So was the "HockeyStick" graph debunked?

[Nederland]

I was having a debate with a Conservative coworker when I brought up the issue of how global temperatures show a marked increase in the last few decades of the previous 2000 years. "You mean that absurd hockeystick graph that was turned out to be a hoax?", he replied. I felt a little sheepish as he forwarded a series of links about how the original researchers fucked up their statistics, perhaps delibrately. He gave me a bunch of links, but here is one of the more reasonable ones:

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

So what's the real deal? Is the HockeyStick graph depiction of global temperatures really dead now?

[jpak]

1. If your friend is convinced that "Global Warming is a Fraud" no amount of info will help

that said...here's your answer...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

[Hand]

2. Here's a good starting point for confirmation of the hockeystick graph.

It's on the Univeraity Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which you can take to the bank:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml

[Nederland]

4. Was this published in a peer reviewed journal yet?

The article says it was submitted for review in May 10 of 2005. A peer reviewed article would be a lock, IMHO.

[Hand]

6. Not sure, but you could ask him.

The author's e-mail is [e-mail] :hi:

[SteppingRazor]

3. Once again, evidence supplied by oil companies.

I would like to see just one scientist not funded by energy companies come out against the existence of global warming. Sheesh.

Climatechangeissues.com was founded by Alan Oxley: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-about-us.php

Alan Oxley is a shill for ExxonMobil. His work is funded by them: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alan_Oxley

On edit: So, between this and the above two posts, you've got all the info you need to both defend the "hockeystick graph" and also shoot down his ludicrous source. Good luck! (also worth noting: kind of telling about my personality that everyone else looked to refute evidence while I looked to destroy the person behind their evidence. Hmmmmm... I don't know that I like what that says about me ;) )

[endarkenment]

5. Uh no it is not dead.

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Read the whole thing and draw your own conclusions about what is going on here. My conclusion is that, as usual, a politically motivated and essentially dishonest attack was made on Mann's paper (the hockey stick) and then in the typical circle-jerk your 'conservative coworker' sent you to, numerous rightwing funded websites quote each other to build credibility out of bullshit.

The wiki article, in my summary, clearly shows that there is no valid peer reviewed evidence that refutes the general conclusion.

"More recently, the National Academy of Sciences considered the matter. On June 22, 2006, the academy released a pre-publication version of its report Report-Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, supporting Mann's more general assertion regarding the last decades of the Twentieth Century, but showing less confidence in his assertions regarding individual decades or years, due to the greater uncertainty at that level of precision.<32>

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes ...
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."<33>"

[Odin2005]

7. IIRC there are legitimate issues with the hockey stick graph.

Many climatologists (real ones, not the oil hacks) think that the hockey stick graph underestimates the severity of the Little Ice Age.



This chart from Wiki has several different models in comparison, I think the light green line is the "hockey stick"

[CGowen]

8. I don't know

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba478/

[hatrack]

10. Oh, the National Center for Policy Analysis - super!

Why don't you just link to Drudge, Rush, Cato and Michael Savage while you're here? You can save us all some time.

By the way, the NPCA submitted this effusion to peer review . . . when?

:silly:

[greenman3610]

9. now the studies have been repeated

and there is a whole "hockey team".

National Academy of Sciences gave it a passing grade.
finito.

deniers are like the Japanese soldiers hiding in
caves 20 years after the war ended. They
have been left behind. We now hold the
high ground.
Witness the number of giant corporations and
bellweather states moving forward on climate action.

Your friend is a right wing boob. Tell him that those corporations
and countries that continue to further perfect 19th century
technologies will be the losers in the 21st century.
Our tech/economic elite now "get it".