Fakes in science needed a representation of global warming which could sway the masses, and they found it in a hockey stick graph which the IPCC used as its primary showpiece. It's called the hockey stick graph because it is a straight line which bends up on the end. It's supposed to represent global temperature over the past thousand years with a sharp increase in the twentieth century due to human activity.

It has to be called outright fraud due to an absence of a bump and trough for known heating a thousand years ago and cooling a few hundred years ago. To show a straight line for a thousand years means it is not representing anything real.

When critical scientists saw this, they knew something was wrong. So Steve McIntyre, a mathematician, attempted to reproduce the graph from the original data. His first problem was that the authors would not make the data available. In years gone by, all data would be included in a scientific publication; but nowdays, too much paper would be required, so scientific publications are little more than sales pitches with about as much objectivity as a soap advertisement.

In the spirit of godliness, all scientific journals require that data be made available to other scientists; but this is nothing but an image booster which is ignored in practice. So critics of the hockey stick graph were denied access to the data.

Therefore, what Steve McIntyre did was go through the statistical analysis and show that it incorrectly showed a significance where there was none. The original authors then published more such work attempting to bolster and justify their methodology. Eventually, they published in a journal which required them to make their data available. McIntyre took the data and showed that when all of it was properly evaluated, there was no hockey stick bend on the end representing the twentieth century and human activity.

The counter argument of the original authors is that they just took whatever data seemed appropriate, which is not cherry picking the data. But the absurdity of it is that getting a straight line for the past thousand years shows that they did not have a scientific measurement to start with.

The original authors used tree ring measurements as a "proxy" indication of temperature. Usually, tree ring width indicates other things which influence growth besides temperature, but in this case the trees were located in the Urals of northern Russia, where temperature is assumed to be the limiting factor of growth. The fact that the line was straight for a thousand years shows that the tree rings being measured were not a suitable indicator of anything.

I would go farther and state that temperature changes in the far north are not a valid indication of global temperatures. This point was demonstrated over the past year in the northern USA, where all records were broken for cold temperatures in 2009, while global temperatures were said to be increasing.

The obvious reason why northern temperatures can be colder while global temperatures get warmer is because northern temperatures are determined by ocean currents which are highly variable in moving through the Arctic. The ocean currents which flow through the Arctic only influence a small area, not the whole globe.

This means that measurements of tree rings from the far north would not be an appropriate indicator of global temperatures. But regardless, the published measurements showed nothing, and the obvious reason is because the growth of the ancient trees being studied does not correlate with temperature, global or northern. Such factors as overcast and sunshine would probably be more relevant than temperature, but none of the causative factors were properly studied.

You think I make this stuff up? This is what modern science has become.

First Stage: statistical fraud in the hockey stick graph
Second Stage: data corruption in the hockey stick graph

Similar fakery: Fake Forcing Equations