This thread was unavailable yesterday, therefore, here is my answer to your post.

Believe me, I have been called worse things in the past, however what you are doing is nothing more than using a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem argument.

When I said that the “Hockey Stick” is almost the cornerstone of the IPCC TAR, it is because the Summary for Policymakers is what most people in the press, and government would read. The TAR itself is quite large and it is highly unlikely that busy reporters or elected officials would get very far beyond the Summary for Policymakers. I do not think that the title of this dosument can be any clearer.

There are two graphs on this document: Jones’ instrument data, and the hockey stick from MBH98. In the text of the summary it says:

It is also likely7 that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year (Figure 1b).

This comes right out of MBH98. Figure 1b is the hockey stick.

MBH99 states in the conclusions:

…the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year in at least a millennium.

On page 3 of the summary, under the topic There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities, the hockey stick is referenced again:

Reconstructions of climate data for the past 1,000 years (Figure 1b) also indicate that this warming was unusual and is unlikely7 to be entirely natural in origin.

If any policymakers would go beyond their summary, they might read the Technical Summary, the Scientific Basis. On page 1 of the Technical Summary under the topic of Surface temperatures during the pre-instrumental period from the proxy record we see the hockey stick once again labeled as Figure 5. The second sentence of this section states:

The 1990s are likely to have been the warmest decade of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, and 1998 is likely to have been the warmest year.

In the body of the TAR, the hockey stick is labeled Figure 2.20. Figure 2.21 on the same page is is a spaghetti graph with the hockey stick and other reconstructions. From 2.3.2.2 Multi-proxy synthesis of recent temperature change

Mann et al. (1999) concluded that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium for at least the Northern Hemisphere.

The next page of the TAR is 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”? The conclusions of this page as posited by the section title can be found in paragraph 5:

As with the “Little Ice Age”, the posited “Medieval Warm Period” appears to have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the conventionally-defined European epoch.

This conveniently supports the temperature reconstructions in MBH98 and MBH99.

Although I could continue, I think that this post goes a long way toward making my point that the hockey stick is essentially the cornerstone of the TAR, at least in the area of pre-instrumental temperatures. Without MBH98 and MBH99, what would the temperature history in the TAR have been based upon? Phil Jones’ instrument record? Two centuries would hardly have been as persuasive as the ten century graph and quotes from MBH98 and MBH99.

I’m one of very few “CA contrarians” who manages to last any time here, under the constant stream of invective and abuse. But having to continually deal with that abuse is destructive to open dialog, even if it does do a good job of internally reinforcing the community of believers here.

You certainly spend a good deal of space painting yourself as the victim here and at times it seems to interfere with productive dialogue. I think that attitude is what makes your appearances at this blog somewhat suspect to some of the other posters here. If one were truly interested in engaging in a strict discussion of facts and theories here, I doubt that your concluding remark above of “..internally reinforcing the community of believers here” would be considered necessary. That tends to make me believe that you are here more to give your opinion/judgment of the people posting here than sticking to ideas. I have had internet experience as a contrarian poster and discussing issues with contrarian posters without getting all tied up in personalities — so I know it can be done if that is one’s primary purpose.

under the constant stream of invective and abuse.

Hehe, the irony of this statement is amusing.

Mark

“Why in the hell are you agreeing to discuss this here, where there are multiple crossing threads and piecemeal evolving attacks from multiple people, with little or no organization, and additionally confused by additional absurd comments from onlookers with no expertise?”

What’s your expertise? I suspect there are many of us here who are far more expert in certain aspects of climatology than you are. On this blog unlike RC, we respect and acknowledge peoples lack of expertise and encourage them to contribute. Referring to some of us as ‘onlookers with no expertise’ that make ‘absurd comments’ is an insult. Some of us here are more expert in certain technical areas than the claimed experts. For example, Martyn has declined twice at least now my offer to discuss quantum mechanics and its relevance to the physics of the GHG effect. He has admitted himself that he has never discussed this topic with his particle physics colleagues at RAL who are clearly more expert in this area than he is. IMO Steve M is far more of an expert in proxy temperature reconstructions than Martyn is. This comes as no surprise to me because Martyn is in fact an atmospheric scientist and not paleoclimatologist who for whom reseaon, which so far he will not explain, has carried out a paleoclimatology study in support of the Euro HT.

KevinUK

Why in the hell are you agreeing to discuss this here, where there are multiple crossing threads and piecemeal evolving attacks from multiple people, with little or no organization, and additionally confused by additional absurd comments from onlookers with no expertise?

I think perhaps what you are seeing is those regular posters (and Steve M) who know the details of the methodologies of these reconstructions and their associated histories sufficiently well to ask questions of Dr. Juckes and follow-up questions without having to painstakingly go back for time consuming searches of literature references as apparently Dr. Juckes does or at least prefers to do. This leads to frustration and impatience on all parties and boys being boys and blogs being blogs leads to some peripheral squabbling that I find well worth the effort sorting through for the more substantial parts of the discussion.

I know in the past that you have been super sensitive to this blogs demeanor, while participating not exactly like a shrinking violet yourself, but would you agree that we can learn from these exchanges and perhaps in ways not afforded by the published literature or some other more formal (and even perhaps highly censored) forum? I would also doubt that Dr. Juckes needs a TCO (for giving advice) any more than Steve M does.

Come on Lee. The discussion here, robust as it has been, has resulted in more real discussion of the specific issues (and flaws) of Dr Juckes’ work, which, if he were to adopt a Richard Feynman attitude, he should welcome as a positive contribution from his “reviewers”. It is possible, even likely, that Dr Juckes can defend his position on some of the points, but it is also evident to us lurkers that there are some areas where he is clearly struggling.

I understand that Willis is going to pull together a coherent summary of the points raised here, and submit these to COP in due course. That submission will probably be a fine piece of reviewer comment, and enhance COP’s approach of exposing papers to wider peer review.

proceeding this way is unlikely to lead to resolution with any clarity

I understand how it might look that way from the outside. Not to worry; things will come back into focus. Remember: this blog is a lab notebook. The sharpening comes later. That was exactly Jean S’s point.