Thread: A Convenient Fiction

From the previews, I suspect the Horizon program tonight (BBC2 9.00pm) should be interesting in terms of the 'energy' debate.

G hall wrote:-

To make it clear
1. Mann and his hockey stick have been proven to be false due to an error in his algorithm i.e. you could put lottery numbers in and the hockey stick would duly turn up) and the medieval warm period just does not exist

It has not been proved to be false - once agian you're out of date by many years. Contrarians seem to be stuck in atime warp over this - hoping against hope that by repeating it endlessly, it will come true and then disprove all the other real life evidence of GW. (It ain't going to happen)

There was some criticism of his statistical method, particularly over the use of some proxy measurements (Bristle cone pine tree rings) but this was examined by publicly by a Congressional committee who concluded that using alternative analyses, made no practical difference to the result - that being that the late 20th c. warming was anomalous and with high probability caused by mankind’s activities.

Since those hearings, if you had watched the program on TV the other night, you will have seen many other researchers have concluded the same by using different proxies for the medieval period.

Finally, & this is why g hall is so irked, just last week Mann (the author of the original hockey stick curve), has published in peer-reviewed literature, an extension of his temperature analysis with also other ‘proxies’ and if he includes corrected Bristle cone proxy data, he produces the most accurate temperature of the last 1700 years. That is accepted by the scientific community.

The ‘hockey stick’ in it’s evolved forms is alive & kicking (contrarian ass).

Poptech wrote:-

First of all CO2 is not going to destroy the planet,…

Of course it won’t destroy the planet, but most real experts & governments think it will make life as we know it very uncomfortable – even to the point of a majorlife extinction rivalling those in pre-history.

Clippo, when they fed Mann's program random data, it produced a hockey stick shape = game over. Mann has been debunked by anyone with a remote understanding of computer science and his latest "science" is more of the same.

The "Hockey Stick" has been debunked so badly you should go to your room and cry...


Hockey Stick:

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 4, 2005)



Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (PDF) (National Academy of Sciences, 2006)

Originally Posted by National Academy of Sciences

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" [...]

Prior to about 1600, ...periods of medieval warmth are seen in a number of diverse records, including historical information from Europe and Asia; cave deposits; marine and lake sediments; and ice cores from Greenland, Ellesmere Island, Tibet, and the equatorial Andes. [...]

Using proxies sensitive to hydrologic variables (including moisture-sensitive trees...) to take advantage of observed correlations with surface temperature could lead to problems [...]

For tree ring chronologies, the process of removing biological trends from ringwidth data potentially obscures information on long-term changes in climate. [...]

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence and extent of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse ...set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia

FACT: All the NAS study concluded was that recent temperatures are warmer than the Little Ice Age (no kidding).

Von Storch, Zorita and Gonzalez-Raucen statement on the NAS Panel Report (Climate Audit, June 22, 2006)

We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.

With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [...]

Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used.

Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)

Editorials:
The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria (Tim F. Ball, Canada Free Press, May 12, 2008)
The decay of the hockey stick (Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Climate Feedback, Nature, May 03, 2007)
Congressional Hearings Break 'Hockey Stick' (H. Sterling Burnett, The Heartland Institute, October 1, 2006)
Statisticians blast Hockey Stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, August 23, 2006)
Hockey sticks and hatchets (Financial Post, August 23, 2006)
Hockey Stick Hokum (The Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2006)
See the Truth on climate history (Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Misled again: The Hockey Stick climate (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, Canada, July 12, 2006)
Does the hockey stick "matter"? (Stephen McIntyre, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Why Does the Hockey Stick Debate Matter? (Ross McKitrick, Prometheus, November 14, 2005)
Re-visiting the Stick (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, June 17th, 2005)
Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. (World Climate Report, March 3, 2005)
Bring the Proxies Up to Date!! (Stephen McIntyre, February 20th, 2005)
In Climate Debate, The 'Hockey Stick' Leads to a Face-Off (The Wall Street Journal, February 20th, 2005)
Hockey Stick on Ice (The Wall Street Journal, February 18th, 2005)
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science (Stephen McIntyre, National Post, Canada, February 15th, 2005)
Global Warming Bombshell (MIT Technology Review, October 15, 2004)
Nature Admits Widely Cited Global Warming Graph Was Erroneous (The Hearland Institute, September 1, 2004)
The Broken Stick (Financial Post, Canada, July 13, 2004)
High-sticking the Senate (Patrick J. Michaels, The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2000)

Papers:
The Revival of the Hockeystick Graph - a new Low in Climate Science (PDF) (Ernst-Georg Beck, September 4th, 2008)
Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick' Global Climate Reconstruction (PDF) (Wegman Report, July 14th, 2006)
- Response of Dr. Edward Wegman to Questions Posed by the Honorable Mr. Bart Stupak in Connection with Testimony to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (PDF)
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years." (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, March 2, 2006)
- Supplementary Presentations to the National Academy of Sciences Panel (PDF) (April 3, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 19, 2006)
Presentation to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, July 27, 2006)
Huybers’ and von Storch-Zorita Comments, and Our Replies (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 2005)
More on Hockey Sticks: the Case of Jones et al (1998) (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Nov 14, 2005)
The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere "Hockey Stick" Climate Index: A Tale of Due Diligence (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, May 2, 2005)
Is Climate Really Changing Adnormally? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 1, 2005)
Kyoto Protocol Based On Flawed Statistics - Proof That Mankind Causes Global Warming Is Refuted (PDF) (Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, The Netherlands, February 2005)
Backgrounder for McIntyre and McKitrick “Hockey Stick Project” (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, January 27 2005)
Breaking the “Hockey Stick” (PDF) (David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, July 12, 2004)
The IPCC, the "Hockey Stick" Curve, and the Illusion of Experience (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, November 18, 2003)
Lessons & Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual? (PDF) (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Willie Soon, Ph.D., April 2003)
The 'Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science (John L. Daly, B.Sc. Economics, November 12, 2000)

Peer-Reviewed Papers:
Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The "Hockey-Stick" Affair and Its Implications (PDF) (David Holland, Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 951-983, December 2007)
Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape

- Reply to comment by von Storch and Zorita on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
- Reply to comment by Huybers on "Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance" (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, October 2005)
The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Number 6, pp. 751-771, November 2003)

There is also no remote empirical evidence of any catastrophe regarding CO2 and species extinctions.

BA,
There are quite a number of fallacies in your post. I’ll deal with the last first.
The “they’re only it for the money” argument is so weak that even serious contrarians don’t use it much now.

In a very few cases, it is true that staying in the same job depends on maintaining a high scientific paper output, (or ‘patents’ in industry), but in the huge majority of instances most research is done by a) University employees as a secondary part to their teaching jobs b) Employees of governments or government funded institutions & c) researchers employed by business.

The fundamental weakness of your argument is the implication that ‘independent’ researchers somehow bend the truth of their research to continue to get grants and thus ‘satisfy’ their paymaster’s wishes. This is obviously nonsense for example many of the independent science sources we quote here, like NASA, NCAR, NSIDC, and so on, are actually US government funded organisations and as you know, the Bush regime at least has been very anti AGW.

True science doesn’t work like that anyway. This is why I continue to refer back to the peer-review process in science. Although it has some weaknesses, a scientist publishes their results in a respected publication, together with their conclusions and, it’s like posting a target on a shooting gallery – if opponents disagree with the research & conclusions, they will in turn take peer-reviewed pot shots at it and so on until a consensus results. Real fraud soon gets picked up in this ‘validation’ phase. No scientist worth his salt would try to fool people – they would become a pariah and probably not work again.

It is interesting that you chose to compare AGW arguments with Tobacco industry research. I guess you are a smoker & don’t like the truth but it is a documented fact that when the link between smoking & lung cancer was suggested, the Tobacco industry funded a disinformation campaign to doubt the science. Notice they didn’t come up with any other contrary research, but just questioned the independent research of others. Since Philip Morris & other tobacco groups were founder members of the anti-AGW group with Exxon etc., the Global Climate Coalition, it is not surprising that that group copied the doubt techniques of the Tobacco industry.

I haven’t studied the details of the passive smoking research, but in my view, if it was published in peer-reviewed sources then if other researchers seriously doubted it they would have responded and so on. Since we are now in the situation that most medical researchers agree there is a link, then I am also inclined to agree.

Poptech wrote:-

Clippo, when they fed Mann's program random data, it produced a hockey stick shape = game over. Mann has been debunked by anyone with a remote understanding of computer science and his latest "science" is more of the same.

The "Hockey Stick" has been debunked so badly you should go to your room and cry...

It hasn't been debunked.

Despite your diaorrhea of references,* the bulk of which go to obviously contrarian sources, Ross' & Mckitrick's arguments have failed utterly to convince the rest of the world's independent Climate Science community. FULL STOP.

* you've tried this before here & it didn't work then.

Here is a link to the most ‘rational’ discussion of the Hockey stick controversy that I know:-

A Few Things Ill Considered : The Hockey Stick is Broken
Some extracts (note there is much in between these quotes & I’m not trying to be selective on my own behalf. Also note that MBH means Mann, Bradley & Hughes, the authors of the ‘Hockey Stick, also known as MBH98) :-

The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was featured prominently in the IPCC TAR Summary for Policymakers. It was important in that it overturned the concept of a global Medieval Warm Period warmer than the 20th century and a global Little Ice Age,……………………….

................... This caused quite an uproar in the sceptic community, not least because of its visual efficacy. Two Canadians, an economist and a petroleum geologist, took it upon themselves to verify this…………

………………. The Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick, then proceeded to publish a paper that purported to uncover serious methodological flaws and some problems with data sets used……………

…………………. To my knowledge, the worst indictment (of M & M’s view – my, clippo, clarification) from the climate science community came from a study led by Hans Von Storch that concluded M&M was right about a particular criticism of methodology but correcting it did not in fact change the study results...............

...........The fact is there are dozens of other reconstructions. These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98 (the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years. …………………………..

……………I suspect 95% of the people you will come across arguing about this have chosen their position ideologically and will not really be able to explain the merits of the various arguments. …………………….

……………….So while MBH, in my mind, are in no way guilty of fraud or incompetence (many of the accusations do go this far), the judgement of their research must be approached in reverse: …………..

………………… So where does that leave me and I suspect most of you?

Well, it leaves me with the dozens of other proxy reconstructions, some by the same team or involving some of its members, some by completely different people, some using tree rings, some using corals, some using stalagmites, some using borehole measurements, but all of which support the same general conclusion.

The general conclusion is:
"Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920."
End of story.

You really must read thro’ all of this and then make up your own mind.

Originally Posted by Clippo

You really must read thro’ all of this and then make up your own mind.

Fat chance, I suspect.
Popeye evidently hasn't read many his own myriad of links.

Originally Posted by g hall

Mann's Hockey stick is rather like the parrot in the Monty Python sketch - dead

At best, it has been disputed.

Originally Posted by Clippo

It hasn't been debunked.

Oh it has been debunked enough for anyone with a remote understanding of computer science.

Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, February 2005)

Their method, when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shape

That is called debunked. Arguing this simply means you have no understanding of computer science or computer programming.

Von Stork made these comments:

"Simulations with red noise do lead to hockey sticks. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism on the hockey stick from 1998 is entirely valid on this particular point." - Hans von Storch, Ph.D. Climate Statistics Specialist


Von Storch, Zorita and Gonzalez-Raucen statement on the NAS Panel Report (Climate Audit, June 22, 2006)

We share the assessment of the NRC committee that the evidence for unprecedented warming of a single decade or even a single year in times prior to 1500, or so, is stretching the scientific evidence too far. However, this was the key claim made in the contested 1998-nature and 1999-GRL-papers by Mann et al.

With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. [...]

Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used.

Yes please read the extensive information I have compiled, especially these:

What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About? (PDF) (Ross McKitrick, Ph.D. Economics, April 4, 2005)
Spin can’t hide the facts concerning the hockey stick (PDF) (Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, Ross McKitrick Ph.D. Economics, July 26, 2006)

And of course make up your own mind.