Is the Mann Hockey Stick the biggest hoax in the history of science?

Question

Is the Mann Hockey Stick the biggest hoax in the history of science?

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

No.  The National Academy of Sciences said it was basically correct, although overly "smoothed", and the Medieval Warm Priod is not shown.  Because the MWP was such a small change.

Since then, it's been duplicated many times, with better statistical methods.  These show the MWP, and that it bears no resemblance to what's going on now.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Scientists accept it as real.  It's only ignorant "skeptics" who continue to deny it.

Answer 3

Yes.  One has to wonder if they are willing to pervert science in this area, what other areas in climate science are they perverting. I know it is a perversion.  I do not need to know science when history shows the existence of the medieval warm period and little ice age.  But Mann made these periods of history into non events.

If you want more info as to why they had to "get rid of" the Medieval Warm Period you can read this link by Ross McKitrick, the man who exposed Mann.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files...

Answer 4

when was it disproven? as far as i know most temperature reconstructions fall within its conference intervals.

Answer 5

Yes, we should trust McKitrick, the economist.  

The hockey stick has withstood scrutiny.  Get over it.

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 6

Maybe not the biggest, but Mann’s fabled “Hokey Stick” (misspelling intentional) has been discredited to the point that it was all but left out of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report (2007).  One of the problems with it was a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick.  When meaningless random test data (that had on average no trends) was fed into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!  In other words, current modeling algorithms are going to produce the dramatic fear-inducing hockey stick shape no matter what.  Unfortunately most current modelers follow Mann's methodology, leaving us with results that cannot really be trusted to predict anything.  Too many uncertainties; too many faulty assumptions.  Garbage in = garbage out.

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey...

In Mann’s chart all temperature reconstructions from before 1880 are necessarily from proxies (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) whereas after that point the records are from instrument measurement. Obviously most of these post-1880 readings are from ground-based thermometers, since the more accurate satellite readings were not available until 1960. But ground-based readings are notoriously unreliable due to urban heat island effects; a paucity of reporting stations; and the poor placement, condition, and maintenance of the Stevenson screens (thermometers). The combining of these two different types of data as though they were one, then smoothing it all together leads to questionable results.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/cat...

One of the other problems of Mann’s chart is that the proxy data of the 20th century plots a curve divergent from the instrument temperatures (instrument data climbs sharply at the divergence point). This is even more apparent when you look closely at the IPCC “spaghetti graph” (the one with all the colors representing different reconstructions)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_...

The divergence problem is significant, and Briffa (lead author) in IPCC AR4 (2007) truncates the proxy data in what might be considered an effort to mask this divergence. But the divergence problem remains ... This, combined with the severely downplayed MWP calls into question the validity of the results Mann achieved.  

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2532