Global warming: Fraud or bad math?

"Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity" as the saying goes.
So is Global warming a big conspiracy for an evil One World Order to take over the world, or is it just that scientists who can't tell a mean from an average find it easier to publish articles that agree with the latest fad?

Link 2
s the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)... bases its analyses on peer-reviewed research, but it does no checking of that research itself. Yet most peer-reviewed research is not properly checked prior to its publication. ..

One example is at Link3.
Nature published a study that used the ripening process of Pinot Noir grapes as an indicator for the warmth of the climate.....
The work aroused Keenan's suspicion, and he wanted to test its mathematical foundations. (when he finally got it, after many requests he discovered)... The authors had smoothed the data for their study, confused standard errors with standard deviations, used incorrect parameters, and confused daily temperatures with average temperatures....

... the Nature editors hadn't noticed anything, since the data was never put at their disposal, and they never asked for it either. ... The mere fact that the grape harvest model gave a temperature for 2003 that was 2.4 degrees Celsius above the temperature actually measured by Météo France should have made the editors suspicious.
------------------

Stuff like this happens with medical journals, which is why we GP's rely on secondary reports (Family practice articles, summaries, lectures) rather than the hard stuff in the fancy journals...which often has similar problems not noted in the original publication....things like "increase rate of heart attack up 50%" might mean a tiny increase from 5 to 8 out of 100 000 population years...