Wood Romances

By 2007, the MBH98/99 papers had been thoroughly investigated. The MBH hockey stick was found to be robust to statistical method and it was replicated by multiple other reconstructions (above, and discussed  here , here and here ). After the CRU emails were hacked and published, a new set of conspiracy theories were popularized on blogs and YouTube - these were based on a misreading of various emails (discussed  here and here ), but contrarian rhetoric was ramping up to a frenzy. Mann was frequently labeled a criminal and fraud, the hockey stick was called a scam or a hoax.  The Mann v Ball Libel Suit In an interview with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy  (FCPP), Tim Ball was asked, "Various government and academic agencies have whitewashed the Climategate scandal so far. Do you think anyone will be prosecuted for fraud?” Tim Ball's response was, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” This was posted on the FCPP website and a...

Hockey Sticks Featured in the North Report In two previous posts ( here and here ), I described the challenges by McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) to the initial two hockey stick papers published by Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH98 and MBH99). In these posts I summarized M&M's multiple critiques of the MBH hockey stick papers, essentially that the "hockey stick" is an artifact of flaws in the MBH statistical method and an over reliance on one set of North American tree ring proxies. However, multiple peer-reviewed papers following M&M's criticism generally found that M&M's criticisms lacked merit and vindicated the MBH hockey stick reconstruction. To summarize: 1. Biases associated with MBH's statistical method were small and contributed very little to the shape of the MBH hockey stick reconstruction. Biases associated with M&M's statistical method went in the opposite direction, and M&M exaggerated the effect of statistical bias on the...

Just recently I saw a video by John Robson from what he calls a "Climate Discussion Nexus." I've seen several of his videos before, and for the most part they simply put a nice-looking polish on old, debunked contrarian talking points so that you can see them with a higher production value than what you might see in a Tony Heller video. I've largely ignored most of these; John Robson is a historian, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't understand the evidence he's trying to refute. But in this particular video Robson's credentials as a historian could have served him well, if he had chosen to use his expertise to uncover the facts involved. The "Hockey Stick" as it Appeared in IPCC TAR In this video , John Robson attempts to describe the dissention between Michael Mann and his colleagues as they were preparing chapter 2 of the IPCC TAR. This chapter included the "hockey stick" graph with data from MBH99, Briffa 2000, Jones 1998, a...