When I see the retreating glaciers in certain parts of the world, I can understand why so many people find it so easy to accept the fear that global warming will soon cause major problems for many human beings. And yet the overall evidence that the earth is warming is spotty, at best. And now it looks as if some of the most popular evidence supporting the global warming hypothesis was not just incorrect but possibly even fudged or cooked.
Ross McKitrick is a calm, pleasant, careful kind of guy. I worked with him while I was on leave a couple of years ago. He is not a firebrand. And yet, here is an illustrative paragraph from one of his recent pieces [h/t Craig Newmark]:
I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is [sic] a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.