Hockey Stick Graph Liar Gets Stimulus Money

Penn State Professor Michael Mann, the guy who hid and manipulated data to get a hockey stick graph showing an abrupt increase in global temperature has received $541,184 from the stimulus funds for global warming work. This alarmist is one of the key players in the global warming fraud that was exposed when emails and other files were hacked into and released to the public.

This is on top of the $1.9 million of stimulus money that Penn State received to investigate the impact of global warming.

Money is what the global warming issue is all about. All people need to do is follow the money and it is easy to see that these folks are motivated by the dollar, not science.

If the government gives out billions of dollars to discover if unicorns existed then a lot of scientists will start finding evidence that they could have and would keep milking the system for more money. If they said that unicorns did not exist they would have to look for a new cash cow.

The entire global warming alarmist movement is based on manipulated data as clearly shown in the email exchanges and a review of the files. Scientists excluded data, manipulated data and manipulated methodology in order to get a result that they wanted. They had a result in mind and manipulated data to fit it.

Now we are sending them stimulus money.

Even if the global warming alarmists were correct this is not where stimulus money should be spent.

This is what happens when government doles out our money. It is used to pay for favors or to pay off supporters.

A 10% unemployment rate is a problem and it is not getting better. Obama has changed the way he lies about job creation so that he can claim things that are not true but that fit his new definition.

He did this after being caught lying about job numbers a few times. He just changed how they count so the lie will be obtained using his approved methods. He made formal how they have been lying all along.

Change you can deceive in.


Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “Hockey Stick Graph Liar Gets Stimulus Money”

  1. Adam says:

    “The entire global warming alarmist movement is based on manipulated data as clearly shown in the email exchanges and a review of the files. Scientists excluded data, manipulated data and manipulated methodology in order to get a result that they wanted. They had a result in mind and manipulated data to fit it.”

    You do know that the emails were from only one of many scientific bodies that have concluded global warming is real and caused by humans, right?

    Most of what you outlined in the quote is not true about “climategate” but what is true and damaging is irrelevant since it’s one of many independent groups that have all concluded the same thing.

    It reaches levels of irrationality to take the damaging emails from one organization and paint it as damning the whole world’s science. But then again conspiracy theory has always been this crazy so I don’t know why I expect your opposition to it to be rational…

    • Blake says:

      So what you are really saying, is that ONLY ONE of many “scientific” bodies were stupid enough to actually reveal through these leaked e- mails that the truth was being manipulated?
      Considering that these sources of the e- mails were in the thick of this false AGW nonsense, and grabbing for all the money they could possibly get, you have to consider the possibility that WE, not you are more correct, and that possibly you are the ones swallowing all these lies.

      • Adam says:

        It’s always possible, however improbable, that you deniers of logic and reason and science, parrots of pseudo-scientific (at best), irrational talking points and otherwise completely made up BS, are more correct. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, right?

  2. Big Dog says:

    I know there are many skeptics who lose careers for bucking the trend and I know the hockey stick graph was used to justify so much that the entire thing is suspect. I also know that many of the other organizations used data from the discreditied group.

    The science is definitely NOT settled.

    • Darrel says:

      BD: “and I know the hockey stick graph was used to justify so much”

      That’s patently false. Aside from the fact that the data in Mann’s hockey stick has been replicated independently by many others, the hockey stick has no bearing on the truth or falsity of global warming. See myth #4 which seems to be one of your favorites.

      BD: “The science is definitely NOT settled.”

      The science leads us to about a 95% certainty that we are causing most of the warming and we are only at the beginning of much more. It really begins to hit the fan 50-100 years from now. That’s not very long.


      • Adam says:

        Fifty to 100? Don’t tell Big Dog. He thinks we think we’ll all melt in 6 years. I guess it’s easy to deny something when you distort it enough that it sounds goofy and improbable.

        • Big Dog says:

          Al Gore said we had 10 years, not me. The planet has been here for billions of years and been very hot and very cold. We ended up arriving here and it seems we are doing fine.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Al Gore said we had 10 years, not me.”>>

          Ten years for what? Let’s see the quote.

          Never mind, I’ll find it for you:

          “VICE PRES. GORE: I think it is achievable, and I think it’s important that we achieve it, Tom. There were also many other reactions from people who said this is the right goal because we need to reset the bar and change the debate. Our current course is completely unsustainable. We are being told by scientists around the world, particularly the international group that is charged with studying this and reporting to world leaders, that we may have less than 10 years in order to make dramatic changes lest we lose the chance to, to avoid catastrophic results from the climate crisis. We’re building up CO2 so rapidly that we’re seeing the consequences scientists have long predicted. And the only way to take responsible action is to get at the heart of the problem, which is the burning of fossil fuels. And the quickest and easiest way to back out the coal, which is the worst of the problem, and oil, is to look at electricity generation.”

          As I thought. You misread him. Those “catastrophic results” he is talking about are not to happen within the ten years but rather later, more like 50-100. And those scientists he is referring (specifically Hansen here) say those results THEN will be because of actions we put in the pipeline NOW, within ten years.

          Here is a good explanation:

          “10 years?

          Jim Hansen was widely quoted earlier this year stating that there were likely only 10 years left in which serious actions could be taken to prevent ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ on climate occurring in the future. He described this as a ‘tipping point’, but it should be clear that he was not using the term in exactly the same way as I defined above. He very specifically was not indicating that some irreversibly large change in climate would happen in 10 years. Instead he was pointing to the trajectory of increasing CO2 emissions that continue to add to atmospheric concentrations. Actual and projected emission levels are already at the high end of Hansen’s ‘alternative scenario’ which was suggested as an achievable outcome (based on significant control efforts) that kept forcings (including Co2, CH4 and black carbon) below a level that Hansen considered would be ‘dangerous’ (specifically a level that would avoid the melting of any significant fraction of the WAIS or Greenland ice sheet). It is the inertia of societal infrastructure, the carbon cycle and the climate that implies that at any point there is a significant warming that is already ‘in the pipeline’ (and thus very difficult to avoid). We have estimated this at about 0.5 C. Hansen’s statement can therefore be read as a comment on a ‘point of no return’ of the human-climate system, rather than the climate system in a purely physical sense.

          The ‘10 year’ horizon is the point by which serious efforts will need to have started to move the trajectory of concentrations away from business-as-usual towards the alternative scenario if the ultimate warming is to stay below ‘dangerous levels’. Is it realistic timescale? That is very difficult to judge. Wrapped up in the ‘10 year’ horizon are considerations of continued emission growth, climate sensitivity, assumptions about future volcanic eruptions and solar activity etc. What is clear is that uncontrolled emissions will very soon put us in range of temperatures that have been unseen since the Eemian/Stage 5e period (about 120,000 years ago) when temperatures may have been a degree or so warmer than now but where sea level was 4 to 6m higher (see this recent discussion the possible sensitivities of the ice sheets to warming and the large uncertainties involved). In 10 years time CO2 levels will likely be greater than 400 ppm and the additional forcing combined with the inertia of the system will be make it increasingly unlikely that we will avoid a further 1 deg C or more warming. While the ‘10 years’ shouldn’t be read as an exact timetable, it is surely in the right ballpark. 30 more years of business-as-usual will make it impossible to keep temperatures from rising beyond Eemian levels (see here for some discussion of stabilisation scenarios), and decisions (on infrastructure, power stations, R&D, etc.) that are being made now will determine the emissions for decades to come.”

          More here:

          Runaway tipping points of no return


  3. Adam says:

    “I also know that many of the other organizations used data from the discredited group.”

    Some, yes. Ones not relying on CRU data is Hadley Centre, NASA, and NOAA to name a few.

    More info from here:

    A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends. The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.

  4. Big Dog says:

    The same NASA and NOAA that get federal funding for these things, hmmmm. The same NASA that has had to revise its data how many times now?

    • Blake says:

      See, that is just it— if you have a stake in the results being skewed, you WILL skew the results, and this is what appears to have happened here.
      Whoa- big surprise, huh?

    • Adam says:

      NASA has corrected any data they have found wrong in reports or in error. It’s called science.

  5. In on it not says:

    The chittering masses siad, “Follow the money!” when they wanted to clamp a vasectomy on “George Bush’s WAR!”
    Now when following the money actually leads to The Biggest and most expensive lie the world can imagine, the noisey little twerps..I mean Adam…say, “…Oh the money donna matta! It is a forgone and proven fact! Indesputable!”

    Climate is changeing. Granted. Like it always does. in about 700 to 800 AD Greenland was habitable, and people from Scandinavia settled there. Letter they we pushed off or killed by colder weather.

    Vinice isn’t the victem of rising water; it has been sinking for hundreds of years. Mostly blamed on the fact that people pump the water out and the land subsides.

    Glaciers melt. Polar bears die. Proven science! Sciece of the Chittering Masses, that is.
    Except polar bears don’t die.
    There was no ice on the north pole, home of the polar bear, during the intercene periods, which is the warmer time between colder times in an ice-age,

    history for those with-out a clue…I mean Adam…

    the last intercene ended roughly 18,000 years ago, give or take an epoch, and there was no ice on the north pole.
    No ice for several tens of thousands of years, in fact.

    Opps. Fact. Can’t have any facts here, can we. Chittering Masses don’t allow facts. They have been deemed Politically Incorrect!

    Still, there was no ice for 30,000 years, +/-. Yet the fragile polar bear survived.

    How did that happen? Maybe you with the Great Big Brain, Adam, would care to explain?

  6. Darrel says:

    “Michael Mann,… has received [money] from the stimulus funds”>>

    Excellent, if true (and that’s a long shot with you). He’s a great scientist. All of his work regarding the hockey stick and the criticisms against it were vindicated years ago (with few reservations) by an independent panel, as I told you.

    Oh, and Ross McKitrick one of the two guys who tried to make a short career out of attacking Mann’s hockey stick, when his claims were investigated further they found:

    He messed up an analysis of the number of weather stations,

    showed he knew almost nothing about climate,

    flunked basic thermodynamics,

    couldn’t handle missing values correctly

    and invented his own temperature scale.”

    The degree/radians error in his main paper going after Mann was important enough that:

    “Consequently, every single number he calculates is wrong.”

    Actually, there are a lot more examples of him making such amateur blunders, but this is all water under the bridge. Those guys, quacks and out of their field, were shot down in 2006. So your misinformation is way out of date.

    See the specific references for ten different temperature studies here

    If you don’t like those hockey sticks, there are more.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Al Gore is the one telling me that the oceans will rise and Obama is the one saying he will make them go down.

    It is all BS. There was urgency 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years and so ago. They have been playing this for over 100 years. Earth has been much hotter in the past (the long past not the time manipulated by the “scientists”) and has had a hell of a lot more CO2.

    It is all a hoax.

    You alarmists are all alike. We must act now. Each time the Armageddon deadline passes the bar moves to the right. Oh we must do something or else. Kyoto, no effect. We have done little to nothing as China and India have increased their emissions. But you alarmists think if we do something it will make a change. Danny Glover, moron liberal, said the tragedy in Haiti was because nothing was done at Copenhagen.

    I assume he did not mean that it was divine intervention because that lunacy was reserved for Robertson.

    No, Glover thinks that this happened as a result of not doing anything as if they had done something it would have changed the world so fast in one month that the earthquake would not have happened.

    Global warming has nothing to do with earthquakes. NOTHING.

    I should first caution readers that I am not an expert in this area—I’m a computer scientist, not a climatologist.

    You really should avoid getting your climate info from a computer guy.

    And when one says he has to find a way to hide the decline and laments that they really need the global warming to come out right. All manipulated.

    Russia says that only a few of their data sets were used, one tree, thermometers near heat sources, nah not buying it.

    I will not spend money on junk science.

    • Adam says:

      “I will not spend money on junk science.”

      But sure, spend money on junk wars instead, right? There’s something funny about right wingers being so rabidly against cleaning our environment and investing in advanced cleaner technology in the event that we may face global catastrophe that displaces billions around the world and alters the way the rest of us live in dramatic fashion. Yet, lie to them enough to convince them Saddam had big bad weapons ready to kill us all with and was involved in 9/11 and they’ll spend billions to prevent it.