Small AGW victories count and Graph design can be misleading

I was greatly surprised, and delighted, this morning when I ripped open a popular-science magazine to which my parents subscribe. They like to stay in the loop when it comes to science but they have gone with the most politically correct and left-leaning (you know the type who proclaim to be 'progressive' but mean that we should all shut the **** up and follow their rules for you see they know what is best for us proles) periodical there is out there. If there is anything sensational going on with AGW - birds are flying into concentrated blocks of CO2 - you can bet this bollocks magazine is on it. They never seem to check any of the most ridiculous claims they relate as "news" and you can be quite sure that they would never, ever, break or even scratch the "consensus" on global warming.

Which leads us to this morning's joyful occasion; there was a letter from a reader saying precisely what I have been thinking about this magazine. How it is so hopelessly entangled in its own dogmatic ways that it really is not any fun to read anymore. Never questioning a topic, taking the opposite view for good or for bad, and always -always- delivering some expert who of course has a government grant to back-up him up on what he or she is saying; naturally, not challenging government policy etcetera. A breath of fresh air this letter was and even more so because it was written by a professor of particle physics at a very respected university. Well, what does a particle physicist know about global warming I hear you say? A damn sight more than Chris Huhne that's for sure (and if you honestly did think that rhetorical query to yourself, even subconsciously, you are bloody stupid - truly). Anyone who is in the loop when it comes to science knows that whatever you do, you do not stick your nose out and go against the flow on AGW. You are seen as a maverick, a raving loony charlatan, who bought his degree online. Or worse yet: did your PhD in something useful. The horror!

This man should be knighted for his bravery.

PS. Here is a very easy trick for you non-scientists if you want an easy way to distinguish proper science (most of the time) from bogus politically motivated hacks. Scientists, the real ones without an agenda (and I am sad to say some with an agenda who have no regard for scientific impartiality and process), use a program called MATLAB (short for Matrix Laboratory) to make their graphs and tables. This program is not that difficult to learn, but most people don't for the simple reason that Excel is 10 times easier to use. Which is why hacks and warmists usually use Excel for their graphs and tables. The difference is very easy to spot; you all recognise an Excel graph, it looks very slick and I do not really need to describe one for you. The one below is of a typical MATLAB graph; quite grubby, not very pleasing to the eye but it does the job and that is the key point. Next time you think someone is talking bollocks and is backing it up with dodgy data: have a look at his graphs and check to see if he knows his shit or is talking shit. I think it noteworthy to add that the now infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was made in Excel (most of the versions I have seen at least). Sort of says it all really.

Observe though: this is more of a guideline than a rule.