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.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 