[sodpoodle]

I have posted this link in several other threads - but believe the date is HUGE. Richard Muller had an even earlier article in 2003.

Information on this criminal activity has been percolating for years!!!!

[Red Badger]

The “Hockey Stick” is aptly named..........................

[icwhatudo]

Anyone have any background info on this guy? There appears to be a few scientists with the same name-thanks!

[I cannot think of a name]

Since the belief in global warming has always been more of a “cult” than science, none of this is likely to make any difference to the true Kool-aid drinkers.

[TexasCajun]

Man-Made Global Warming is a Man-Made Hoax !!

[CedarDave]

A 2004 article. And all we have left is the “hockey stick” data as the original, un-massaged data has been destroyed (or so they say).

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

So GW is a complete fraud!

[Yo-Yo]

Did you read the article to the end? The last two paragraphs (emphasis added):

If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.

A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

[pallis]

The poor mathematics are an artifact of a scam. Getting to the bottom of a liberal lie can be exhausting, and they never quit lying.

[RetiredArmy]

The global warming hoax is nothing more than a money making scheme by those thieves called liberals. The so called “experts” are just milking government grant money to stay employed, making up lies, to stay employed and make money for themselves and their scam. Just think of the number of out of work “no bodies” there will be if people just “Got It!!!” that global warming is a true hoax, just to milk money out of them.

[TigersEye]

“Yes, your honor, that’s what I said. I robbed that liquor store because I’m bad at math! But it needed to be robbed anyway.”

[Retain Mike]

The IPCC established, with flawed papers by Michael Mann and Malcolm Hughes, research standards for global warming. These papers moved from selective interpretation of selective tree ring, ice core, and coral reef data to seamlessly incorporate selective instrument measurements of recent centuries. They subjected data to linear regression analysis, which also proves mathematically the same visual image appears for clusters of boulders from a landslide as for Stonehenge. Welcome to the “hockey stick”.

Here is a link to the ac hoc report to Congress in 2006 on this subject.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ad+hoc+committee+report+hockey+stick+global+climate+reconstruction&btnG=Search