Seriously.
The hockey stick diagram did not purport to show that climate changes.
Nobody I am aware of has ever even asserted that climate has remained stagnant for any length of time.
The hockey stick diagram purported to demonstrate that increases in human created carbon dioxide emissions (as opposed to natural emmissions from things like forrest fires or volcanic erruptions) correlate to upward movement in average temperature. The notion that human burning of fossil fuels and wood, or great herds of ruminating livestock exert a causal force on weather trends.
Nothing less.
Now that you have been properly corrected in your understanding of what the hockey stick was presented as, do you still wish to insist that it was not a bunch of hokey horse hockey?
I was well aware that the “hockey stick” refers to the idea of anthropogentic global warming causing a recent uptic in temperatures which showed up on the graphs as a hockey stick shape. I didn’t think I needed to define it for all the knowledgeable people here. On the other hand there have been some interesting possible anthropogenic effects. For a number of years the particulate air pollution in Europe was drifting down over Africa and was ultimately deemed to be the cause of the major “Sahel” droughts. After Europe cleaned up their chimney stacks, the problem seems to have abated. There was also an interesting effect noted when air traffic was stopped for 3 days after 9/11. A change was noted in evaporation rates in pans used by agricultural scientists. I forget what the implications were, but the affect of missing air traffice pollution was noticed with some surprise.
However, we do not live in such a universe. We live in a universe where the effect that an increase in man-made CO2 emission can be shown, through rigorous experiment, to have on climate, temperature, or any such thing, is roughly equivalent to the effect a tarot throw has on Michael Mann getting run over by a bus tomorrow.