their was a medieval warming period (MWP) from around 1000 — 1300 A.D. we know that the late twentieth century warming would not be “unprecedented” even if the hockey stick were true. The MWP was a period of significant global warming that cannot be attributed to man’s activity on the planet.

But even if the hockey stick were true, why does anyone think that would prove that global warming on even that scale would be “unprecedented” in the history of the earth’s climate? Don’t we know that the middle of North America was covered with a sheet of ice nearly a mile thick just 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, and it melted as the earth warmed. That was a warming period greater than anything that the Climategate hoaxers tried to cook up.

I guess they would say that it was too long ago and took perhaps a 1,000 years to actually warm up enough to melt the glaciers, so it doesn’t count. But how long ago was it, really?

By comparison to the actual age of the earth, 15,000 years is the blink of an eye. And 15,000 years ago the modern atmosphere had already been established for a few million years with oxygen and carbon dioxide levels nearly the same as today.

The earth is approximately 4 billion years old. 15,000 years is less than 4 millionths of that. Just divide 15,000 by 4,000,000,000. That would be the same as dividing 15 by 4 million. You will get .0000037.

To put that in a better perspective, imagine the earth to be only one 24-hour day old, beginning at midnight 24 hours ago, and that it is now midnight at the end of earth’s first day. At what time did the last ice age that wiped out the megafauna occur? Using the numbers calculated above, and knowing that 24 hours is 86,400 seconds, the ice age ended 0.31968 seconds, or 320 milliseconds ago.

We are now at midnight, the earth is warm, and the ice age ended less that one second before midnight. In the blink of a young girl’s eye, as Bruce Springsteen would say. When Jesus appeared on earth the bell tower at Big Ben had already started to ring. Well, actually it had started to ring before it even existed.

So given that the warming that occurred less than a second ago had to melt ice a mile thick, how could the measly little temperature increases the hockey stick depicts, assuming it were true, ever have been thought to be “unprecedented?”

Actually, the ice age ended even closer to midnight than I have shown because I assumed the earth to be 4 billion years old when it is actually closer to 4.6 billion years old. The beautiful chart below shows the time that mammals have been on earth with a brown line. The time since humans arose is shown by a red line. Oh wait, you can’t see it. That is because it is so short, being only 2 million years long, it is to small to see in the graph.

Click to enlarge. Then click again to enlarge more. Now you can see the tiny red line representing the time humans have been on earth. We are “statistically insignificant.” The idea that we could either destroy or save the earth is laugh-out-loud ludicrous.

Bookmark and Share

%d bloggers like this: