Thursday, February 6, 2014


It happened one day over a year ago when a world famous charlatan accused several of his tormenters of defaming and libeling him. This victim of verbal bullies filed a law suit against three of the parties he felt most damaged by and went to court. They countered with lawyers who sought to challenge the basis of the law suit instead of take it to the jury and seek a decision. Two of the defendants probably wanted more than anything for the law suit to go away. The third defendant had something far nobler in mind and it took the full stupidity of the legal profession and the judge in the case to set him free from the timid warriors who decline to fight even when challenged.

The accuser is a man of rank fame for he works at the same institution of higher learning that was also the workplace and institution of higher learning of one of the more athletic child molesters of the 21st century. They were both employees of the Pennsylvania State University. They were both investigated by the peerless investigators of the Pennsylvania State University and both men were found completely above board with nary a scratch upon the escutcheon of their pride and honor. One of these two went on to be convicted of child abuse and was sentenced to 4 million years in prison. The other is still a professor at my alma mater.

The law suit he filed claimed that he was not a vile torturer and manipulator of data used to craft his global warming charade in the form of a hockey stick. There were some other things he objected to but those were tossed out by the new judge or redacted by his own legal team. The publisher parties to the law suit appeared most desirous of a settlement that saw the suit vanish. One party, as I said, wants to bring his ship alongside Mann's, sweep the decks with grape shot and cannister, board it and put everybody left alive to the sword before burning it to the waterline.

The good news is that this is what will happen because that man is now preparing to go to trial with no more waffling about getting the law suit dismissed on any technicalities. It's lawfare you want and it's a lawfare you'll get he declares and promptly announces that he is prepared to move to the discovery phase of the trial and get at the data Mann claims was carefully nurtured and gently raised and not tortured at all. The problem as I see it though is related here at
Upon careful investigation, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered fundamental statistical method errors so profound that even random numbers fed into Mann’s program would produce a hockey stick curve. That wasn’t all. The Medieval Warm Period which occurred about one thousand years ago and the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) between about 1300-1850 somehow turned up missing.
And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in those Middle Ages.
Scientific critics have also raised another looming question. Since Mann’s 1,000-year-long graph was cobbled together using various proxy data derived from ice cores, tree rings and written records of growing season dates up until 1961 where it then switched to using  surface (ground station) temperature data, then why change in 1961?   Some theorize that maybe it’s because that’s when other tree ring proxy data calculations by Keith Briffa at the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) began going the other way in a steady temperature decline.
 For all that Al Gore swears he created global warming and thus proves the science that is in it, I see the facts, read the science, note the telltale absence again and again from the various researchers who uniformly fail to produce the actual data used to derive any of the models they claim predict global warming and then note that not one single global climate model predicted the current 17 year absence of warming. I get angry when I hear my position called one of denial.

The people that have pushed global warming for the last 30 years are of the same ilk that pushed eugenics, socialism, communism, phrenology, and lobotomy. There was even a Nobel Prize awarded in 1949 to a Portuguese man who pioneered the idea of sticking ice picks into a patient's brain in order to make it better. Science!

Real science. Repeatable, verifiable science. Reputable science. Reputations matter because with one shiny enough you can convince the simple minded that what you're doing in shipping off millions of people to death camps, gulags, and killing fields, is all done in the name of science. You remember that right? All those guys had science on their side. They said so. Loudly. Repeatedly.*

Making idiots believe is not science. That's religion.

*Science and lobotomy: The USSR officially banned the procedure in 1950[133] on the initiative of Gilyarovsky.[134]  Doctors in the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was "contrary to the principles of humanity" and "'through lobotomy' an insane person is changed into an idiot."[135] [wikipedia]


Priya said...

This blog is nice

virgil xenophon said...

Yes, all of these true believers really are, in the end, naught but watermelons--green on the outside and red control freaks on the inside. My Dad used to frequently voice his generations aphorism: "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tartar." Mine is : "Scratch a lefty and you'll find a salivating Robespierre-in-waiting."

Anne Bonney said...

O, Virgil, I have not heard that aphorism in years - it was a favorite of my mother's.

You have to ask yourself what is the true motivation of the fomenters of the green - as with many fomenters, it is often a desire for control.

"Making idiots believe is not science. That's religion." - priceless

Buck said...

I get angry when I hear my position called one of denial.

You are NOT alone.

HMS Defiant said...

I watch as some people get into hot debates about how this bunch of totalitarians is totally different from that bunch of totalitarians yet the only difference that matters is whether or not they jam an ice pick into your brain now or later. All of them want to do it. They differ only on killing the proletariat now or later.

HMS Defiant said...

We try ever so humbly.

HMS Defiant said...

It is especially irritating to me when it is tossed off by people who literally cannot refute any argument based on actual science. They would line up to burn us at the stake and only fail, as they so often fail, because their foam flecked lips and oxygen sucking howls of outrage would put the fires out so great is their zeal to kill the unbeliever.