The trillion dollar guess and the zombie theory - Climate Change: The Facts - page 121

#8 Black belt graphs
The clear descriptive graphs of the hot-spot and the radiosondes were published in 2006
and 2007, but after the bad publicity, by 2013 the IPCC 'redesigned' them. Instead of an
easy-to-read visual graph they split the atmosphere into four zones, included a lot of the
unnecessary stratosphere, removed the altitude in kilometres from the right hand side, and
generally complicated and reduced the discrepancy. 54 Instead of a rainbow of colors the
Hadleyradiosondesbecameathinblacklinesurroundedbycolourfulspaghetti.Ifthiswere
an art movement it would be called 'Clutterist'.
Like tricks used to market things you don't need at Walmart, this publication achieved
through graphic design what it failed to do with data. Another paper dismissed the
radiosonde data as 'spurious'. The key graph in Dessler's 2010 study was one where all
the radiosonde results get packed into one thin lonely line far from the model forecast,
while the satellite data gets reanalysed—and displayed spaghetti style weaving together. 55
It creates the illusion that the 28 million independent radiosondes are just an outlier.
#9 Pretend the hot-spot doesn't matter
It's the end-game stage. Now that almost all options are exhausted the latest and probably
last tactic—plan Z—is to declare the hot-spot didn't matter after all, was never important
and 'has no implication. Nil'. 56 That's the same Sherwood who said the water vapour
feedback doubles the effect of any other warming. Why? He goes on to explain: 'Anyone
who wants to argue that the “missing hot-spot” implies something as to the future (say,
that global warming will be less than current models predict) needs to come up with an
alternativemodelofclimate.'Inotherwords,ourmodelsdon'twork,butyouneedtomake
ones that do before you can criticise them.
We're setting national policy with unverified models that don't match the data. The
answer is not to 'keep spending'—but to get the models to work.
#10 Call your opponents crazy conspiracy thinkers
When all else fails scientifically, it's time to use smears slurs, ostracism, and general
character assassination. (Actually this was the first choice and used all along. It has just
reached new heights of absurdity).
Essentially those who believe in the carbon-disaster are 95 per cent certain sceptics are
big tobacco-funded anti-Semitic deniers who are so stupid they doubt the moon landing
was real. One team of psychologists used thousands of taxpayer dollars to conduct an
online survey. 57 The survey was aimed at sceptics but was posted almost entirely on sites