Tag Archives: Fraud

Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area

I noticed this post up at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.

Steve recently disproved the hockey stick graph which is the cornerstone of all global warming alarmism. The hockey stick graph is based on the “Yamal” data set. It conceals the well-known Medieval Warming Period and shows a sudden spike in temperatures in the last few decades. In his latest post, Steve compares the tiny cherry-picked “Yamal” data set to a larger “Polar Urals” data set from the same geographic area.

You can click through to his analysis, but I will just show you one graph to give you an idea of what he found.

GWComparison

Wow, notice how the cherry-picked Yamal data set (in black) makes the Medieval Warming Period disappear, and adds a hockey stick upturn at the end. And notice how the larger non-cherry-picked Polar Urals data set (in red) reveals the Medieval Warming Period and no hockey stick upturn. Here is a good summary of how things went wrong with the hockey stick graph.

4500 weather records set nationwide in cold start to fall season

In other news, Watts Up With That notes that over 4500 new snowfall, low temperature, and lowest maximum temperature records where set in the USA this week. (Click to see the map with all 4500 records)

Here’s the breakdown:

Record Events for Sat Oct 10, 2009 through Fri Oct 16, 2009
Total Records: 6257
Rainfall: 859
Snowfall: 297
High Temperatures: 369
Low Temperatures: 785
Lowest Max Temperatures: 3473
Highest Min Temperatures: 474

Source: Hamweather Climate Center and NOAA/NWS

How green jobs policies have failed in Spain and Germany

Obama is planning to do “green” our economy, based on evidence like the fake hockey stick graph, and in spite of the extremely low temperatures we had in the summer and the fall this year. But how well has green jobs programs worked in Germany?

Big Government features a post evaluating of “green jobs” programs in Spain and Germany.

Consider the results of the green jobs policies in Spain.

Excerpt:

Yet in Spain, the economy suffered when efforts to create green jobs destroyed nearly 110,000 jobs in other industries according to a study released last month from Spain’s King Juan Carlos University.  It suggests that the Democrats’ plan for economic renewal through ‘green collar’ jobs may hurt the economy far more than it helps. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, a professor of applied environmental economics, explains that Spanish citizens currently suffer from higher taxes, more public deficit and ever-increasing energy prices—all the result of the government’s efforts to create a green economy.

This report from the Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung think tank explains what happened in Germany.

Excerpt:

German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio.  To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.

In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US.

You can read more about Obama’s radically leftist science czar and radically leftist former green jobs czar to understand why Obama is doing this. He is surrounded by radical extremists.

Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research, runs from public debate

Before discussing Dawkins’ latest antics, I want you to recall that he cites a professor of who teaches German as an authority on the historical Jesus, and that he believes that a plausible scenario to explain the origin of life is that unobservable aliens evolved on an unobservable planet and (unobserved) seeded the earth with life. So we’re dealing with a real first class intellect, here. Not a brain-damaged ideologue on the order of Kent Hovind.

Dawkins cites Haekel’s embryo drawings as evidence for Darwinism

Darwinian fundamentalist Ernst Haeckel’s embryo drawings were discredited as a fraud in the 19th century.

So why is Dawkins using discredited hoaxes to preach to the faithful?

What does scientific progress matter? Just keep clinging to that old-time religion.

Dawkins trips on his yellow belly while running away from debate with Stephen Meyer

Here is the transcript of Dawkins on the Michael Medved radio show.

Excerpt:

Bruce Chapman: …Your new book apparently doesn’t really deal with intelligent design. But it seems to me, that in your previous book, you said that it’s a question of science, that it is a scientific argument – I congratulate you for that — But if it is, how about having a debate with Stephen Meyer, who is the author of another new book, Signature in the Cell, which deals with this question, and have this in a respectful, civilized, scholarly fashion where you look at the scientific arguments, pro and con?

[…]Put that scientific argument to the test, not with somebody who’s a straw man that you bring up, but have somebody like Meyer, who has written a very scholarly book, to actually debate this topic with you…

Michael Medved: All right, the proposal’s on the table, response from Professor Dawkins, thank you, Bruce.

Richard Dawkins: I will have a discussion with somebody who has a genuinely different scientific point of view. I have never come across any kind of creationism, whether you call it intelligent design or not, which has a serious scientific case to put.

The objection to having debates with people like that is that it gives them a kind of respectability. If a real scientist goes onto a debating platform with a creationist, it gives them a respectability, which I do not think your people have earned.

Dawkin’s new policy is only to debate with people who agree with him. You see, he’s looked and looked for qualified opponents in his echo chamber, and there just aren’t any.

Dawkins’ new book features no credible intelligent scholars

You’d think that his new book would encounter the work of ID scholars. But you’d be wrong.

Excerpt:

Richard Dawkins’ new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is being touted as a scathing rebuttal to intelligent design (ID), yet an actual response to mainstream ID thinking can hardly be found in the book. Though the book makes passing mention of “irreducible complexity” in a couple places, there are zero mentions of leading ID proponents like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Stephen Meyer, or any other well-known ID proponent. Instead, Dawkins refers extensively to “creationists,” repeatedly attacking young earth creationism, while also making heavy use of fallacious (and dubious) “poor design” examples that rebut no argument made by a leading advocate of design since perhaps the 19th century. It seems that Dawkins didn’t have the stomach to tackle the actual modern theory of intelligent design in his new book.

His popular brand of invincible ignorance coupled with foam-flecked fanaticism sells a lot of hymnals written for the kool-aid drinking choir. It’s not about science, it’s about creating your own private world where everyone is stupid except you. Dawkins is a self-help author for those raised by fundamentalist parents. It’s escapism. And if anyone asks them to debate, they can just deploy some insults and call it a day. Whatever sells books, right?

UPDATE: I note that the pro-intelligent design team have organized a debate with their critics. Speakers include Stephen Meyer, Rick Sternberg, Michael Shermer and Don Prothero. Say what you want about Michael Shermer, he is not a coward.

UPDATE: (from the comments) “Just for the record, Dawkins turned down ANOTHER request to debate Dr. William Lane Craig a couple of weeks ago.”

Share

Government-funded research unit destroyed original climate data

Story from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. (H/T American Thinker via ECM)

Excerpt:

In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space.  The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis.  CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.

CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide.  EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision.  As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data.  But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable.  If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”

Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers.

Fraudulent government-funded research designed to support a socialist takeover of private industry by government? Hard to believe isn’t it?

Share