Twelve Measly Trees

Cobb does a fine job summarizing a scientific scandal about, what else, human-induced global warming. Seems a goodly portion of the worldwide scare’s convincing data was cherry picked:

"Twelve trees whose growth rings were the basis of the conclusions that have shaken the world were selected by a dude named [Keith] Briffa and another dude named [Steve] McIntyre has called him on it. But it took years. Huh what? I mean to say quite plainly that the ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’ made their conclusion on the basis of a report whose original data was not made available for scientific review. The big bloody secret was that it was twelve measly trees."

It’s a complicated argument, in case you’re entering it late, but the Register and Bishop Hill also explain it well.

Via Cobb and Random Jottings.

MEANWHILE: Climate science heads are already being sought in the UK.

Anthony Watts posts Briffa’s defense, such as it is, and then pithily rejects it.

TREE COUNT: Rereading Bishop, I see there were twelve, ten or five trees depending on which year of research you choose to deplore. Twelve is the more generous. Still measly.

MORE from McIntyre’s co-researcher Ross McKitrick: "Whatever is going on here, it is not science." I wonder if it all began as Briffa’s attempt to save his job for some reason. You know, make a big discovery, prove his worth? And then Al Gore and his cronies took over. Pols are always looking for a big controversy to justify their existence. Stir in the Dictators Club’s IPCC, and the earth is doomed.

0 responses to “Twelve Measly Trees

  1. Global warmmongers lie.
    I am depressed you didn’t hat tip me, I wrote about that too.
    The funniest part about that bit was that there was a group of “scientists” who “peer-reviewed” each other’s papers and declared them “good”.
    So a coterie of global warmmongers backed each other up and made some scientific magazines look stupid.
    I wonder if there’ll be a backlash. I don’t think real scientists like to look stupid because of agenda scientists.

  2. You piled on the snark, Veeshir, losing me in the process. Cobb’s post was the first one I understood. He led me to McIntyre and the others. I don’t see anything funny about any of it. It’s more depressing than anything else. Those “magazines” are prestigious journals which may not deserve to be at all.

  3. You have to laugh at global warmmongers or it’s too depressing.
    They’re blowing $billions and screwing the poor in Africa and Asia just so they can feel good about themselves.
    It’s like “Frankenfoood”, stuff that could help feed lots of people in Africa can’t be used because of enviro-wackos.
    You either laugh or you get very impotently angry, I don’t like being impotently angry and I’m hoping that ridicule will work better than reasoned discourse. i.e. Not at all.

  4. Dick Stanley

    Snark definitely has its place. I engage it myself now and then. 😉
    But facing as we are the probability of higher taxes to defeat the non-existent threat (similar to the “public option” the Dems are getting ready to ram down our throats in the name of saving money) we need to reason this sucker out.

  5. You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.
    The first question you ask is about the Sun, if they know nothing about the Sun and get angry when you bring it up, stop there. It’s a waste of time.