Really ?......... the BBC eh
The hockey stick fiasco was unmasked by a basic scientific test known as reproducible results. Other scientists use the same data and procedures to try and reproduce the original findings. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (M&M) attempted, but failed to reproduce the MBH98 findings. A debate ensued with claims M&M were wrong or not qualified climate experts. They replied that Mann had refused to disclose all the codes he used to achieve the results, but even without them the major problem was a misuse of data and statistical techniques. In effect the hockey stick was meaningless.
The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) appointed a committee chaired by Professor Wegman to investigate and arbitrate. His committee report found in favor of M&M as follows;
It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication. Because of the lack of full documentation of their data and computer code, we have not been able to reproduce their research. We did, however, successfully recapture similar results to those of M&M. This recreation supports the critique of the MBH98 methods, as the offset of the mean value creates an artificially large deviation from the desired mean value of zero.
Mann continues to refuse disclosure of all his codes. He and his acolytes are still fighting a rearguard action claiming the work is valid.
CFP: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
Still no sign of the Medieval Warming Period then ..... ho hum Why doesnt the Hockey Sticks author let us see the methodologies of how he arrived at his conclusions if there is such confidence in them ? Why so secret ?
The subject of global warming certainly seems to keep the BBC TV news people interested, and it keeps bureaucrats busy, but all the doomsday reports I have seen are full of half-truths and one-dimensional statistics. The most recent UN report talks about carbon dioxide levels reaching twice the "pre-industrial levels" a century from now, with the mean sea level up another foot or so. This ignores the Earth's ability to self-regulate CO2 levels in the long run, the ability of modern engineering to accommodate very gradually rising sea levels, and the apparent fact that we would have to go back to "pre-industrial" civilization to fix the problem.
In the room where you are sitting right now, the temperature difference between the floor and the ceiling is about one degree. That's the kind of imperceptible change we're talking about — over the next century!
Personally, I don't see the problem if the global temperature goes up one degree over the next century, or if carbon dioxide levels are slightly higher. Both of these conditions would make it easier to grow crops and forests and statistically should actually increase green areas. And the people who live and work within one foot of sea level are already at risk, and they are aware of it.
Global climate control is simply an excuse for more government spending, more government studies, more government regulation of industry, and more government restrictions on individual liberty. The solutions are far worse than the problem, and no number of jolly old hockey sticks can prove otherwise frankly
There will be at least as many positive benefits from a slight temperature increase as there will be negative ones but nobody and most certainly not the BBC will EVER let that little snippet past thier green censors, hence its lucrative panic mongering continues
Climate 'hockey stick' is revived
.
Linear Mode
