You too can play "Spot the Hockey Stick!"

While Steve McIntyre gets his visage on international TV (and, so rumors say, have his front door widened), here on the weblog we can still play our game of "Spot the Hockey Stick", the temperature reconstruction that, according to William Connelley, was made into a totem of global warming by skeptics and not by the multi-billion dollar greenhouse warming industry. I’m not a PhD, so who am I to disagree?

Clearly skeptics can do amazing things, like get this one reconstruction plastered all over the news, the IPCC 2001 TAR and SPM, teeshirts and posters, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, as well as numerous books, and manage to get it cited twice as much as any comparable paper of its age in research papers, whose authors sometimes forget to store their data somewhere safe where they can find it later.

You see, skeptics can do amazing things, and so to prove our powers of suggestion, I invite you to send sightings of our favorite graph to my secret hush-hush e-mail address, proudly funded to the tune of nothing at all, by evil fossil fuel industry slush funds.

The address is climateaudit AT

(Yes, I know its not AT because they wanted to be subtle)


  1. Spence_UK
    Posted Feb 18, 2005 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    Well, I’m too lazy to send an e-mail so here’s mine: Looks like the game of hockey is alive and well in New Zealand! Good to hear as well that Professor Peter Barrett FRSNZ is of the opinion that the IPCC review process is "unassailably sound and comprehensive", and represents "advice unbiased by individuals or special interests and the best we can get".

    Must be another IPCC somewhere in existance that I don’t know about, because that doesn’t describe the UN IPCC I know of well at all…

    John writes: The skeptics’ reach in causing people to cite the hockey stick is truly global!

  2. Spence_UK
    Posted Feb 18, 2005 at 6:59 PM | Permalink

    Trouble is, Google just makes this too easy. Some of these may have already been posted in previous posts. Like I said, I’m lazy, and can’t be bothered to check.

    “Last, and hopefully always least”

    Well, heck, five or six websites, sounds like a concensus to me. How could you heretics possibly question the Hockey Stick Inquisition and their secret weapon of alarm; alarm and dodgy statistics. TWO secret weapons etc. 😉

    PS. The aip link includes mentions of the criticisms of the hockey stick by von Storch (04) and McIntyre and McKitrick (05) in the references! That is dangerously close to balanced reporting. They’ll get some nasty letters over that, I’ve no doubt, although they include a link to the “professional” blog at to try and appease the HSI.

  3. N. Joseph Potts
    Posted Feb 21, 2005 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    This one includes a picture of the good doctor (Mann) himself. And WHAT is he smiling about? Concern that his world may soon go up in a puff of smoke?

  4. Posted Mar 21, 2005 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    I notice that the original article makes light of the possibility that “climate skeptics” may actually be funded by “evil fossil fuel industry slush funds”. Well how about this for an interesting connection:

    “John A” (who runs this site) recently (20 March) wrote the following to the Yahoo group climatesceptics:

    > I might add that worldclimatereport has no comments allowed and
    > therefore no feedback, making it less informative and more declarative.

    > I think it would be better to have some form of feedback in order to
    > involve an audience and clarify issues.

    > I think that the feedback we have on climateaudit (other than two
    > trolls, easily dealt with) is a positive contribution to the weblog,
    > and stimulates new lines of inquiry, and new articles.

    > If worldclimatereport merged with climateaudit, then we’d have a real
    > winner…

    Firstly I suspect that I am one of the “two trolls” and I am sure that I am “easily dealt with”, but that is immaterial.

    More importantly, worldclimatereport has recently morphed from:


    These sites clearly have the same origin as they have the same name and almost identical “about us” descriptions. However, while the background of the “reincarnation” is rather vague (naming only Patrick J. Michaels as the Editor and Paul C. Knappenberger as the Administrator), the original site is clearly run by the Greening Earth Society. And what is the Greening Earth Society? Let’s look at the 2000 Annual Report of Western Fuels Association, which states “since Earth Day 1998, Western Fuels Association’s climate change advocacy has been rooted in the Greening Earth Society”. And what is “Western Fuels Association”? According to their web site: “Western Fuels Association, Inc., operates on a not-for-profit basis to provide coal for the generation of electricity by consumer-owned utilities …..”. Also, according to their 1998 Annual Report: “We lost $583,000 in 1997 ….. Our half-million dollar shortfall is due entirely to our advocacy in the area of climate change.”

    So, Steve McIntyre, would you really want to become linked with worldclimatereport?

  5. TCO
    Posted Sep 11, 2005 at 8:50 AM | Permalink

    Why is Steve required to fund all this crap out of his own pocket and Mann can suck like a viper on the teat of government funding. Let’s get some government funding for Steve.

  6. Paul
    Posted Apr 14, 2006 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    It’s not a direct reference, but it’s snuck in there…near the end of the article. It’s this type of thing that indoctrinates people. Very subtle.

    Undersea Volcano

  7. John A
    Posted Apr 15, 2006 at 1:32 AM | Permalink

    Re: #6

    Jim Barry, a deep-sea biologist with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, is impressed by the volcano find.

    “This is a new habitat,” he said.

    And it’s potentially important for future study, he added, because by trapping carbon dioxide in the moat, this habitat provides scientists with a way to study what the oceans of the not-so-distant future may be like.

    As levels of carbon dioxide continue to rise, due to the combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other causes, much of the gas will inevitably wind up in the sea, he explained.

    “We’re going to see big changes in the chemistry of the ocean in the next 200 years,” Barry said.

    “Systems like this will give us a great deal of information about what we might expect in the future.”

    It appears to be the standard pitch for more money to research it based on the climate catastrophe fad-of-the-moment. The only bit missing was that it might be “worse then previously thought”

%d bloggers like this: