Get a mop and wipe it up!


Another hockey-stick graph debunking

, posted: 29-Sep-2009 00:19

Steve McIntyre was one of the two statisticians (with Ross McKitrick) who annihilated the Mann hockey stick graph.

Now he has done it again -- this time fisking the Briffa (2000) tree ring graphs that purport to show a "hockey stick" upturn in temperatures in the late 20th century. It turns out that Briffa et al were being highly selective of which trees to include and which to exclude. Couple that with their refusal to release their source data until finally forced to do so by a scientific journal. Now their deception is laid bare.

Full description is at Climate Audit. Intriguing layman explanation at comment #7. (Updated: thanks kiwitrc)

The question is: why would we waste billions on an ETS, when the "science" behind it is so shonky?



More information

Other related posts:
Surf Life Saving Flags at Long Bay could be Killers
Open Letter to Minister of Police: Don't Lower "Ticketing" Speed Limits
5 Reasons Why You Should Hear Christopher Monckton








Comment by kiwitrc, on 29-Sep-2009 17:55

Comment 10 or 7?


Author's note by dmw, on 29-Sep-2009 18:03

You are correct, kiwitrc. I have updated my original post. (It was comment #10 last night.)


Comment by NZtechfreak, on 30-Sep-2009 15:28

Come now, you can't point at one work and make the generalisation that the whole of the science behind environmental change is 'shonky'.


Comment by edge, on 1-Oct-2009 11:56

Thanks for the ntofication David - very interesting stuff.  More light than heat for a change in this aspect of the overall debate.  The best thing about the site is the very measured approach they take - as opposed to the slanging that tends to come from so many on both sides of the debate.

It was indeed #10, but some of the earlier comments got moved to "unthreaded" later in the piece, to keep the discussion on track - hence the change from the original #10.


Author's note by dmw, on 2-Oct-2009 12:17

It is not "one work". This tree ring series has been used in multiple papers by multiple authors. And trumpeted by the warmists as settled science.

But what is totally unacceptable is the unwillingness of warmist scientists to archive their raw data in public sites, and the collusion of journals and peer-reviewers in not insisting on this pre-condition for publishing.

Such secrecy arouses suspicion. And when data finally does become available -- despite their efforts to avoid it -- and it reveals huge flaws in their scientific method... well that only increases the doubt over other unreleased data.


Comment by Bruce Wayne, on 11-Oct-2009 14:52

Wasn't Briffa's 1995 study on the Polar Urals?

McIntyre's critique is of the 2000 Yamal study.


Author's note by dmw, on 11-Oct-2009 15:39

Thanks, Bruce. It was indeed the 2000 paper. I've altered my original posting accordingly.


Add a comment

Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted. E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.

Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments. If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.

Your name:

Your e-mail:

Your webpage:

dmw's profile

David White
Auckland
New Zealand


Goon fan, .NET developer, contrarian seeker of truth