>> I'll bet that's why all studies use more than one tree
FYI, the Gaspé from 1404 through 1421 was based on a SINGLE TREE. Only two trees were in that set from '21 thorugh '47. There is pretty good likelihood that is why the original study omitted those years. Mann comes along, and by using his buggy centering software, was able to control inclusion of the Medieval Warm Period. So, it was awfully convenient for him to use essentially a 47 years period based on one tree for a period, and two trees for the subsequent period -- by any account, statistically meaningless. Yet, it allowed him to control the content of the hockey stick formation because his software, having found any series with a hockey stick formation, was guaranteed to produce a hockey stock.
What is worse is that the so-called peer reviewed journals had this presented to them time and again, concisely, and with convincing proof, and either didn't understand it or didn't care. In some cases (particularly, some of the citations you provided) they simply refused to listen and would publish papers they viewed favorably without a normal peer review process at all.
All the while, Mann hiding out in his office, preventing access to his data and methodology.
I would also point out that Mann used the so-called "RE" verification statistic, knowing full well he had an R^2 approaching zero, reflecting no meaningful correlation at all. Yet he moved forward, and he hid it. And the journals backed him. Even when his associate, Ammann, refused to release his R^2, it was eventually shown to be near zero.
I'm telling you, there are a lot of problems with the statistics on this stuff, and these guys are going after outcomes and making it happen.
I'm a skeptic, not a denier. But this nonsense, over time, makes me more doubtful. If they can't prove it without this making shit up -- and they haven't so far -- then you have to question whether it exists at all. |
