quote:
Originally posted by Billy Bumbly:
If they lied about the Hockey stick why trust them on anything else.
Yes, there are a lot of lies being told about the Hockey Stick graph... by the GW-denial lobby.
It's regularly claimed that the Hockey Stick graph has been "comprehensively discredited" in the peer reviewed literature.
This isn't true -- and all the prominent Skeptics doing the chat-show rounds certainly know this, because the facts of the matter have been pointed out to them many times... Yet they continue to repeat their misleading claims.
Here's what every professional denialist knows (but doesn't tell):
1. About a dozen different studies, carried out by different research teams at various different universities, have produced temperature reconstructions based on recent measurements and proxy data (e.g., tree-ring samples from around the world etc.). ALL of these peer-reviewed studies produce essentially similar results, a graph with "hockey-stick" shape, in which recent temperatures rise sharply upward in an unprecedented way.
2. Two of these studies, published in 1998 and 1998 by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, were criticised in a paper by McIntyre & McKitrick (2005). These Authors pointed out a technical error in the use of a particular statistical technique used in MBH-98 and MBH-99 -- and then argued that this error rendered the results completely invalid. NOTE: even if this conclusion were true, the M&M criticism applies ONLY to these two papers: MBH-98 and MBH-99.
3. Subsequent peer reviewed papers by other authors demonstrated that while the error in MBH98 was real, it was minor. When the mistake is corrected and the calculation is re-done, the graph looks basically the same. In any case, other research teams have produced temperature reconstructions using different, but equally valid, statistical methods. NO-ONE has published an argument in the peer reviewed literature to show that there are errors in ALL of these studies... which co-incidentally cause the graphs to come out looking the same! Hence, the M&M criticism certainly doesn't invalidate "Hockey stick graphs" in general.
4. So, why did M&M exaggerate their argument so much? You may well ask. Neither of them are climate scientists; McIntyre
is a "semi-retired" energy and minerals consultant -- and McKitrick is a right-wing economist; a Fellow of the Fraser Institute... a corporate-funded right-wing "think-tank" whose ceaseless promotion of climate-change denial propaganda might just conceivably have something to do with the fact that they're heavily funded by ExxonMobil (and other such corporations).
5. A panel of scientists in different disciplines was assembled by the National Research Council to carry out an intensive peer-review investigation the controversy. They concluded that there was indeed an error in MBH98 and MBH99 -- but it was minor and had no important effect on their results. Further more, independent studies had replicated these results, using quite different mathematical techniques... in which there was no evidence of error.
6. The notorious Wegman report, which attacked Mann and his team, was produced by a trio statisticians -- specially selected for the task by Republican Congressman Joe Barton (an outspoken critic of "global warming" science). Their report was not submitted to peer review, involved no climate scientists, and majored on personal attacks against the integrity of Mann and his colleagues. Exactly what Barton wanted.
Bottom line: there's no evidence whatsover to show that there's anything wrong with recent (post-MBH99) Hockey stick graphs.
Yet people who know all all these facts keep repeating the claim: "The Hockey Stick has been discredited in the peer-reviewed literature... It's a lie! Don't trust these IPCC liars!"
Pots and Kettles, anyone...?
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
Not too hard!
