The New Hockey Stick - Upside Down

What a terrible drawing.....Amateur.  But is it "Drawing the wrong conclusion?"

In this month's Quadrant, Steven Kates, under the subheading Myth vs Reality, writes "Global warming and Keynesian theory are natural bedmates...." 

His arguments re the comparisons of false diagrams is worth reading (see Quadrant -HERE) However, leaving
aside his discussions of Keynesian Economics, the article harshly criticises the Mann Hockey stick.
Kates also refers to the fact that 

Michael Mann crossed swords with Mark Steyn. Steyn is one of the great climate change sceptics. 
Mann is suing Mark Steyn (and is being cross-sued also by Steyn.) Some details HERE
Michael E Mann, the inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", the single most influential graphic in the history of climate alarmism, sued me for defamation for calling his ever more flaccid stick "fraudulent". I had called it fraudulent in national publications in Britain, Canada and Australia at various times over the last 15 years

So, Mark, how is it going?

Right now, the case is stalled while the DC Court of Appeals decides whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But as of now no one knows. I can't tell you how thrilled I am to find that I'm a test case. At any rate, written briefs were filed last September and there was half-an-hour of oral argument in November, but apparently after seven months the judges are still no hurry to issue an opinion. 

OK. So what has Mark done in the mean time?

Well, Mark has written a book, A Disgrace to the Profession ,made up of quotes from both sides of the debate. What the quotes have in common is the fact that all are critical of the fraudulent Hockey stick. Mark maintains that this is but Volume One:

The question that remains to be answered is why, without any true scientific examination, did the IPCC (and that inconvenient liar Al Gore) accept Mann's pseudo-science.

Some of the quotes from scientists from included in VOLUME 1:


Dr Jerry Mahlman Director of NOAA, who upon seeing Mann's temperature reconstruction remarked that it looked like a hockey stick, later decided that it was a mistake for the climate science writing press to amplify it. (It was actually the IPCC's panel that emphasised it to the pandering press.)

Proxy reconstruction

Steyn begins chapter II with:
The Hockey Stick is what's know as a "proxy reconstruction." There's only two things wrong with it - the proxies and the reconstruction.

The ELIMINATION of the Medieval Warm Period 

In order to show that Man's emissions of carbo (DIOXIDE) are causing runaway global warming, the shrill had to eliminate the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age. Australian Climate Sceptucs have written before about this, (eg link to Dr David Deming)

Steyn reports re Prof. Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics at Oxford: (Source)

My whole involvement has always been driven by concerns about the corruption of science. 
Like many people I was dragged into this by the Hockey Stick. I was looking up some minor detail about the Medieval Warm Period and discovered this weird parallel universe of people who apparently didn't believe it had happened, and even more bizarrely appeared to believe that essentially nothing had happened in the world before the twentieth century. The Hockey Stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, so I started reading round the subject. And it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the Hockey Stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact. I'd always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example.

Jones continues to blast the "Hockey Stick:"
For me the Hockey Stick was where it began, and probably where it will end (and I will daringly suggest that the same thing might be true for our host). The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.
It was good propaganda for the shrill.  Prof Jonathan Jones said that although "Everybody knows it is obviously wrong," "It goes on being published and defended year after year."

SHAME on the shrill! SHAME, SHAME. SHAME!

Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.

      Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

And yet, the shrill dills keep defending the fraudulent "hockey stick."