Hockey Stick - 20th century warming.

There has been so much bad science found in the whole climate change exercise, it's hard to rely on anything we're told. I don't understand how a body like IPCC could accept Mann's plot without independent substantiation of the data. Totally irresponsible, and the world is in turmoil because of it. I think a lot of the problem also is the media and bureaurocrats applying their own interpretation of scientific reports. Scientists also need to write their reports, and particularly summaries, keeping in mind that headline seekers will read what they can into them.

Let's face it ... everyone has a bias one way or the other. For this reason it is important to investigate as much as we can for ourselves. The 2 reports on the hockey stick, Wegman report and the NRC report, were both published in 2006. A review is given here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

... and of course this review will have its own bias.

Mann's reluctance to provide his data and methods is interesting, as well as the clear bias of the NRC:

"One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.[19] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available [20]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [21] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[22] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. "

Even more interesting it how the Wegman report shows that Mann's graphs can be reproduced using Mann's methods with random noise data. In other words, Mann's statistical methods produce a roughly horizontal line with a kick at the end, no matter what data is used !!! It is instructive to take Mann's data and do your own charting as I suggest.

If Phil and others think the New Scientist is biased, perhaps they'd care to try the Union of Concerned Scientists on the hockey stick non-issue.

A better site for unbiased information is at

http://www.globalwarmingtruths.net

"The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong" is another well-known myth put about by global warming deniers. New Scientist reviewed these myths a few months ago. For a quick review (with ueful links), see the myth-busting article itself.

Original post by adb