Creating alarm by denying or lying about data

A lesson I learned long ago and continue to observe all to readily from the climate alarmists is the practice of choosing -- cherry picking or 'adjusting' -- data and, especially, the starting and end point of time series data, to create false trends and even more fraudulent forecasts. That faux forecast is most prominent in the infamous IPCC "hockey stick," the one on the report that led Michael Mann to falsely claim that he had one a Nobel Prize for his hockey stick, a bit of data fudging that led him to predict a massive temperature increase, a prediction that reality and time have shown to be inaccurate.

A more recent example is this graph (below) from the self-proclaimed "Center for Climate and Energy Solutions," that ignored/hid/erased sixty years of inconvenient temperature data (see the second graph, with data from the late nineteenth century included, when carbo in the atmosphere was much mower and temperature were much higher) to use half of the available data to present the data to fit their hypothesis. Bad science in the name of climate "science" is still bad science.

Similar claims have been made using a similar data-denial method, to "prove" that forest fires are "getting worse due to climate change." In a similar vein, the inability to discern cause from effect has led climate alarmists to blame carbo for temperature incases, when a more careful analysis shows the impact to be quite the reverse, i.e., that temperature increases priced carbon increases, explained by the fact that warmer air releases more carbon from the oceans into the atmosphere.