Society/Culture Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?

[bit_pattern]

Why do you persist with this nonsense? Those studies are hardly independent and they use virtually the same data set.

The HS is simply indefensible. Why do you defend it, Al Gore etc?

It is just propaganda if not outright fraud.

While I'm sure there must be something commendable about your never say die attitude this is just getting beyond a joke. You've been proven wrong on these points so many times and I am simply not going through it with you again.

 

[medusala]

While I'm sure there must be something commendable about your never say die attitude this is just getting beyond a joke. You've been proven wrong on these points so many times and I am simply not going through it with you again.

Nonsene, both NAS and Wegman said the same thing about the HS. Von Storch has said its rubbish etc etc.

The independenced of the studies has been questioned ie most by Mann or his budies and the data sets they use are the same.

You havent proven anyone wrong.

Your little facade is falling apart.

That is before we even get to the economic side of the equation where there is indeed an overwhelming consensus that the models are a joke. The only people you can find to defend it are the usual suspects like Quiggin.

Treasury has made very short shrift of the nonsensical economic claims of the alarmists.

 

[bit_pattern]

Keep telling yourself that!

Who knows, if you say it enough it might come true!

 

[Hawkamania!]

LOL! I literally spat beer all over my screen reading that. Respected by whom exactly? As opposed to what, Tamino's Open Mind??? You do realise that Tamino IS Briffa, no?

Two fails in that supposed paragraph. McIntyre is respected by intellectuals with integrity and tamino was outed as Grant Foster on Climate Audit.

When was the last time McIntyre submitted a paper for review, rather than posting hopelessly erroneous blog postings that demonstrate quite clearly that the man doesn't have a grasp on the research he is attacking?

Yep all Steve McIntyre did was:

• Expose the flawed climate model mann used for his hockey stick.
• Corrected the US yearly temperature data that was accepted by NASA.
• Exposed the Yamal tree ring scam.

So far McIntyre is doing very well for himself for someone without a grasp on the research he is correcting.

If you have some better data on glaciers then lets see it - should be good for a laugh considering that graph contains all of the latest data on glacial mass.

Nah, your one year difference between 2002-03 provides more than enough laughter for everyone.

 

[Chief]

In the end, the OP asks "Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?"

The only reasonable answer here is "not on the basis of the evidence presented".

 

[medusala]

In the end, the OP asks "Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?"

The only reasonable answer here is "not on the basis of the evidence presented".

Chief,

a reasonable answer would be: "hard to know given the basis of very selective and frequently withheld proxy data sets being used".

Fraud is a strong term. Manipulated? More than likely, either that or gross incompetence.

The same goes for the economic case presented by Stern, SRES etc.

Stern is no fool, nor is Garnaut. There is no doubt whatsoever that they produced political documents at the bidding of pollies.

 

[bit_pattern]

Two fails in that supposed paragraph. McIntyre is respected by intellectuals with integrity and tamino was outed as Grant Foster on Climate Audit.
Yep all Steve McIntyre did was:

• Expose the flawed climate model mann used for his hockey stick.
• Corrected the US yearly temperature data that was accepted by NASA.
• Exposed the Yamal tree ring scam.

So far McIntyre is doing very well for himself for someone without a grasp on the research he is correcting.

I asked what papers has he put forward for review. A total of three.

If you put ANY scientific data under a decade of scrutiny like McIntyre has thn, sure, your going to find minor errors. But the fact is that nothing he has "exposed" has ever actually altered the results of the science he attacks.

MBH98 - Minor statistical quibble that didn't alter the result, which has since been replicated by other researchers

GISS TEMP - Didn't change global temperatures at all, the minor discontinuity once readjusted (within days of NASA being made aware of it) only led to a slight readjustment to the US temp record.

Yamal - He hasn't "exposed" anything, and even McIntyre is rapidly back tracking on the insinuation - and the subsequent accusations by his supporters - that it was a "scam". The fact that you think it does demonstrates the death of understanding you have of how these things are undertaken. He won't have proven a thing until his results can be replicated. It isn't even clear what evidence McIntyre is using, certainly there is nothing to suggest that his own cherry-picking is more accurate than the cherry picking he alleges against Briffa. As the man himself says:

The basis for McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

If you think that a single blog post is enough to dismiss the entire Yamal data says a lot, it's little wonder that you eat up whatever sensationalist nonsense that bubbles up from the denial-o-sphere.

Nah, your one year difference between 2002-03 provides more than enough laughter for everyone.

Yeah, you don't have any other data. What a surprise!

 

[bit_pattern]

In the end, the OP asks "Historical temperature record proving climate change a result of fraudulent statistics?"

The only reasonable answer here is "not on the basis of the evidence presented".

This.

/end thread.

 

[Chief]

Chief,

a reasonable answer would be: "hard to know given the basis of very selective and frequently withheld proxy data sets being used".

You keep saying "withheld". Why do you say this when the data is available?

You keep saying selective then you argue in support of someone who has been very selective himself and without much explanation in opposition to people who have been selective but on the basis of statistical methods. Why?

You keep arguing as if simply posting on a blog questioning one sub-set of one data set calls all studies from all disciplines using all proxy data sources into doubt. Why?

 

[medusala]

You keep saying "withheld". Why do you say this when the data is available?

That is one data set.

You keep saying selective then you argue in support of someone who has been very selective himself and without much explanation in opposition to people who have been selective but on the basis of statistical methods. Why?

Every one agrees that data needs to be released so others can access it and attempt to replicate results.

You keep arguing as if simply posting on a blog questioning one sub-set of one data set calls all studies from all disciplines using all proxy data sources into doubt. Why?

Chief, that is nonsense. You would think that Climate Audit is the only one criticising the Hockey Stick. That is far from the case. Wegman tore it to shreds as did NAS (though the propagandists will attempt to tell you otherwise), ditto Von Storch and numerous others.

As for proxies the IPCC themselves have said certain proxies (no idea why you say all) arent reliable. This is nothing new. Ditto the problems of proxies not following the temperature record.

Briffa himself wrote a paper on this problem of divergence.

Certain elements within this debate have been shown to be untrustworthy. They are the economics and parts of the proxy record.

I certainly would not claim that it dismisses the entire argument but it does show that their is a huge amount of propaganda being put out and slavishly being followed by many for various reasons.

That governments are eagerly picking up this argument at the samt time they face huge budget deficits is no coincidence.

Rudd threw a huge amount of revenue in to the forward estimates with no offsetting costs from the ETS

Now why would he do that?

 

[Ripper]

Made the NY times now.


Climate Auditor Challenged to Do Climate Science



Most seem to be supportive of Macintyre of yhe comments are to be believed.

 

[bit_pattern]

The denialist rent-a-crowd do a good job at swarming over comment sections, it means nothing.

Say, have you bothered to read Enting's review of 'Heaven and Earth', or are you just going to keep avoiding it?

 

[medusala]

MBH98 - Minor statistical quibble that didn't alter the result, which has since been replicated by other researchers

Absolute nonsense and shameful that you even try to say this.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

1. In general we found the writing of MBH98 somewhat obscure and incomplete.
The fact that MBH98 issued a further clarification in the form of a corrigendum published in Nature (Mann et al. 2004) suggests that these authors made errors and incomplete disclosures in the original version of the paper. This also suggeststhat the refereeing process was not as thorough as it could have been.

2. In general, we find the criticisms by MM03, MM05a and MM05b to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations (Appendix A) and simulations to verify that their observations were correct. We comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the deficiencies of the MBH98-type methodologies and were not trying to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions8.

Moreover, the cryptic nature of some of the MBH98/99 narratives
means that outsiders would have to make guesses at the precise nature of the procedures being used.

Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the MBH98/99 analysis.

..

Although we have not addressed the Bristlecone Pines issue extensively in this
report except as one element of the proxy data, there is one point worth
mentioning. Graybill and Idso (1993) specifically sought to show that Bristlecone Pines were CO2 fertilized. Bondi et al. (1999) suggest [Bristlecones] “are not a reliable temperature proxy for the last 150 years as it shows an increasing trend in about 1850 that has been attributed to atmospheric CO2 fertilization.” It is not surprising therefore that this important proxy in MBH98/99 yields a temperature curve that is highly correlated with atmospheric CO2.

..

There are clearly confounding factors for using tree rings as temperature
signals.


Conclusion 2. Sharing of research materials, data, and results is haphazard and often grudgingly done. We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers. When code and data are not shared and methodology is not fully disclosed, peers do not have the ability to replicate the work and thus independent verification is impossible.

----------

As for the NAS

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that

Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions

and that they had downplayed the

uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium

...

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

 

[medusala]

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/060619_ushouse_energycommercehvs.pdf


In October 2004, we were able to demonstrate in the scientific journal “Science” that the methodological bases that led to this hockey-stick curve are mistaken.

We wanted to reverse the spiral of exaggeration somewhat, without also relativizing the central message – that climate change caused by human activity does indeed exist.

Prominent representatives of climate research, however, did not respond by taking issue with the facts. Instead, they worried that the noble cause of protecting the climate might have been done harm.

Other scientists lapse into a zeal reminiscent of nothing so much as the McCarthy era. For them, methodological criticism is the spawn of “conservative think tanks and propagandists for the oil and coal lobby,” which they believe they must expose; dramatizing climate change, on the other hand, is defended as a sensible means of educating society.

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh ffs meds. So you want to have a copy n paste war do you? OK fine.

Here even RogePielke Jnr - Roger Pielke ****ing Jnr - called the NAS report a "near complete vindication" of Mann et. al.

My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al. They report does acknowledge that there are perhaps greater uncertainties in temperature reconstructions, reducing Mann et al.'s claim of warmest decade/year in 1,000 years down to 400. Nonetheless, I see nothing in the report that suggests that Mann's research is significantly flawed, nor any calls for release of his data or algorithms, though the report does say in very general terms that such release is a good idea. I am not a climate scientist, but my reading of the section that deals with criticisms of Mann et al.'s work (starting at p. 105) is that while these critiques raise some interesting points, they are minor issues, and the committee find's Mann et al.’s original conclusion to be "plausible." I’d bet that the word "plausible" will be oft invoked as one of the take home messages of the report.
So what to make of this? The NRC has come to the conclusion that the hockey stick debate is much ado about nothing, and make the further point that this particular area of science is not particularly relevant to detection and attribution of human caused climate change. I am certain that research on this subject will continue, but hopefully this NAS report will allow the rest of us to focus on the policy debate rather than this particular issue of science.
I would have liked to see the report get into far more detail on science policy questions, such as release of data, methods, code, etc. and mechanisms of peer review, and IPCC authors reviewing their own work. However, I recognize that these issues may have been interpreted as outside their charge and the committee was not empanelled for this purpose.
Is this the final word on the "hockey stick"? My guess is that for most people, yes, especially if Representative Boehlert, who requested the report, is satisfied with the answers to his questions.

From the report

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
...



The reconstruction produced by Dr. Mann and his colleagues was just one step in a long process of research, and it is not (as sometimes presented) a clinching argument for anthropogenic global warming, but rather one of many independent lines of research on global climate change.


...

• It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
• Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
• Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

And more importantly

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have the potential to further improve our knowledge of temperature variations over the last 2,000 years, particularly if additional proxy evidence can be identified and obtained from areas where the coverage is relatively sparse and for time periods before A.D. 1600 and especially before A.D. 900. Furthermore, it would be helpful to update proxy records that were collected decades ago, in order to develop more reliable calibrations with the instrumental record. Improving access to data used in publications would also increase confidence in the results of large-scale surface temperature reconstructions both inside and outside the scientific community. New analytical methods, or more careful use of existing ones, may also help circumvent some of the existing limitations associated with surface temperature reconstructions based on multiple proxies.

Which is EXACTLY what Mann et. al. did in 2008 when they took the NAS report suggestions and republished the work and made the hockey stick longer and stronger

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

God it must suck to be you, stuck in past grasping at straws to desperately try to retain your world view, you are an incredibly stuborn person. Why don't you just let go of your pride and, if you can't admit you're wrong (because I do realise that can be a hard thing to do sometimes), at least just drop the issue gracefully.

 

[bit_pattern]

And regarding the replication, you can deny reality all you want but it happened

As you can see Mann & Wahl's reconstruction line up very well. The National Center for Atmospheric Research subsequently released this media advisory:

[Wahl & Ammann] found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.

Ammann and Wahl’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrick’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH [hockey stick] climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH [hockey stick] graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical Union’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.

 

[medusala]

Which is EXACTLY what Mann et. al. did in 2008 when they took the NAS report suggestions and republished the work and made the hockey stick longer and stronger

stop it, it is getting nauseating

God it must suck to be you, stuck in past grasping at straws to desperately try to retain your world view, you are an incredibly stuborn person.

What gibberish. Time and time again blatant errors are pointed out in the work of the HS crew, Henson, Gore etc and all you can say is "well it doesnt really matter"

It does matter. It is pathetic.

The greatest crisis the world has ever faced and you could not care less if basic statistical and economic issues are even addressed.

Delusional.

 

[bit_pattern]

stop it, the truth hurts!

EFA

What gibberish. Time and time again blatant errors are pointed out in the work of the HS crew, Henson, Gore etc and all you can say is "well it doesnt really matter"

It does matter. It is pathetic.

The greatest crisis the world has ever faced and you could not care less if basic statistical and economic issues are even addressed.

Delusional.

How's the weather out there on Planet Meds?

 

[medusala]

And regarding the replication, you can deny reality all you want but it happened

[/B]

Wegman dealt with that.

They arent independent. Moreover most suffer from use of poor and selective data

The Hockey Stick is dead. Discredited Junk

Give it up.

You demean the global warming argument by referring to it.

 

[medusala]

How's the weather out there on Planet Meds?

Cold. Pity its not warming.

I note your highlighted bif of the NAS states

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries

rather than this

Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium

 

[medusala]

And regarding the replication, you can deny reality all you want but it happened

[/B]

I found that text on here

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

This section is rather interesting

Articles critical of McKitrick's (and others) claims:

Note the huge array of different authors

Tim Lambert, "Corrections to the McKitrick (2003) Global Average Temperature Series (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/04#mckitrick)", Deltoid, April 28, 2004.

Tim Lambert, "More McKitrick (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/04#mckitrick)", Deltoid, April 29, 2004.

Tim Lambert, "Tech Central Station flunks Physics (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/05#georgia)", Deltoid, May 11, 2004.

Tim Lambert, "Corrections to the McKitrick (2002) Global Average Temperature Series (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/05#mckitrick3)", Deltoid, May 21, 2004.

Tim Lambert, "You Dirty Errata (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/07#mckitrick5)", Deltoid, July 9, 2004.

Tim Lambert, "McKitrick screws up yet again
(http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/08/26%22)", Deltoid, August 26, 2004

John Quiggan, "McKitrick Mucks it Up (http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2004/08/26/mckitrick-mucks-it-up/)", August 26th, 2004.

Michael Mann, "Rutherford et al 2005 highlights (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10)", RealClimate, November 22, 2004.

Michael Mann, "False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8)", RealClimate, December 4, 2004.

Michael Mann, "Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11)", RealClimate, December 4, 2004.
Rasmus E. Benestad, "Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity? (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=41)", RealClimate, December 8, 2004.

Michael Mann, "On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98)", RealClimate, January 6, 2005.

Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, "Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=109)", RealClimate, January 20, 2005.

Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, "Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition II (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111)", RealCimate, January 27, 2005.

Gavin Schmidt and Caspar Amman, "Dummies guide to the latest "Hockey Stick" controversy (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121)", RealCimate, February 18, 2005.

Ross Gelbspan, "NRC Exonerates "Hockey Stick" Graph, Ending "Mann-Hunt" by Two Canadian Skeptics (http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics)", DeSmogBlog, June/23/2006

Kieran Healy, Out of the Crooked Timber, Annals of Premature Accusations,

 

[bit_pattern]

Wegman is a political hack. Nothing more, nothing less

Wegman Report on Hockey Stick

Category: Global Warming
Posted on: July 14, 2006 4:33 PM, by Tim Lambert
Joe Barton's Committee has released a report they commissioned on the hockey stick by Wegman, Scott and Said (WSS). The focus of the report is much narrower than the NRC report and the results are basically a subset of the NRC report. In particular, both reports find that "off-centre" method used in Mann Bradley and Hughes' 1998 paper (MBH98) tended to produce hockey stick shapes in the first principal component (PC1). Unfortunately, WSS stop there and do not address the question of what difference this makes to the reconstruction (which is not the same as PC1). The NRC panel did address this question and found that it made little difference.
It would be cynical of me to suggest that the terms of reference for WSS were crafted so that WSS would only check this aspect of MBH98 and not whether it made a difference to the reconstruction. Not surprisingly, the usual suspects are using WSS to claim that the hockey stick is shattered into a bazillion pieces. For instance, the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

[WSS's] conclusion is that Mr. Mann's papers are plagued by basic statistical errors that call his conclusions into doubt. Further, Professor Wegman's report upholds the finding of Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick that Mr. Mann's methodology is biased toward producing "hockey stick" shaped graphs.
​

Needless to say the NRC panel's findings are never mentioned in the WSJ editorial. (Nor in the WSS report for that matter.)
Wegman, Scott and Said are statisticians, not climatologists and this has lead to some errors in their interpretation of the literature. For example, the temperature graph in the first IPCC report is schematic and not quantitative, but they interpret it as if it was quantitative.
WSS do have a section that is not a subset of the NRC report -- Chapter 5, which claims to present a Social Network Analysis of authorships in temperature reconstructions. They have some pretty graphs but there is no quantitative analysis. It's possible that the temperature reconstruction community is so small that it causes difficulties with peer review but WSS don't have any numbers to support this. I think such an analysis would require you to come up with a quantitative measure and compare with other authorship networks.
All in all there seems little reason to refer to this report rather that the NRC one.
But the most serious flaw in WSS is this claim:

This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.
​

I mean, really.

 

[bit_pattern]

Nice of you to leave this bit out

Reproducability of the Hockey Stick

• Nactional Center for Atmospheric Research: Media Advisory: The Hockey Stick Controversy
• Geophysical Research Letters: ROBUSTNESS OF THE MANN, BRADLEY, HUGHES RECONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN HEMISPHERE SURFACE TEMPERATURES: EXAMINATION OF CRITICISMS BASED ON THE NATURE AND PROCESSING OF PROXY CLIMATE EVIDENCE
• National Academy of Sciences briefing (audio)
• Authors were clear about hockey-stick uncertainties, Raymond S. Bradley Malcolm K. Hughes & Michael E. Mann Nature 442, 627 (2006). Full Text
• Nature - News: "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph"
• NAS: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
• Rutherford et al. American Meteorological Society, "Journal of Climate": Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain,

 

[medusala]

Nice of you to leave this bit out

Reproducability of the Hockey Stick

And how many of them arent part of the HS crew?

What a pathetic joke, pointing to your own research as independent verification of your own work?

Can you not comprehend how shoddy this is?

 

[bit_pattern]

Keep tilting at those windmills, Meds! Never admit your wrong! Arrgh!