Two decades of the 'hockey stick' graph; Where are we today?

American Thinker ^ | 01/24/2019 | S. Fred Singer

[SeekAndFind]

The "hockey stick" graph refers to the results of Dr. Michael Mann (see "NIPCC vs. IPCC," Fig. 20, pg. 22).  In 1998, he presented a summary of his analysis of "proxy" data of the past 1,000 years, mostly tree-ring temperatures.  He showed a steady decline of temperature of the Northern hemisphere, without the "cooling" of the Little Ice Age (LIA), followed by a sharp temperature rise (the "blade" of the hockey-stick) in the 20th century.  The implication of his graph is obvious, but it is wrong in claiming that the copious emission of CO2 in the 20th century produced record warming in the decades before 1942.  Of course, the emission of CO2 grew after 1945, at the end of WWII, but the climate seemed to cool until about 1975.  (Apparently, the climate did not respond to CO2, as expected from greenhouse theory.)

However, Mann halted the use of his proxy data at the end of the 1970s decade and cleverly added the instrumental data for the period 1978-1998 from surface thermometers, which showed a sharp rise seen by surface thermometers that proved to be a complete illusion (some went so far as to use the word "fake").  He managed to suppress his own contemporaneous proxy data for that interval and has never revealed them.  To do so would have removed the sharp rise ("the blade") and ruined his "hockey stick" graph.

In other words, the "hockey stick" is a fictitious construct that has been called "Mike's nature trick" by some and has been "whitewashed" by the usual panels that were unaware of the background and implications.

The IPCC-Assessment Report-3 (2001) featured the "hockey stick" as the consequence as proof of human activity in the 20th century. Mann has since received many honors and lucrative government grants.       

[z3n]

Anyone with a minimal background in statistics and research would look at this stuff and dismiss it out of hand. The methodology is beyond embarrassing, it’s out and out fraud.

~~~

With climate change, other than the obscure research articles published scientific journals, anything you read is not real research or statistics. It’s all written for effect.

The climate has never been static. Ever. There are micro-cycles and macro-cycles, a millions of vectors of influence, most of which influence each other to varying degrees as well the ‘climate’ as a whole, and you could get buried infinitely in the minutia of all the feedback loops, counteracting phenomena, and ecological complexities.

What doesn’t change is, no matter what short term measurable phenomenon you can cite, it will always be attributed subjectively as a negative symptom of ‘climate change’.

[FLT-bird]

Hide the Decline.

[Intolerant in NJ]

The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon and Climate Change: The Facts edited by Alan Moran (including sections by the likes of Richard Lindzen and James Delingpole)are a couple of other books providing solid evidence debunking the man made global warming fantasy.......