Lousie Gray of the DT reports
Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.
Stranger and stranger.
Unfortunately, Oxburgh “regrettably” “neglected” to mention this in his report.
Maybe this is a little more schizophrenic than it appeared at first blush. Like the NAS report.
Update: The New Scientist reports:
Hand said he was “impressed” by McIntyre’s statistical work. But whereas McIntyre claims that Mann’s methods have “created” the hockey stick from data that does not contain it, Hand agrees with Mann: he too says that the hockey stick – showing an above-average rise in temperatures during the 20th century – is there. The upward incline is just shorter than Mann’s original graphic suggests. “More like a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick,” he told New Scientist.
While I appreciate the compliment, I wonder what authority Hand has for his assertion that I claimed “Mann’s methods have “created” the hockey stick from data that does not contain it” – this is obviously untrue. The Mann data set obviously contains the hockey-stick shaped Graybill bristlecone pine data sets – I’ve talked at length about bristlecone pines as every CA reader knows. Had the Oxburgh Inquiry bothered to ask me, I would have been happy to clarify this point for them.
Hand says that the shape is more like “a field-hockey stick than an ice-hockey stick” – wonder how he knows that.