A Trillion Dollar Hockey Stick

You know, I think that people are curious to learn how we bought a trillion-dollar hockey stick. Taliy, you've been learning this for quite some time already. And this was the topic of your speech during the international online forum, Global Crisis. We Are People. We Want To Live, which took place on May 7th, 2022. And I guess that, right now in our team, there's no other person who has the bigger and deeper knowledge than yourself. So what can we tell our guys, our listeners, today?

Thank you so much, Alexey. So yeah, you know, when we found out that there is a huge backlash from anthropogenic justice warriors on Twitter against Creative Society, against our previous conference, which took place on December 4th, 2021. And we were just curious, like, what's going on with these guys? Why are they so aggressive, like, you know, they really passionately started hating on us and trying to stigmatize us on Twitter, without even knowing what Creative Society is, without trying to learn what we represent. Right away we were stigmatized as some group financed by oil companies, which is ridiculous. I was like, wow, where is this coming from? And then I was, I was seeing that there's this guy, Michael E. Mann. That was the first time I heard about this guy. And he was also posting some dirt about Creative Society. And I see he got like, 200,000 followers, and these guys are retweeting him, like, who's that guy? And then I said, that's how we picked up on this stuff that each one of these anthropogenic justice warriors, reposting this funny graph, some funny graphs, and then I started looking into them, I was like, Oh, wait, let me learn about this thing. So basically, in December, January, January 2022, I started looking into it. And then when we found out how much information about this hockey stick is over there. And basically, the whole anthropogenic movement started from this graph. And that's up until this day, basically, the main justification for spending tremendous amounts of money on fighting anthropogenic CO2, which is a ridiculously small amount, and people don't even know it's, it's 1% from 0.04 of a percent.

Four 10 1000s of a percent. And we are talking like about this, like we've showed also video during the forum, showing in perspective, what are these like four tiny particles in the big mass of all other particles of gases in the atmosphere. Yeah.

Yeah! Can you imagine it's four molecules out of a million of other molecules? Four molecules, that according to this, so-called, I don't even know what to call them the anthropogenic warriors, or haters or whatever you want to call them? That these people. Yeah, according to them, that's what causes global warming, which is, which doesn't make sense, even from a logical point. But then when we started to check in there, okay. They claim this as an evidence. So, where's this evidence common from? And I was, like, started checking into it. That was IPCC 2001. Their, in their report, the third report by IPCC published this graph, the hockey stick, it was presented in Geneva in 2001. And it was, it was on the background, they had the stage and this graph was on the background, and it was published on the whole, all the papers they had over there. And then the very the year before the World Meteorological Organization published a very similar graph, and that that was presented as a consensus and there's a proof of unseen warming that started in the 20th century. And then I started checking the whole controversy. So it appears that when it came out, many people were very surprised because the whole study of paleoclimatology which is studying of ancient temperatures of the climate in ancient times, it basically hundreds and hundreds of researchers out there, including historical records, including the geological proofs, including archaeology, everything tells... ice cores...

Ice cores as well I guess all the... yeah And they needed like some sort of scientific proof.

Yeah, you name it. Everything says that there were periods much warmer than it is right now, before the anthropogenic CO2 was even a thing. And the period is called medieval warm period, which was about 800 years ago and further into the past. And funny thing that IPCC, IPCC was looking to Yes, exactly. And who was Michael Mann at that time, he get rid of this period like they purposely since at least since 1995, they were spreading emails around their community, openly saying, we have to get rid, it's a quote, it's a quote that's coming from an interview of one of American geologists. And he says, I'm getting this email from one of the representatives from IPCC and he says, we have to get rid of Medieval Warm period. And this is exactly what Michael Mann did in his graph. And not too many people know that his graph came out first in Nature magazine in 1998, just one year, even less than one year after Kyoto Protocol was signed. But signing the Kyoto was a young researcher here, he had the degree in math. So he knew how to draw graphs, he knew exactly how to adjust the graphs Protocol in Japan was one thing where some ministers just did to get the result that was expected. And what he did he it. Al Gore, Vice President of the United States, was there, exactly satisfied the political demand it's basically, basically politicians opened the market, the market request to get this one of the main guys who pushed for it, but then the second kind of a graph, and he presented exactly what they part, they had to ratify it in Parliaments around the world. wanted. The problem was that exactly the same year, two other researchers used the very same data the, tree ring data, two, And for that they need, they had to change the public opinion. and they drew the graphs that looked nothing like hockey stick, and that was the problem. IPCC definitely wanted Mann's graph. But they couldn't ignore the other graphs that came out the very same year and were published in Nature magazine as well. So what they did they gathered all these researchers, three of them, Michael Mann, and they put him in charge of the whole commission. And they added two more guys in there. Keith Briffa. He was one of the much more experienced researchers, first of all, because Michael Mann at the time, when he published his hockey stick, you didn't even have the PhD in climatology. He was basically a no name in the community. And then all of a sudden, he becomes the main star of IPCC, in charge of the whole commission, who's working on this political resume for 2001 for upcoming research. How exactly it was cooked, the whole kitchen, we found out only 10 years later, 10 years later, when Climategate emails were published online. And that's a story that blew minds of everyone who was at least a little bit curious about what's going on with it, especially a scientists, scientists who could never even think that something like this is possible. But I have to say that there were curious people, especially people who know about math, one of them was Steve McIntyre from Canada, and he basically from early 2000s, he started debunking the whole hockey stick, because the when he saw it, and I have to say that Canadian government was mailing, basically using mail. They sent this hockey stick graph into each household in Canada to prove that this law has to be passed in Parliament, it has to be ratified, the Kyoto Protocol, and they wanted to change public opinion. And they used the hockey stick graph from 2001 IPCC report as their main justification. And when he received this. First of all, it contradicts everything Canadians learned in school. Because they know that it used to be much warmer, that's when Vikings came from all the way from Norway, from Sweden. They came 1000 years ago to Greenland, they saw it was green because because it was warm, it was green back then the whole island.

And because it is Greenland.

Exactly! They also went to Vineland, which is north of Canada and which was, which was forest back then, like people don't realize it was forest, it was forest and that forest burned down in 15th century. And it never grew back. Because right now it's Arctic. So there is no forest growing in Arctic, it's too cold. But prior to 15th century, there was a huge forest. And there is a lot of evidence, it's like a very well known fact, it doesn't align with their hockey stick graph, which says it was oh, it was flat temperature all the way back into the past. So Steve McIntyre, when he saw that he was like, wait, let me verify it. Let me check what data was used, because it doesn't make any sense. And he requested the data. And Mann published the data that he used. But the thing is, no one was able to draw the same graph using the same data. So the question was like, what was the algorithm? How did you set the algorithm to make the hockey stick graph? And that's when Mann refused to provide the algorithm. And that was the first red flag that was like, wait, wait, wait, what's going on in here?

So he said, like, I had a proprietary algorithm that I cannot disclose. But this is the graph that it produces, so it is

Can you imagine anyone else any, any scientist would be proud to show that take a look at my algorithm, I created this. And this is such a game changer in the industry. I presented it, the correct one. it changed everything. But this guy did everything to hide where to find the algorithm. And what what else he did, he was asked to show r2 regression and what is r2 regression? It's like imagine when we have a lot of dots on the on the diagram, and we have to draw the line that would be right in the middle between all the dots, right? So we want to basically make a graph out of like a lot of data. Once we have the result, the graph, we want to do the regression testing, we want to, again, regress and create those dots, the error.

Yeah, like like we did at school, right to verify if we

It's a school 101. It's, third grader knows you have to solved the problem correctly, we do the regression. do the regression test to make sure you didn't do a mistake. You didn't make a mistake. But what Mann says, I believe it's a quote he said, It would be ridiculous to even think that I need to do r2 regressions. Are you kidding me? This, like, wow, like, this was like a huge red flag. That's when everyone knew something super fishy in there.

And how did McIntyre say, when I first saw this graph, I immediately felt it was like,

It smelled, Smelled the rat. It smelled fishy. But what was what was one of the very important things that Steve McIntyre is a brilliant mathematician. And his whole career after he graduated from the University of Toronto with a math degree his plant in, in mining industry, where his work was to do statistic analysis in the very similar field, and what he had to do, he had to deal his whole career with a lot of people who were trying to draw similar graphs, which would show let's say, higher expectations for their potential minings. So he had to take the original data and verify it. And this is exactly what he did. After Mann refused to provide the actual algorithms. What Steve did here, he digged into the code. And in the leftovers in the hidden folders of the code, he found out the classified folder which Mann didn't want to publish, but somehow, it just sneaked into that archive. And in that folder, he saw that Michael Mann was using specific settings on his algorithm which use the primary component for the 20th century and the primary component was the data the proxy data from North American pine, which is super sensitive to CO2 changes. And this is exactly the reason why it cannot be used as the...

Reference for these calculations.

Yes, exactly! We don't want super sensitive stuff to be in there, because we want something that generally represents the information. He, Michael Mann used exactly, specifically this one. And when he was making his graph, he basically made the graph which in regression testing, simply was creating that field of dots out of which, in 99% of times, out of those red noise numbers created from his graph, it would create the similar graph hockey stick shaped graph, as well. So once Steve McIntyre found found out he offered Nature magazine to publish this article in which he explained how exactly the there was a mistake in the algorithms that was producing this kind of a hockey stick shaped graphs out of basically any random red noise numbers. And Nature magazine answered that they would only allow 500 letters for such an article. So he went to General Research Letters, and he published this article on which their response from Michael Mann was that he's not going to present any regression testing and he doesn't care about some graphs and and that it was published in General Research Letters, which is not even that much big of a paper. So he never actually even tried to prove that his graph, like makes sense. What happened next was also we found out from the Climategate emails that other magazines that were publishing research researches, even from astrophysicists, like the one that was published by astrophysicist from Harvard University where they were claiming that according to the solar cycles, there was a much warmer, Medieval Warm Period. And what happened in the texts between Michael Mann and his clique, or how Steve McIntyre called them the hockey team. They were discussing how to discredit how to stigmatize the astrophysicist who published an article which contradicts their anthropogenic theory, and among the things they discussed, they said, maybe we could call them astrologists. Maybe we can the reference, reference to them as astrologists as if they would use tarot readings or, you know, some crystal ball to predict the temperatures in the past, or to recreate the graphs of the past centuries. Like this is ridiculous. It's like no one even tried to dig into like, is it a legitimate research? Does it make sense their only agenda was to stigmatize and discredit them. That's the only thing they cared about.

And everyone else for that matter. Yeah.

Yeah, as I mentioned before, there were three different researchers published in Nature magazine in 1998. And all of them used proxy data from tree rings. And all of them were showing that there were different periods in previous times exactly, besides the hockey stick graph. But basically what they did in preparation of the IPCC report, they, they erased all the data that was showing the decline in temperatures in 20th century. So they simply trimmed the graph, around 1960s, when the tree rings were showing the decline in the temperatures. And this is such a big thing. Because think about it this way, the temperatures in previous times showing the variability, but they go down in numbers in 20th century, when thermometer data goes up, what it proves, it basically shows that either your graph doesn't make sense, like or your research, maybe it's a bad data, or maybe you didn't calculate it right? Because if we know that temperatures go up in 20th century, then we cannot just trim the piece that declines in temperatures from tree rings data, but that's exactly what they did. And there, they never even considered why, why that tree data goes declining in the 20th century. And then the main thing they tried to hide it and the whole email, their main email was regarding hiding the decline and that's what all the buzz was about. Oh, But what will also be found and found out from the Climategate emails that the that IPCC was basically pushing the scientists to publish Mann's graph, that hockey stick shaped graph as their main one and hide all the data that was not in line with it. So when they published their graph, it was presented as the consensus of the scientists where in fact, there were huge misunderstandings and huge contradictions in the scientific community itself.