An article by Fiona Harvey, Environmental Correspondent for highlights the attempts of an environmentalist to hide the bad news that their precious hockey stick is coming under serious attack.  Though I do not think the intent was to bring a negative light to the efforts of the leaders of this religion (note the tone when talking about “Skeptics”), sometimes you simply cannot report something as positive.  She should have taken Al Gore’s technique and simply ignored it.  Let’s take a look at what she is saying.

A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming skeptics have been making for years.

Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods.

The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”.

Okay, she goes out to remind the readers that those who disagree with global warming are “skeptics”, a derogatory term used by the environmentalists.  Then she goes on to tell us how the scientists who were responsible for hiding data, and using “tricks” to change data were behaving themselves.  Yea… because when someone says “try and change the Received date!  Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” that totally makes me think there was “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice.”

The e-mails were hacked last autumn from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. They caused a storm, as they appeared to show scientists manipulating and concealing data.

 “Appeared” huh?

Although Wednesday’s report – commissioned by UEA with advice from the Royal Society, the UK’s prestigious national science academy – exonerated the unit’s scientists, it criticized climate experts for failures in handling statistics.

 “It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the report concluded.

 Why would this be surprising?  These people are trying to save the planet!  Good God, man, they don’t have time to fact check or talk to a statistician before throwing numbers around!  I mean, they don’t even have enough time to use all the temperature data, so they have to be selective about what temperature data they use…  wait, what?

 The hockey stick graph was a key part of the scandal. In the e-mails, UEA’s Professor Phil Jones referred to a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures suggested by certain sources of data. A similar trick was used in the hockey stick graph.

 This is a fun one.  Look at how the hockey stick graph completely ignores the Medieval Warm Period.  That’s some trick.

Michael Mann's Hockey StickThe actual temperature record

 The UEA scientists said that “trick” merely referred to a scientific technique – an explanation accepted by some skeptics, including Lord Lawson, former Tory chancellor.

 Oh my, is she trying to paint some skeptics in a positive light by saying this explanation was already accepted by some of them?  Doubtful.  She is using those she disagrees with to try to prop up those who she agrees with.  That’s like using Tom Coburn to prop up Nancy Pelosi by saying “See, republicans like her, this is one republican I agree with.” 

 Prof Hand said his criticisms should not be seen as invalidating climate science. He pointed out that although the hockey stick graph – which dates from a study led by US climate scientist Michael Mann in 1998 – exaggerates some effects, the underlying data show a clear warming signal.

 Of course criticisms should not be seen as invalidating the science!  After all, global warming can’t even be invalidated by cold winters or record snowfall.  They have written this one so that nothing can or should invalidate their dogma.

 He accused skeptics of “identifying a few particular issues and blowing them up” to distort the true picture. The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. “If you look at any area of science, you would be able to find odd examples like this. It doesn’t detract from the vast bulk of the conclusions,” he said.

 It would be funny if it wasn’t so thick of an attempt to be one-sided.  The fact that there are issues with their science religion help to show those of us who are not lost in the faith of manmade global warming that there are indeed serious issues with the data.  The scientific method itself is designed specifically to tear at these errors to progress science.  When you have people like Michael Mann bitching that it’s not fair because some “skeptics” are going after the issues behind their science, it helps to point out how little actual science is being done here.

 The report into the science produced by UEA, which came from a panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a scientist and former Shell chairman, was the second investigation into Climategate in the UK. The first, by a committee of MPs, also found the scientists innocent of manipulating data, though it said they may have breached Freedom of Information legislation.

 Note how Fiona also makes it quite clear that Lord Oxburgh (how dare he to attack the Church) is a scientist, but couruppted by being a former Shell Oil chairman.  Try this with every Church member you know.  The moment they bring up studies funded by or influenced by Big Oil, try asking them if studies funded by Big Oil are biased, what about studies funded by environmentalists?  Those too should be biased, right?  naaa.  “Its not evil when we do it” will most likely be the response you get.

 An investigation into the scientists’ handling of FOI requests is still under way.

Yea, and I bet it is as open and non-biased as it can be.  Riiight.