The Tip of the Hockey Stick

This is pretty much the one-year anniversary of our two 2005 articles in GRL and E&E. There’s a very interesting assessment of the status of the debate at Europa Tribune here.

About one year ago, January 2005, an article of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick was published in the Geophysical Research Letters with harsh criticism on the symbol of our changing climate: the Hockey Stick graph. It was a defining moment: after an uphill struggle their work had at last been accepted in a well respected science magazine for climate research. Although I’ve followed the ensuing debate with a half eye throughout the past year, I’ve been curious to where it was going and how well the Hockey Stick of Mann et al. would fare. The briefest synopsis: it’s a trench-war out there.

The author hasn’t been convinced by Hockey Team huffing and puffing. It will be interesting to see the comments.

This entry was written by Stephen McIntyre, posted on Feb 2, 2006 at 9:08 AM, filed under MBH98, News and Commentary. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Feb 2, 2006 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    I note that the latest response to the above by the curiously named DoDo claims you admitted having not read the 2005 Rutherford & Mann paper. What you actually said at the point he links to is:

    As I mentioned before, I’ve not gone through Rutherford, Mann et al. to see if they’ve avoided the Bürger and Cubasch criticisms – it would amaze me if they did. For example, Rutherford, Mann et al. astonishingly use the original MBH98 tree ring principal components series in their primary analyses. In fact, I doubt that Rutherford, Mann et al. actually avoid any of the Bürger and Cubasch critiques, but, hey, it’s in Journal of Climate. Andrew Weaver edited it, so what further proof would anyone require.

    Anyone who is familiar with this site and can read with understand will realize that what you said is that you hadn’t had the time yet to totally subject that paper to analysis to see how, if at all, it stood up to the Bürger and Cubasch criticisms. That’s a far different thing. But what can you expect from the team (and/or its hangers-on)?