Friday, 18 May 2012

A new look at an old crock....

Long Live Science!
At PJ Media, Rand Simberg has contributed an article  The Death of the Hockey Stick?

He starts out:
The iconic symbol of the global warming panic may have taken a hit from which it will never recover.
Mr Simberg goes through the history, from Mann's original presentation, Al Gore's "Oscar-winning crockumentary to bogus reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." Then he adds:
Unfortunately for those promoting the theory (and the potentially economically catastrophic policy recommendations supposedly supported by it), recent events indicate that the last basis of scientific support for the hockey stick may be crumbling. But to understand this, a little background is necessary.
 Mann's initial presentation only went back to the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Keith Briffa then announced that the Medieval Warm period didn't exist. Mr Simberg mentions a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunis and then the hammering the hockey stick took from the work by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

Mr Simberg then writes that the tide finally turned last month....
when the University of East Anglia was finally forced by the British Information Commissioner to at least tell McIntyre which data sets were used in its results. Let’s let blogger “Bishop Hill” (aka Andrew Montford, who has written the book on the subject) tell the rest of the story (and read the whole thing for a detailed description of the deception):
The list of 17 sites that was finally sent to McIntyre represented complete vindication. The presence of Yamal and Polar Urals had already been obvious from the Climategate emails, but the list showed that Briffa had also incorporated the Polar Urals update (which, as we saw above, did not have a hockey stick shape, and which Briffa claimed he had not looked at since 1995) and the Khadtya River site, McIntyre’s use of which the RealClimate authors had ridiculed.
Although the chronology itself was not yet available, the list of sites was sufficient for McIntyre to calculate the numbers himself, and the results were breathtaking. Firstly, the URALS regional chronology had vastly more data behind it than the Yamal-only figures presented in Briffa’s paperBut what was worse, the regional chronology did not have a hockey stick shapethe twentieth century uptick that Briffa had got from the handful of trees in the Yamal-only series had completely disappeared.
Read More HERE.
What does this all mean? First, let’s state what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that we know that the planet isn’t warming, and it doesn’t mean that if it is, that we can be sure that it is not due to human activity.
But at a minimum it should be the final blow to the hockey stick, and perhaps to the very notion that bristlecone pines and larches are accurate thermometers. It should also be a final blow to the credibility of many of the leading lights of climate “science,” but based on history, it probably won’t be, at least among the political class. What it really should be is the beginning of the major housecleaning necessary if the field is to have any scientific credibility, but that may have to await a general reformation of academia itself.