Hockey Stick Rises Again

The fabled “hockey stick” - Michael Mann's graph showing the last decade to be the warmest in a 1,000 years - has re-emerged, stronger and longer than ever.

In a peer-reviewed paper published today in the online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (or see Ross Gelbspan's post below for the ENN coverage), Mann and six other scientists show that current warming is the most severe in more than 1,300 years - 1,700 if you accept still-controversial data drawns from tree rings.

The hockey stick, a graph featured prominently in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has been under near constant attack since 2003, when economist Ross McKitrick and retired mining promoter Steve McIntyre wrote a paper in the journal Energy and Environment criticizing Mann's statistical method and his use of tree rings as a means to infer past temperatures.

But the stick has shown remarkable resilience: the accuracy of its representation has been corroborated again and again, by other researchers and with other proxies. Now, Mann, et al, have returned with an even more compelling version.

Be assured that the people who want to argue about this graph will go back to criticizing the 2001 version or will bicker over details of the debate since. But the venerable stick, the shape that appears in every climate reconstruction, is unbroken.


But the MWP, man, what about the MWP? It’s called the Medieval Optimum – and “optimum” means “good”, so it can only be good!

Various writings from the medieval period which contain no graphs or temperature readings show conclusively that temperatures during the MWP were warmer that today! And this is a global phenomenon, as shown by the fact that the MWP was attested all over Europe! [insert crank theory on the Rapa Nui here]

What’s more, sea levels have fallen since the MWP, which further corroborates the Hard Fact(tm) that the MWP was warmer than today!(*) And as if that’s not enough, it’s a known fact from high school science that increasing temperatures do not cause sea levels to rise – in fact, they cause sea levels to fall! Wheee!

- - -
(*) heard on the Roy Green show


More garbage from the MM team.
And no doubt peer reviewed by his co-authors - Again.

How many times will this man stand up and be embarrassed by this fraud?

Its almost embarrassing to watch.

From the rate at which your uneducated comments have been coming, embarrassment hasn’t seem to be much of an issue for you.

His team didn’t write any emails stating that they “need to get rid of the Medieval warm period.”

It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle. clubpenguin

I don’t see why folks would have to “hang in there”. There’s plenty of time to work on historical temperatures. There’s no urgency. Future temperatures – now there’s something that needs urgent policy discussions. Someone wrote something like this on Deltoid (apologies for not acknowledging the author):
“Scientist: enhanced GHGs are going to increase temperatures and bring trouble”
AGW-denier: no they haven’t”

One quick note: I’m not a fan of PNAS. It does seem a bit like an ol’ boys club. I agree with Gary that it probably would have been better to send it somewhere else, if only for the sake of image.

Well I’m not celebrating victory for the warmers on this topic yet. I’ll wait until I see what Steve says in response.

But I don’t see any reason to be sure that Steve’s response will debunk this one until I actually see it. And then see what Tamino or whoever has to say in response to Steve’s debunking (assuming he does debunk it and doesn’t surprise everybody by giving it a tick of approval). Etc.

I recently posted the following comment:
I think this thread perfectly illustrates my point:

“In the coming year as the cooling continues, I predict we will see more and more outrageous claims as the AGW faithful become more and more desperate to keep the scare alive.
With the actual climate not cooperating with the alarmists virtual climate(GCMs), they will begin to panic and say just about anything.
Watch for it. It will be amusing.”

I had originally thought they would find some new material however.

You and ZOG are fine examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as described on Wikipedia:

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it).[3] They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree:

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

So I guess there is hope.

is “if they can be trained”, and both Gary and Zog, along with the rest of those in denial about AGW, resolutely resist any opportunity to understand the issues. I have come to the conclusion that the best course is to ignore them and just get to work on things that have a more promising outcome. Fern Mackenzie

A further comment on this. The Loehle reconstruction that has been championed on climate audit has a Medieval warm period to little ace age range of about 1.2 degrees. This reconstruction has a range of 0.8 degrees.

I’m not sure the 0.4 degrees is worth arguing about.

Surely its not enough of a difference to accuse the guys on the other side of fraud and incompetence?

GISP2 ice core gives about 1+ K cooling from MWP maximum to LIA minimum. For that region, the ‘optimum’ was 2.89 K warmer than in 1850 CE.

Will Mann actually make his datasets and methods available this time? Or will he use his usual arrogant stance of preventing scrutiny?

If Mann et al. release their raw data and methods, what are you going to do? Admit you were wrong all along?

Nah, you’re just going to ask for another pointless consequence-free “debate”…


No, Mann would not release his raw data. But, through a little digging the data has been unearthed and guess what? Michael Mann et al are still frauds. It seems the tree ring data used to construct the stick was cherry picked. When the complete data is used the graph goes negative on temperature trends in recent times. Yes dummies, the medieval warm period DID EXIST and WAS WARMER than the 20th century and was warmer than today. Now how about that pointless debate flunkie?

The supporting information is here:

Mann publishes another paper and it confirms his own earlier findings?? Why am I not surprised?

One thing we have learned is that “peer reviewed” does not mean “independently verified”. So it is too early to state that this new Mann study is a good one.

But of course Paul S knows that the paper is bad even before reading it.


Everything is open to question. Everything. We can’t even put together a decent temperature record of the last half of the 20th century ( Confidence in the white coats ability to explain ancient climate with great certainty is greatly misplaced. They just like standing on the podium and making great proclamations. You guys need to get yourself a much bigger grain of salt.

Rick: “There’s no consensus that Global Climate Change is real and caused by humans. Scientists don’t agree.”

Well, that will just be your little secret then.

No I don’t worship the white coats, neither do I esteem them as having pristeen motivations as if they were better than the rest of us. All of them are flawed, just like you and me. Money makes a difference to them. Fame makes a difference to them. Peer pressure casts a major weight on them. They are ordinary fallen Joes - they are not Gods.

Further to that - I am certain that I live a “greener” life than probably any of them. I live and work in the same place(a 1 bedroom apartment) I walk to the grocery store and ride my bicycle for basic transportation and between my wife and myself we drive a Corolla fewer than 10,000 km a year and never fly anywhere and almost never even leave town.

I live a greener lifestyle than any of those wackos and it’s not because I’m saving the Earth. I’m just doing it to save money.

Needs people who live as you do, Rick. I salute you for that.

But here’s the thing. If we’re wrong, and the scientists are wrong, what happens under the worst case scenario? The western world spends about 2 to 3 percent of its GDP to create countries supported by clean, renewable energy and electric cars; we have public transportation connecting all our cities and towns; and we have a cleaner environment. The changes may lead to an economic recession for the first few years as we build the infrastructure to support this brave new world, but I’m expecting that will be more than made up for by the $10 trillion* per decade that we now export overseas to pay for oil for North America.

And if you’re wrong, worst case scenario? By 2050, (or 2035, by some accounts) parts of coastal cities like Miami, NY, Halifax, Vancouver, and Seattle disappear. Whole sections of the midwest in Canada and the US endure droughts. Food production across the world drops by 30 percent. Darfur-like conflicts become commonplace. More than 1.5 billion Asians don’t have access to drinking water. Hurricanes level major cities like New Orleans every few years. Oil has peaked, and we’re running out of energy. The number of climate refugees forced to flee their homes tops 100 million. Stronger countries start taking what they need with little regard to boundaries.

We can pay for this now, and we can afford it. We can pay for it in 40 years, and it will bankrupt us, and cost millions of lives, and unbelievable suffering.

This is why so many here get angry with people like you and Gary. It’s not just a simple debate, a few guys talking sports over a beer at a local drinking hole.

This argument is deadly serious.

*That’s off the top of my head; I’ll have to look it up.

Just FYI, Rick and Gary…

A story that I’m writing today for one of my publications suggests that if weather patterns change — as predicted by global warming studies — that $2.5 trillion per year of economic activity in the US alone could be jeopardized.

Another study that I reported on recently suggested that the state of Illinois (one frakking state!) will need to spend $40 billion per year by 2035 to overcome the damage inflicted every year by changing weather patterns.

Reminds me of the old Fram filter ads. You can pay me now… or pay me later.

This topic is a farce and only fit for entertainment.

I basically agree with these points - except for the idea that what we say here makes a difference. I think it’s exactly like talk over a beer. I question this and that and reason on a few things but I think the anger over it is way out of place. What we do here is just talk. It really won’t change things. That’s what I believe.

Rick said: “Does anybody really know what time it is?”

Yes Rick it is obvious that it is time for you and your fellow trolls to go and get educated about how science and scientists work in the real world, not your make believe world of fraud and incompetence.

You continue to show a complete lack of understanding in this area.

Why do you think that you know more about climate science than the vast majority of climate scientists?

Your continuing slander of scientists is getting boring.

Get a life.

Ian Forrester

Where have you been Ian.
You guys slander honest scientists every day.
It is the main purpose of this blog.

Ian, your so smart. Do you have a monopoly on rational thought? Let me get this straight, you actually believe the job of a scientist is to form consensuses? Since when does science, the finding of the rules that bind the natural world, give a darn if we stupid humans form some some consensus to explain something for a while. To illustrate my point just how stupid it is to believe the consensus just because “everybody else” does let’s step back in time to another consensus of scientific minds. Originally electrical force was believed to flow through the wire, this was the consensus of Michael Faraday’s time. Faraday was able to show that the force flows out from the wire by thinking and asking questions.

Now, if Michael Faraday had been a “consensus” scientist where would we be today? You have to have a truly inquisitive mind like Einstein to do great science. Nobody who ever subscribed to “consensus” theories ever became great.

My whole point:
Consensus does not equal truth.

Sometimes we get it right with our consensus thoughts, e.g. speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, but if nobody ever questions the majority, then we never find out which consensuses are incorrect.

I have no idea if the paper is good or not. And unfortunately, the peer-review process is nowhere near thorough enough to tell us if the paper by Mann is good or not either.

you’re funny Ian. You should want to keep me around and even humor me a bit and convince me of your position. That would be much more effective than complaining about my every word.

Option 2 - you could arrange for me and a couple others to get banned here so you can enjoy the preachy music without any fear of fresh thinking. But as long as I’m allowed on, I’ll probably be boring you by bringing into question your high priests of science.

Speech to NZ Parliament; Tuesday, 2 September 2008

I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.

It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.

Aren’t you even a little ashamed of publishing such BS and pretending it is based on real science.

If anything is going to cost money it will be adapting to the cold in the next 20 years.

Gary… you are great human being, and great Canadian (or American).

And you should wait to see what I’m planning… ! It should be ready by week’s end, or early next week, and I’m hoping Desmog will cover it.

You, and people like you, have turned me into an activist!

Another activist to watch crash and burn.
Looking forward to it.

May not be able to comment however.
Seems Desmog is getting really scared now and is blocking non fiction posts.

in British Columbia:

Perhaps you would benefit from looking at some temperature charts showing the last 8000 years.
Look up the Holocene Optimum and the Roman Optimum.
Then just for laughs, look at how the global climate has been cooling slowly since the warmest time 8000 years ago.

Kinda makes AGW theory seem a bit silly really.

Here is just one source of such info. There are many.

Gary - don’t you know that man controls the climate? For example I have a little device on my wall that adjust temperature in my apartment AT MY PLEASURE.

It’s like that with the climate too. The CO2 emissions we put out now control our climate today AND they also reach back into time by secret scientific means and run the climate up and down and all over the place. In fact the changes in the past are often sudden. That’s because of people today carelessly idling their Hummers.

Try to get educated about this stuff Gary

There is another serious problem with this data. Assume it to be true, then one has to explain the following:

Check CO2 levels since 1850

Here is the break down. Half of Mann’s increase in temps, 1850-1945 had CO2 emissions from zero to 1200 million metric tones of carbon per year come from our FF consumption. During 1945-1975 in Mann’s graph the planet cooled a bit. Our CO2 emissions started to skyrocket right then from 1200 to 4700 or 3500. Then the next warm trend from 1975 to 2008 it increased 3600 from 4700 to 8500. Thus since 1945 with half the time the planet was not warming we saw 86% of total increase in CO2 from 1200-8500. The last 10 years saw a 15% increase but the planet has cooled.

So there is no correlation between CO2 and Mann’s temps since 1850 has the first 50% of time, and 75% of the warming, we only emitted 14% of all the carbon to date.

Richard, you have done more to discredit AGW than the 10 years of cooling we have just experienced. Please keep propping up this highly discredited graph, it clearly illustrates the mental disorder the alarmists have. Not only has the formula been completeley debunked, but the tree ring data has now been proven to have been cherry picked. When using the complete tree ring data available, the graph goes negative on recent temperatures. Keep up the great work and the realists will have little to do but cheer!

hockey is a boring sport
there i said it