« The EU wants to register your guns | Main | My Carbon Footprint..... »

Hockeystick watch - still rising from the grave with a stake through its heart

Climate Skeptic: Hockey Stick: RIP

I have posted many times on the numerous problems with the historic temperature reconstructions that were used in Mann's now-famous "hockey stick."...

Not so fast in reading the obit over the hockeystick; it ain't dead yet.

Here's the BBC today:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Opinion: A reluctant whistle-blower

Channel 4's The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary, broadcast in March 2007, broke Ofcom rules, the UK media regulator has ruled.

The controversial programme, which presented the view that climate change was not primarily caused by burning fossil fuels....

Good choice that to show the science of the consensus against that of the sceptics... I think I will file that under irony


What gets me about this whole subject is the fantastic overarching hubris of Gore and other consensual climate changers. Don't they realize that in big things, and the global climate is a big thing, we are totally at nature's mercy and we can put that in our pipes and smoke – it to use a rather dated expression.

This Dave Rado comes across as a pretentious, sanctimonious, acolyte of his heroes who have deigned to acknowledge his existence, e.g. he says over here:


"and realising that Sir David King would never have said any such thing"

See then how he goes on to state that none of the sainted IPCC's scenarios had CO2 levels hitting 1000ppm by 2100 but that apparently it is okay for David King (PBUH) to mislead a Commons Select Committee without getting up Mr Rado's goat. He tries to justify the statement by a discussion of risk that suggests he's never had to be involved in risk management. I insure for fire, but not for meteor strike.

Much of the complaint is about disputes over science with people who are entitled to their view plus the usual attempts to argue by smear. If Mr Rado and his mates were so concerned about "wasting public money" they could have confined the complaint to allegations of misrepresenting the views of particular scientists and made their own documentary about the science. They could have tried to make one less dishonest than An Inconvenient Truth.

"I think I will file that under irony"

No - file it under "lies".

Post a comment