[Sgt_Schultze]

This describes the classic tool of using misleading, cherry-picked piece of information to argue against climate change — a tool used in bad data analysis, bad policy, and bad science.

Wasn't this guys hockey stick graph predicated on cherry-picking only a couple of specific trees in a specific location?

[wiggen]

Yes. Typical lib strategy. Accuse others of what you do.

[drbuzzard]

>Wasn’t this guys hockey stick graph predicated on cherry-picking only a couple of specific trees in a specific location?

Actually it was worse than that. There were two parts to the nature of his deception:
A) He cherry picked data later on to “hide the decline”. Well actually that’s being charitable. What he actually did with tree ring data is that he used tree ring data as long as it supported his thesis, but when it came to a modern era when he could use weather station data that showed warming while the tree rings didn’t indicate it, he chucked the tree ring data. So thus he proffers graphs which feature disparate sets of data and claims they are valid. This is scientific garbage.
B) The hockey stick graph was utter and complete garbage. Steve McIntyre(a Canadian statistician) saw it and found some dubious aspects on first glance. When he looked into it in depth by going to the original papers, he determined it was complete and utter hogwash. The methods used would have put out the same kind of curve no matter what data was fed into it, even completely random data. Mann is a complete and utter fraud.