Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

New Study finds extensive Collusion by Climate Scientists

University of Narbethong press release: (embargoed to noon, West NZ time).

A new study in the University's Sarah Palin school has found extensive and worsening collusion by climate scientists.

In their analysis of the hockey stick, Wegman and colleagues showed that Michael Mann had written at least one paper with each of his co-authors. The social networking analysis was so ground-breaking that the authors were able to avoid the use of either a control case or a null hypothesis. Dispensing with control cases has been an important part of much innovative science for centuries culminating in the discovery of cold fusion by Pons and Fleischmann.

Recent studies in the Sarah Palin school of Geography, Economics and Quantum Computing have extended Wegman's finding. A meta analysis of 832 climate scientists found that the average number of papers that climate scientists have written with their co-authors is always at least one.

The new studies were delayed by the need to incorporate innovative mathematics expounded by Professor Ian Plimer. Plimer is a leading Australian scientist who is highly regarded by leading Australian scientists such as Ian Plimer. Among his great discoveries such as the
Sun being made of iron is the less-noticed finding that the result of averaging numbers depends on the order of averaging. This analysis builds on work by Michael Crichton's book State of Fear demonstrating differences in temperature patterns by plotting them on different scales. When analysing sea-surface temperatures in Heaven + Earth, Plimer brilliantly extended Chrichton's approach by comparing graphs with both axes different. This is such a dramatic breakthrough and that even a warmist like Professor David Karoly acknowledges that the comprehensively referenced books by Plimer and Chrichton should rank side by side.

Plimer's re-writing of the laws of artithmetic provided a challenge that the Narbethong study addressed by extensive computer calculations. For each climate scientist the number of papers with co-authors was graphed on 10,000 randomly chosen scales. Each graph showed that all of the 832 climate scientists studied
had written at least one paper with each of their co-authors.

Wegman's work was extended to a longitudinal study to see if the situation is getting worse. The additional computing demands reduced the Narbethong study to only 1000 graphs plotted for each climate scientist, but this was sufficient to show that for the overwhelming majority, the number of papers written with each co-author increased over time.

Michael Mann is not alone.