Michael Mann: ‘Hockey stick most certainly has not been disproved’

Neither have unicorns.

Mann writes in the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Lord Monckton goes after the “hockey stick” work published more than a decade ago showing that recent warming is unusual over at least the past 1,000 years. Despite Monckton’s rambling attack, the hockey stick most certainly has not been disproved. The highest scientific body in the nation, the National Academy of Sciences, affirmed our research findings in an exhaustive independent review published in June 2006. Dozens of independent groups of scientists have independently reproduced and confirmed our findings, and more recent work by other groups summarized in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report shows that recent warmth is unusual over an even longer timeframe. There are in fact numerous independent lines of evidence that humans are warming the planet and changing our climate by burning coal and other fossil fuels. And despite Monckton’s and Battig’s claims that global warming stopped 16 years ago, in fact NASA found the warming continues unabated with the past decade the warmest on record.

Read more…

10 thoughts on “Michael Mann: ‘Hockey stick most certainly has not been disproved’”

  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is now staggering around trying to explain why what your statistically challenged chart said should happen did not.

  2. There are in fact numerous independent lines of evidence that humans are warming the planet and changing our climate by burning coal and other fossil fuels.

    “AND changing our climate”? “AND”?

    The hockey stick was meant to show only one thing: GLOBAL WARMING – not climate change.

    It was GLOBAL WARMING that was said to be “settled science”.

    Weather always changes, so climate – which is a historical TREND of WEATHER – will always change.

    Climate is a function of weather, so it’s not even enough to look at so-called “global climate”; You’d have to somehow conclude that all weather in every region is warmer due to man’s actions IN THAT REGION (weather being a regional phenomenon).

    By the way, the fact that climate is a function of weather also means that climate can’t affect weather. Weather can affect weather. Climate is a collection of weather data over time. Climate isn’t a phenomenon, it’s a reading of weather data.

  3. Is it possible that Dr. Mann really believes what he is saying? Mann instituted two SLAPP lawsuits in the last few years, one against Dr. Tim Ball and one against Mark Steyn regarding the validity of his work. This commentary clearly shows how important it is for those suits to go forward. When he is forced to show his “dirty laundry” (his words) perhaps we will see an end to what seems to be strange behavior. There is one more thing I find interesting. Perhaps I missed it, but it seems to me that his e-mail cohorts haven’t been in the forefront in coming to his rescue.

  4. They laughed at Einstein and they laughed at Bozo. What’s the point about unicorns? I can’t disprove his whole chart but it does have a few major flaws.

    Mann’s “hide the decline” trick is proof positive that tree ring data are not good proxies for temperature. Otherwise, he would have used the tree ring data for the whole chart. The fact that his chart doesn’t show the Medieval Optimum or the Little Ice age shows that he doesn’t gauge past temperatures well.

  5. Steven McIntyre and McKittrick (first name eludes me but well-known to our host) demonstrated that the algorithm for Mann’s graph would produce a hockey stick from random data, according to articles here and at WUWT.
    If the hockey stick is correct — and there’s lots of reason for doubt — it is Mann’s job to validate it. The one who makes the statement has to support it. McIntyre and McKittrick did so, showing their work clearly. Mann has never validated his hockey-stick claims, nor fully validated his general tree-ring research.
    Mann and Penn State? The UEA? EPA? Their “science” occurs in closed rooms. That’s close to the definition of fraud in science.

  6. Secrecy is not compatible with science. If you are not willing to show me how you came to your conclusions, don’t expect me to believe you.

  7. The hockey stick has most certainly been disproved. Marcott et. al. attempted to resurrect it and lend further evidence to it but were busted only several days out from publication. They later admitted it was a statistical artifact that was not robust. Met Office retracted their support of it almost a year later. The IPCC has abandoned the hockey stick. Numerous dendrochronologists have raised issues with late dating and tree age which amplify temperature signals. At what point do we reasonably conclude that the greater body of evidence does not support the treemometer hockey stick?

Comments are closed.