By John A
A shout-out for a review of Andrew Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Matt Ridley in Prospect Magazine.
Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion is one of the best science books in years. It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame. It is a book about principal components, data mining and confidence intervals—subjects that have never before been made thrilling. It is the biography of a graph.
I can remember when I first paid attention to the “hockey stick” graph at a conference in Cambridge. The temperature line trundled along with little change for centuries, then shot through the roof in the 20th century, like the blade of an ice-hockey stick. I had become somewhat of a sceptic about the science of climate change, but here was emphatic proof that the world was much warmer today; and warming much faster than at any time in a thousand years. I resolved to shed my doubts. I assumed that since it had been published in Nature—the Canterbury Cathedral of scientific literature—it was true.
I was not the only one who was impressed. The graph appeared six times in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s third report in 2001. It was on display as a backdrop at the press conference to launch that report. James Lovelock pinned it to his wall. Al Gore used it in his film (though describing it as something else and with the Y axis upside down). Its author shot to scientific stardom. “It is hard to overestimate how influential this study has been,” said the BBC. The hockey stick is to global warming what St Paul was to Christianity.
The rest of the review is here.
Most tasty quote (my emphasis):
Well, it happens. People make mistakes in science. Corrections get made. That’s how it works, is it not? Few papers get such scrutiny as this had. But that is an even more worrying thought: how much dodgy science is being published without the benefit of an audit by Mcintyre’s ilk? As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial.
Great book, got five start from me on Amazon
michaelozanne (04:26:52) :
The answer is “Yes.” Glaciers have receded in East Greenland and revealed brush and scrub dating from the MWP, where not so much as twig grows today. In Europe glaciers have receded revealing Roman Roads to mines, and over passes, with much of the road still under ice, (as are the actual mines.)
Studies showed this sort of evidence before Mann fabricated his hockey stick.
Studies showed this sort of evidence as Mann fabricated his hockey stick and published it.
Studies have shown this sort of evidence after Mann’s fabricated hockey stick came under scrutiny and was debunked.
What is particularly infuriating is the fact so much good science by worthy scientists has been smeared, ignored, and vetoed by what amounts to a public relations gimmick by people who do not deserve to be called scientists.
kim (22:14:07) :
Seriously deluded Wren. No one thinks Mann got it right. You’ve badly misinterpreted Wegman. Now, go see Ian Jolliffe, the world’s expert at decentered PCA demolish Tamino’s last defense of Mann.
I know you still believe in the Hockey Stick. You do so as a matter of faith, though. Son, you’ve been lied to.
=========
I’ll repeat the question I asked earlier.
Are McIntyre or Wegman saying they can prove the hockey stick is wrong?
Wren,
They do not need to prove the hockey stick is wrong. They have already done so.
Wake up!
Wren (10:58:25):
They already have. Mann’s Hokey Stick is completely bogus, and it was debunked by McIntyre, McKitrick and Wegman et. al, despite Mann’s stonewalling requests for his data and methods.
Mann’s Hokey Stick eliminates the both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. There is copious evidence for both, and by erasing them to fit his agenda Mann shows a serious lack of scientific integrity.
You ask: “Are McIntyre or Wegman saying they can prove the hockey stick is wrong?”
What is wrong is your continued refusal to understand or accept the scientific method. Mann has the obligation to cooperate with requests for the data and methodologies he used to construct his Hokey Stick.
But he refuses to cooperate, and the reason is clear to those of us who have been following this issue for many years: if Mann opened the books on his methods, his Hokey Stick chart would be falsified by everyone, not just by the diligence of Steve McIntyre and the others, who showed that a hockey stick shape emerges from Mann’s methods even when red noise – or baseball scores – are the input.
You can go ahead and defend Mann all you want, but you might as well be defending a Scientologist preaching astrology.
“Wren (20:20:31) :
[…]
[DirkH] That’s why the choice of the method is important and needs to be done with a lot of care. Usually a researcher will want to avoid a false positive.
====
Sure, but if I am so intent on nit-picking I miss the forrest for the trees, that ain’t good. ”
Avoiding a false positive is nit picking for you? That’s a funny statement. Maybe that little horicontal line in front of some numbers like “-1″ is also a nit for you, or the little dot in 3.14 just a speck of dirt? I give up Wren, it’s no use trying to talk to you. I hope you never have to use numbers for anything in your life.
======
According to Wallace’s talk reported in the previously cited American Statistical Association newsletter, given the methodology limitations of the temperature reconstructions “the validity of the hockey-stick curve cannot be determined either positively or negatively by statistical evidence alone.”
====
But I suspect your reference to “false positive” means you think otherwise. Would you care to elaborate?
Smokey (11:31:43) :
Wren (10:58:25):
I’ll repeat the question I asked earlier.
Are McIntyre or Wegman saying they can prove the hockey stick is wrong?
They already have. Mann’s Hokey Stick is completely bogus, and it was debunked by McIntyre, McKitrick and Wegman et. al, despite Mann’s stonewalling requests for his data and methods…
====
If you believe Wegman says Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong, quote him saying it.
If you believe McIntyre says Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong, qoute him saying it.
Wegman’s report is available online at
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
It doesn’t say Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong.
Ordered my copy.
Some posters are mistaken about the findings regarding Mann’s Hockey Stick presented in reports by Wegman and the National Research Council. Misunderstandings can be cleared up by reading the two reports, available online at
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdfI
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=3
The Wegman report does not say evidence shows Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong. What it does say is this:
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
So the Wegman report says small parts of the Hockey Stick are not supported by Mann’s analysis. Over the length of the millennium (1,000 years) the analysis does not support the claim that 1998 was the hottest year or the 1990’s was the hottest decade. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.
The National Research Council agreed with Wegman on those two points but but found additional evidence supports Mann’s basic conclusion that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years.
“The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years.”
Has anyone used arctic ice coverage (area) as a proxy for Temperature. If so, they maybe have discovered that the great ice melt-off of 2010 has already started: well it is the signal to go on Daylight Savings Time; and we did that Sunday Morning.
So now we have about six months to see if the bottom falls out of the Arctic sea ice coverage.
Well here’s to all who enjoy this annual catastrophe as it happens right before our eyes courtesy of Anthony’s little gizmo over ther on the right.
Wren @ur momisugly 13:33:44
You’ve got shut-eyed denial, Wren. We took your two points apart last night. Maybe you were asleep.
=============
RE: George E. Smith (13:55:41) : “Has anyone used arctic ice coverage (area) as a proxy for Temperature. If so, they maybe have discovered that the great ice melt-off of 2010 has already started…”
It looks like, after a period of lagging, the arctic ice extent has recovered to about the third highest amount since 2003 and now has started to melt as usual for this time of year.
Where are the arrests? Jones, Schneider, Trenberth, Mann, Smith, Hansen, Gore… They should all be in jail.
“Wren (12:12:37) :
Wegman’s report is available online at http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/07142006_wegman_report.pdf
It doesn’t say Mann’s Hockey Stick is wrong.
Can we at least agree that if vegetable matter of the right type and
age is found in newly de-glaciated/uncovered earth that doesn’t currently support plant growth then that would disprove the hockey stick hypothesis (Planet Earth hasn’t been as warm as it is now for at least 1000 years)?. Rendering moot the discussion about the mathematical methods used and how well the arithmetic had been done.
Also this reference :
Mann, M.E., Woodruff, J.D., Donnelly, J.P. and Zhang, Z. 2009. Atlantic hurricanes and climate over the past 1,500 years. Nature 460: 880-883.
Has been interpreted by some as essentially disproving the Hockey Stick hypothesis (Allegedlly indicates temperatures in the period 900 – 1300 were substantially higher than now according to some interpretations) Any comment..
“In the midst of confusion there is opportunity.”
AND
“In the midst of great confusion there is great opportunity.”
ERGO
“In the midst of total chaos there is everything you could ever want.”
BUT
“These statements are most true when you are the one pulling the strings.”