| | | ding dong, ding dong. a graph with some explanation is not data in science. It is data when the data, the crap it is built on and the process or equations are also accessable. in your posts not even the links to the supposed infor you presented are accessable.
And the Mann crap has been totally discredited. You are simply too dishonest or stupid to admit or figure that out for yourself.
Are you too stupid to explain what you believe is conveyed by not your data. You presented it. If you provide no further explanations then you also own it. Or you are just spaming the thread.
gee published in a peer reviewed place.... oh my. and the links work. heavens.....
M&M 2003: THE PAPER THAT STARTED IT ALL
CORRECTIONS T
O THE MANN
et. al.
(1998)
PROXY DA
T
A BASE AND NOR
THERN HEMISPHERIC
A
VERAGE TEMPERA
TURE SERIES
Stephen McIntyr
e
512-120 Adelaide St. W
est, T
or
onto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;
Ross McKitrick
Depar
tment of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1.
ABSTRACT
The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,
“MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains
collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,
geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other
quality control defects. W
e detail these errors and defects. W
e then apply MBH98
methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index
for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding
is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century
. The
particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a
temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th
century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor
data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.
OTHER
MARCOTT PAPER OP-ED:
I published an op-ed in the Financial Post on April 13 2013 reviewing the unraveling of the Marcott "Hockey Stick" graph.
WHAT IS THE HOCKEY STICK DEBATE ABOUT?
This essay carries the story up to early 2005 when our papers in GRL and E&E had just come out. That was the end of the technical issues, but the process carried on in the form of the expert panel of the US National Academy of Sciences, and the Wegman Committee reports. - McKitrick, Ross R. (2005) What is the Hockey Stick Debate About? Presentation to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Study Centre Meeting on "Managing Climate Change - Practicalities and Realities in a post-Kyoto Future", Parliament House, Canberra Australia, April 4, 2005 (by videolink).
NAS / WEGMAN Op-Eds: In 2006 Steve and I were asked to meet the National Academy of Science panel and make a presentation, whereas the Wegman Committee conducted its work without our input. We also sent a follow-up letter to the NAS Panel after the meetings to deal with some of the unresolved issues during the hearings. I summarized the final outcomes in these op-eds:
A well-received essay explaining the early history of the episode, and its implications, is
In winter 2005 we went to DC and spoke at the National Press Club about our work.
YAMAL DATA and the other hockey sticks: I published a column in the National Post on Friday October 2 2009, discussing Steve McIntyre's unraveling of the Yamal paleoclimate data and why it is important. This is of particular historical importance because it was part of the lead-up to Climategate.
CLIMATEGATE TV Special: In August 2010 Fox News did a special on Climategate, which can be viewed here. I appear in the segment beginning at the 20:57 mark. |
|
