Image of the day

Captured by
Philip Imbrogno

Jupiter

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Hockey Stick History

Started by hughbartlett, 06/09/2009 05:15AM
Posted 06/09/2009 05:15AM Opening Post
I ran across this fascinating history of the Hockey Stick graph, put together by a British blogger, and wanted to share it with those who are trying to figure out which side is discredited.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

"Praise the Lord for the expanding grandeur of creation, worlds known and unknown, galaxies beyond galaxies, filling us with awe and challenging our imaginations." 2007 Reform Siddur
Posted 06/09/2009 06:11AM #1
Fascinating read. It is incredible that this academic fraud goes on and no one looses their jobs. If these alarmist guys are right, why do they need to lie to us?

"a swamp of misrepresentation, deceit and malfeasance..."

"--Granted, that's a worse case scenario. The destruction might in fact be ... limited to our own galaxy."
Posted 06/09/2009 02:29PM #2
That article is is a one-sided telling of the story from McIntyre's (climateaudit.org) perspective.

Here's a post from the other sides perspective
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

There's much in that the Bishop Hill article leaves out. If you are really interested in paleo reconstructions and the hockey stick flap, here's a good read:
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

That's the report put together by the National Research Council at the request of Congress following a Congressional investigation into the matter.

Here's an interesting reaction to the report from none other than a skeptic favorite Roger Pielke Jr.

"My reading of the summary of the report and parts of the text is that the NAS has rendered a near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al."

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000859quick_reaction_to_th.html

I saw nowhere in the Bishop Hill article that even mentions this. To me that's a strong indication that it's not giving you a very complete presentation controversy