A fantastic title for a very eye-opening post by Bishop Hill, establishing just how corrupt science can be, especially in the field of climate study, where there is so much money to be made, usually provided by the government and environmental lobby concerns.
With this new, and pretty much entirely arbitrary hurdle in place, Wahl and Amman were able to reject several of the runs which stood between the hockey stick and what they saw as its rightful place as the gold standard for climate reconstructions. That the statistical foundations on which they had built this paleoclimate castle were a swamp of misrepresentation, deceit and malfeasance was, to Wahl and Amman, an irrelevance. For political and public consumption, the hockey stick still lived, ready to guide political decision-making for years to come.
Would you believe that Al Gore's woeful An Inconvenient Truth is being shown to school children in the UK as accepted fact, whereas nearly all its arguments have been shown to be junk science?
Something to think about next time the government tells you prices will have to shoot up in the next few years to pay for all those carbon trading schemes. I noticed the Sydney Morning Herald has been carrying a lot of articles about climate change, saying that it's all proven scientific fact, that the research has been meticulously peer-reviewed, that anyone who says anything contrary is in the pocket of the energy companies and going against the consensus. I think the above article should put paid to most of that.
What a shame that the mainstream press aren't interested in covering this sort of thing, preferring populist alarmism to "Sorry folks, it's all a sham".