Global Warming Hoax EXPOSED! — ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Creator Loses Major Lawsuit, Must Pay Defendant’s Legal Fees

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the famous (infamous?) “hockey stick graph” that global warming nuts have used to show global temperatures rose during the time period when man began using fossil fuels that were releasing CO2 or Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.

When published back in 1998, the graph was featured in Al Gore’s 2006 movie, An Inconvenient Truth.  That movie should have been titled A Series Of Lies To Gain Power And Allow Governments Around the World To Fleece Their Citizens Of Their Hard-Earned Money By Scaring Them Into Paying For An Elaborate Scheme To Save The Planet From Something That Isn’t Even Happening, but they couldn’t get it to fit on the video tape label.

You wouldn’t know this if you get your news from CNN or MSNBC, but the methodology used to come up with the hockey stick graph has always been a problem for real scientists, kinda like me.  I am a Sr. Computer Programmer in another life, some would call that a computer scientist.  What’s that got to do with any of this?

The hockey stick graph was the product of a software program that the Climate Research Unit (CRU) used to get the temperature readings that created the graph.  There’s evidence that the software code was deliberately screwing around with the data to make it appear that temperatures were rising.

The code was written in a software language called IDL, or Iterative Data Language.

Here’s a snippet of code that was in one of the source files for the program called

[sourcecode language=”text”]
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75   ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

Wow, so what does all that mean? First, let’s talk about how people outside the climate change cabal were able to get their hands on the source code of the program.

East Anglia University is in Norwich, England, and it was considered the “Pentagon” [my term] for climate change research.  In many fields, a university with the best reputation for the field in question would be considered the leading authority and other universities would defer, and send their own conclusions to the so-called Pentagon university for review or even for consideration of help.  East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was that for global warming and climate change.

A backup computer server was hacked, and the hackers took away copies of the climate change emails and documents, many of which embarrassed the people involved.

More than 1,000 emails and some 2,000 documents were stolen, which represented a small fraction of the total available for theft.  Many believe the stolen documents were targeted, because they had the most incriminating phrases that related to possible scientific corruption and misconduct, including breaches in the Freedom of Information Act.

Some of the emails allegedly appeared to show cover-ups of data conclusions that did not fit into the Chicken Little narrative that the world was coming to an end because of global warming.  For example, some of the emails allegedly showed “scientists” asking other “scientists” to delete data and some asked how to cover up the real results of testing that didn’t favor the leftist narrative that we’re all going to become cinder ash if Americans didn’t stop having a good time.

Of course, the university scrambled to save their reputation, and the world’s global warming zealots did everything they could to help in the cleanup efforts, but the damage was done, and only time and the forgetfulness of human beings would bring them back.

Contained in the batch of stuff stolen was the source code that created the hockey stick graph.

From The Smoking Code:

What does this Mean?  A review of the code line-by-line

Starting off Easy

Lines 1-3 are comments

Line 4

yrloc is a 20 element array containing:

1400 and 19 years between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years…

yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, … , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]

findgen() creates a floating-point array of the specified dimension. Each element of the array is set to the value of its one-dimensional subscript

F = indgen(6) ;F[0] is 0.0, F[1] is 1.0….. F[6] is 6.0

Pretty straightforward, right?

Line 5

valadj, or, the “fudge factor” array as some arrogant programmer likes to call it is the foundation for the manipulated temperature readings. It contains twenty values of seemingly random numbers. We’ll get back to this later.

Line 6

Just a check to make sure that yrloc and valadj have the same number of attributes in them. This is important for line 8.

Line 8

This is where the magic happens. Remember that array we have of valid temperature readings? And, remember that random array of numbers we have from line two? Well, in line 4, those two arrays are interpolated together.

The interpol() function will take each element in both arrays and “guess” at the points in between them to create a smoothing effect on the data. This technique is often used when dealing with natural data points, just not quite in this manner.

In other words, the code fakes rising temperatures.  I’ve always told people that I can write a program that will tell you anything the guy who’s paying me wants it to say, if I were an unscrupulous character, which I am not, but apparently such dastardly dastards like that do exist inside the world of climate change, either coding whores who will do anything for money, or software zealots who are true believers.

Incidentally, I call them all watermelons, because they are green on the outside and socialist red on the inside.  Global warming, climate change, or whatever they start calling it in the future when they change it from climate change, it’s all about government control over people’s lives.  Governments can raise taxes on their people and claim it’s for the good of the planet.  Inside the movement, there are plenty of people who actually believe that mankind can destroy the earth, which has been through so much more worse than humans driving SUVs, but they’re what Lenin called “useful idiots.”

The graph’s methodology and accuracy have been and continue to be very contested, but Mann thought it would be a good idea to sue in court two of his most prominent critics for defamation.  One case, against author, talk show host, and political pundit Mark Steyn, is more-than-likely to end up in the Supreme Court.   The other case, against Dr. Tim Ball, was already decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and they threw Mann’s case out, and ordered him to pay Ball’s legal costs.

When the news broke, Ball sent an email to Anthony Watt.  Later, Principia-Scientific offered extensive details, including much background on the hockey stick.

The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr. Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” (snip)

Dr. Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (shown below).

In the world of science, the real kind, not the kind of science that says water boils at 212 degrees (F) because of a “consensus” of scientists, must have open access to data, so that others can take a look at it, not to call foul, but to make sure that the methods used were of the scientific method accepted by scientists everywhere, including the ones who live in those little mud huts.

That didn’t happen with Mann, because the court recognized that Mann defied the judge’s direct order to provide his data for public scrutiny when he refused to do so, claiming that the data belonged to Penn State and not the public, which was an absurd argument.

That’s a common practice among liberals who don’t want to be exposed.

The practice of having your data open to the world so that it can be scrutinized by other experts in the field is called Peer Review.  A lot of folks don’t understand how peer review works.  In a nutshell, suppose you’re a biologist, and you’ve discovered something in your field of work.  You write a paper about your discovery, and you include all of the methods you used to work toward your hypothesis.

To have your work peer-reviewed, you would submit the body of your work to a publishing outfit who specializes in scientific peer review.  They would then find experts in the same field of biology to scrutinize your work.

Another type of peer review would be to just make sure that you followed a scientific method for your research by submitting your work in biology to another scientific field, say, Chemistry.  An expert in chemistry wouldn’t understand your work in biology, but they would be able to conclude to a certain degree if you followed an honest scientific method to reach your conclusions.

That doesn’t happen in the field of climate change.  Instead of Peer Review they do Pal Review where everyone accepts whatever the body of work says with a wink and a nod, so long as it’s not a goofy manifesto that would expose the whole process as the government grant gravy train that it mostly is.

This ruling is an important step in the cause of debunking the climate change nonsense that is being used to take away your money, and eventually your freedoms.