[7MMmag]

Many, or most of us here on FR have been have long been aware of the various frauds behind the UN "climate change", so this is nothing new.

The graph below, as many others have, breaks Mann's hockey stick entirely. Mann's work, under the auspices of the UN was fraudulent from the beginning. Captain obvious to the rescue? Yes, but what was obvious to skeptics of anthropogenic global warming, is now gaining more widespread understanding. The whole climate change thing is a multi-faceted farce.

From an embedded link hockeyschtick.blogspot.com in the above;

There are too many good links to mention.

Other, related info- Here's a paragraph within the Nature article which is also quite telling (and damning) in itself.

Other frustrations include opaque retraction notices that don't explain why a paper has been withdrawn, a tendency for authors to keep citing retracted papers long after they've been red-flagged (see 'Withdrawn papers live on') and the fact that many scientists hear 'retraction' and immediately think 'misconduct' — a stigma that may keep researchers from coming forward to admit honest errors.

Science? What science? We 'aint gotta' show you no stee-king science...it is what we say it is! You, you, climate denier!

For old times sake youtube; Hide the Decline song.

[7MMmag]

Here's the other hockey stick the cited article was talking about. (pardon my clumsiness in not displaying it first)

[thackney]

Here is a "hockey stick" graph you can believe in.

[Dogbert41]

Right now in Reno, I’m watching snow falling. We didn’t even have a fall, we went straight to winter!

[bolobaby]

Nice post!

[The Great RJ]

The use of consensus is totally contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses must be tested continuously by experiment under different conditions and with different researchers. This idea that global warming is driven solely by CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a poor hypothesis and to quite deliberately hide the original tree ring data so no other group can analyze it and manipulate the real data so it fits the hypothesis is totally unscientific.

Consensus can also be used to hinder scientific inquiry. At the beginning of the Renaissance a consensus of scholars believed the earth was the static center of the universe and that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth. This view became dogma and was enforced by the Inquisition. Anyone who denied this consensus was declared a heretic and pursued by the Inquisition. Galileo used scientific method and his own telescope to prove the consensus wrong and narrowly escaped burning at the stake for his heresy. Even his book was suppressed for hundreds of years. The parallels between the man made global warming alarmists who label anyone who disagrees with their dogma a "denier" is obvious.

[mamelukesabre]

global cooling??

uh oh, sucks to be canadian

[Betis70]

I personally prefer an old wooden hockey stick (I can control passes better), but those carbon fiber ones sure can propel a puck when you hit a slapshot.

Wait...too wrapped up in my favorite sport to notice this is about economics. Nevermind.

But... Go Bruins!

[dfwgator]

As Don Rickles would say, “Algore is a hockey puck.”