One Fraud Leads To Another

The IPCC’s justification for tossing Briffa’s trees after 1960 was that they were made defective by too much CO2, and didn’t match the surface record – i.e. were too producing readings too low.

This is utter nonsense on all counts. More CO2 would cause more growth, and thus produce wider tree rings and produce false readings which were too high, not too low.

But the biggest BS is the claim that Briffa’s trees didn’t match thermometer readings. The graph below shows untampered US data on top of Jones, Briffa, et. al 1998.

ScreenHunter_47 Feb. 28 18.11

There was actually quite a good match between Briffa’s trees and the raw data. It wasn’t until Hansen, Karl et al started tampering with the data that the mismatch appeared.

So they tampered with the data, then tossed Briffa’s trees because they didn’t match the tampered data, then used the tampered data in place of Briffa’s trees.

Enron would blush at such accounting fraud.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to One Fraud Leads To Another

  1. Ivan says:

    Interesting .. “Global Warming” identifed by Russian scientists in 1939.

  2. welldoneson says:

    That’s exactly what they did – toss the tree ring data that didn’t show anything out of the ordinary, make up some numbers, then backtrack and tell us the tree ring data gave them those numbers. That’s why the fat fake fooker Mikey Mann won’t release his data. He simply can’t, and can’t even tell us why he can’t without looking like a total melvin.

  3. jmrsudbury says:

    How many sets of adjustments have there been? I know the answer could very well be monthly, but you seem to have many graphs over the years. How much has 1890 dropped with each step? Are the steps progressive, or are there large jumps too? — John M Reynolds

  4. stewart pid says:

    I always love to quote the fact that Enron went bankrupt without ever having a losing quarter!!

  5. Shazaam says:

    Enron wouldn’t blush….. Their accountants are jealous of so many “climatologists” getting away with fraud on such a scale.

    Those accountants are likely taking notes for the current and future annual reports of the Liar-in-Chief’s “green energy” companies.

  6. philjourdan says:

    Enron would blush at such accounting fraud.

    Enron’s problem is that it was not government sanctioned.

  7. tom0mason says:

    Maybe you need to start a new section – ‘What has caused the pause’.
    As the explainations are now coming swift and thick et al.
    What has caused the hiatus, the pause, the lul, etc,..
    All the heat is hidding in the deep oceans, volcanos, chance events, the Pacific overturning currents, the sun, dust, pine trees, …..

  8. edonthewayup says:

    Reblogged this on Edonurwayup's Blog and commented:
    Briffa’s trees?

  9. Brian H says:

    What caused the Pause? There was never anything other than LIA-recovery warming in the first place. What’s to explain?

  10. anon says:

    It’s even worse than you suggest. Look at fig5 in Brifa’s paper here:

  11. anon says:

    Funny about that … fig 5 has been cut out. I thought something like that might happen. I have a copy of the original. I can email it if you wish.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *