3 ms·

A layperson named Steve McIntyre did just that, after reading the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report and seeing the prominently featured "Hockey Stick" based on a pap

A layperson named Steve McIntyre did just that, after reading the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report and seeing the prominently featured "Hockey Stick" based on a paper by Mann et al., and wondering, hmm... perhaps this study is reproducible? The rabbit hole that McIntyre and his colleagues have found themselves in over the last 10 years has, in my view, demonstrated the value of hacker-types taking an interest in climate science. See here for a paper detailing the point where McIntyre's descent into the rabbit hole began: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeyst...

hackuser 11y ago
IIRC, despite the criticsim, the 'hockey stick' study and its author were proven right. Lots of criticism doesn't make it wrong, especially in politicized debates.
- triangleman 11y ago
  How do you mean? Did you read the paper I linked to? In what way were Mann et al. "proven" right?
  - janlin1999 11y ago
    If read in isolation, the paper seems pretty convincing that something is amiss. However, it looks like some other scientists have generally confirmed the findings from Mann et al.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Further_reconstructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Furth... I haven't read those other papers.
EdSharkey 11y ago
From your link: "Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockeystick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts." Geez, that's so damning.

hackuser 11y ago

IIRC, despite the criticsim, the 'hockey stick' study and its author were proven right. Lots of criticism doesn't make it wrong, especially in politicized debates.

triangleman 11y ago
How do you mean? Did you read the paper I linked to? In what way were Mann et al. "proven" right?
- janlin1999 11y ago
  If read in isolation, the paper seems pretty convincing that something is amiss. However, it looks like some other scientists have generally confirmed the findings from Mann et al.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Further_reconstructions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Furth... I haven't read those other papers.

EdSharkey 11y ago

From your link: "Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockeystick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts." Geez, that's so damning.