 When you develop a mathematical model in science, you have to test it against the real world data. And if it fails against that data against the real world, you have to kick it out. And in particular, if a model is used for predicting the future, you have to check it against that future, but somehow these days we sort of fiddle this process. What climate alarmists have done, and I refuse to call them scientists, because of what they do, is they have changed the data to suit the model. They have actually changed history to suit the model. And that is what this episode is about. We will start with a very simple example from last year in Australia. So 2019 in Australia, apparently they recorded the hottest day on record. Or did they? Record breaking temperatures earlier this week. But the Bureau yesterday had a clearing that Australia had experienced its two hottest days ever. Well, the truth is, with an official observer at an official weather station in 1909, the record temperature was recorded, but the Met Office in Australia disallowed it. So why did they disallow it? Well, believe it or not, the observer measured the temperatures from a Monday to a Saturday, but had a day off on the Sunday. And this temperature was read on a Sunday. But because the temperatures were so hot, the observer decided to read it on the Sunday and record it officially. Disallowed because he worked on a Sunday. Not to do with the logic, you see in 1909 having a much higher temperature than the current recorded temperature goes against the narrative, doesn't it? It goes against the narrative that CO2 could be causing this. But of course, these are one day and two day weather events. They're not climate in any event, but these days that's what counts for climate because we're in the weather alarmism phase. Although it's fake, at least the Australian Met Office had some sort of excuse for this. But for other records around then, they just deleted them because they didn't fit in with the narrative. Okay, that's just deleting a few days hot weather records. But how about deleting years of hot temperature records? And even doing that in the recent past. Well, that's what we'll look at now. This is from the famous Tony Heller site on YouTube. Easily the best site to do with climate change on the web. And the graph was published by NASA in 1999. It clearly shows that by far the hottest decade was the 1930s when America suffered from the dust bowl. But this warming has actually worldwide and can be shown to be worldwide. And the alarmists had to do something about this data because how come when CO2 levels were so low in the 1930s, it was much hotter? So they simply changed the data. Hence, after 1999, the new NASA graphs showed a much cooler 1930s. They argued that the old data was inaccurate. Yes, just when they were changing from global warming to climate change alarmism, the old data became inaccurate. So they had to show the past is cool and today as warm in order to keep the agenda going for CO2 driven climate change. But of course, besides the actual temperature records, there were all sorts of historic records concerning the 1930s all over the world. But these climate modelists just refused to compare their data to the real world. They almost live in a vacuum within their models and data has to conform to their models, not the other way around. So not satisfied with deleting just one or two days records to cause alarm or even a decade's records to cause alarm. They had to start to delete hundreds of years of records. They just had to get rid of the medieval warming period. But first, let's go back 1200 years. This graph I'm going to show you, I'm just showing you part of it at the moment, goes back to the year 800. And as you can see, the blue periods are the wet periods and the red parts are the dry periods. And you can see there were mega droughts. There are mega dry periods there for 200 years or so. So let's just gradually now go forward in time from this and just look at the periods and there's the medieval warm period. And we carry on until right up to date. And by the way, all of those were natural, of course, because man had no CO2 going into the atmosphere. Except for the last bit, this tiny little bit, and we're supposed to consider this man-made. So my question is, how did all the other dry and wet periods occur? This simply proves that these periods of dry and wet are completely natural on a much bigger scale, by the way, than we experienced today. But just going back in time like this is inconvenient for the climate alarmists and therefore they had to just do away with this history. And they had to get rid of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political body that controls scientists and not the other way around. And secondly, its terms of reference do not include studying natural climate change. This begs the question, how can you tell what is man-made if you do not know what is natural? Anyway, let's continue to see how they try to get rid of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. Well, there we are. In 1990, the IPCC was happy to have the medieval warming period. They were happy to have the little ice age. And note that in this graph, today's temperatures are much lower than the medieval warming period. But now look at the right-hand chart, the famous hockey stick chart. You know the one where they wouldn't publish the data and the mythology for checking it? That chart just does away with both. Post 2000, of course, the hockey stick predictions did not happen. So what caused this change? After all, they just did away with the medieval warming period, but a whole thousand years of data. Well, you see the hockey stick predictions have caused a bit of a problem. They weren't happening. As they put it in this email, global warming had frozen. It just wasn't going up. And so the marketing here, as per in this leaked email, decided that they should change it from global warming to climate change. After all, let's face it, there's a safe bet there. So they were now spinning the subject. How could they keep maintaining global warming when it just wasn't happening? No doubt then, climate change was the new name. And this was eventually spun into extreme weather alarmism, which is the phase we're now in. Now, of course, the hockey stick predictions not working out. One would sort of tend to question the hockey stick, but they didn't work out. So we have that rule about models to track them again in the future. Well, that model gets kicked out, doesn't it? Whilst I could go into all sorts of scientific details on how flawed this hockey stick is, I think it's best just to compare it to the real world. Let's put it alongside that real world and test whether the medieval warming period and the Little Ice Age existed. Because if they did, it just invalidates the hockey stick, and that is the foundation of the whole global warming case. First of all, we need to demonstrate it's worldwide, and we can do that in many ways. But for the first example, here is the Chinese temperature record that shows a totally similar pattern of temperatures to the one published in 1990 by the IPCC. We could do the same for Europe, so it was a worldwide event. In 1997, a paper was published that had discovered the remains of a forest about 150 kilometres north of the existing tree line. The remains were dated between 1000 AD and 1600 AD, coinciding with the medieval warm period, and also the end of it coinciding with the beginning of the Little Ice Age. So the Earth simply had to be warmer at that time than it is now. It is too cold and inhospitable to farm in Greenland today. But the Vikings did it. The Vikings did it in the medieval warming period, but when it started to cool and as we went into the Little Ice Age they had to abandon it. The evidence is there for any tourists to see today. Clape Blanc, South Africa, drilling there into ocean sediments went back 2,500 years and it clearly showed the medieval warm period as well as the Little Ice Age. Yet another example of independent research in this lake in Kenya was scientists studied the lake sediments. In this chart against depth they found the evidence for the medieval warm period as well as the Little Ice Age. The simple fact is that there is evidence from all over the world in all the continents of the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age. We're only mentioning a few here, but the historic evidence of the scientific data is overwhelming that the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age existed and they existed on a worldwide basis. Well as you may know if you watched episode 1 of this series part of the scientific process is to reveal your data and methods to other people so your results can be checked and validated but they did not do this with a hockey stick. They hid the data and the method and would not reveal it. A distinguished climatologist from Canada Dr. Tim Bell examined the hockey stick and actually criticised it, heavily criticising and debunking it. As a result, Dr. Mann who is the main author of the hockey stick actually sued him for defamation. The court ended up asking Dr. Mann the author of the hockey stick to reveal the data and the method so the validity of his claim could be checked and unbelievably he refused the court order. He refused to reveal the data and the method and as a result the case was checked out and he was told he had to pay the cost of the case. Now this is unbelievable, rather than reveal the data and the method a perfectly normal standard thing in science. It was withheld and yet today we would challenge this phony science, actually called upon to be punished with some people, even the death penalty and yet today you and I and everyone pretty well in the western world is paying a huge penalty in costs because of this hockey stick and these skirt tactics have added enormous amount to your fuel bills and the next episode we're actually going to start to examine the alternative energy sources, so called green energy sources and take a look at them to determine just how ridiculous they are.