The global warming hockey stick is bad science

I provided four specific reasons why the global warming hockey stick calculation was bad science: 1. The algorithm makes noise into a hockey stick, 2. A standard PC analysis program does not produce a hockey stick, 3. Tree ring data was misused, and 4. There were errors in filling in missing data. Separately, I provided independent arguments that it was clear that the two chief conclusions the hockey stick was meant to support were false: 5. The MWP and Little Ice are independently confirmed as existing, 6. The hockey stick predicts exponential temperature rise from the late 90's when in fact temperatures have fallen. Every claim I made was supported by a qualified Ph.D. climate scientists with traceable references. Pro never addressed points 2, 4, and 6. Therefore they stand. Pro provides a reference to a Wikipedia article regarding the hockey stick, but he does say what, if anything, the article is supposed to address. Wikipedia is an unattributed source that reflects whatever it is the last person modifying the article wants to say. There is interesting material there, but it's not my job to try to find what it that Con thinks supports his case. Overall, there is as much or more in the article supporting my position than Con's. One controversy poorly treated in the Wikipedia article is worth discussing. The question of whether or not Mann applied the correct procedures in processing the data input to the hockey stick algorithms is definitely a question to be judged by experts in statistics, not by climate scientists. It is purely a mathematical process, there is no knowledge of the physics of the atmosphere required. Moreover, the procedures are extremely difficult. Social scientists, for example, frequently go astray in applying statistical techniques to data. That is why despite Mann's protest that McKitrick was only an "economist," (incorrect, it was statistics) that in fact McKitrick had greater relevant expertise than Mann. The panel brought in by Congress consisted of experts in statistics, not climate. The original reviewers of the Mann hockey stick paper published in the 90s were asked if they had checked the statistical algorithms Mann had used. They replied that they did not, and moreover that they did not feel qualified to do so, since they were climate scientists and not statisticians. The general problem with scientists using statistical algorithms is that there are lots of adjustments possible to correct for inconsistencies and anomalies in the data. This leads scientists to keep didling until they get the answer they expect, then they quit, believing they finally "got it right." Con claims that someone has duplicated Mann's results. Yes, indeed, the reference shows that somebody wrote a program that makes hockey sticks. I could too. That doesn't bear upon any of the six issues I raised. Con claims that MM05, a paper written by McKitrick in 2005 was not about math error. That is correct, I did not reference that paper at all. The MM05 paper was about the tree ring data, the third of the six arguments I made. Con asks what the specific problem was. "Almost all of the ... series selected for overweighting [by Mann] were of a single type and from a single researcher, Donald Graybill. The series were high-altitude bristlecone pine tree-ring chronologies, many of which had been studied by Graybill and Sherwood Idso as possible examples of CO2 fertilization of tree growth, following a similar study by Lamarche et al. on Sheep Mountain. The sites were selected for "cambial dieback," that is, the bark had died around the circumference of the tree. ... They related that the anomalous twentieth century growth was unrelated to the temperature from nearby weather stations." McKitrick in Michaels, op cit, p 41 In other words, the data was supposed to be a proxy for temperature, but a comparison to measured temperature showed it was invalid. On Mann's realclimate.org website, the overweighting is acknowledged, but defended as a standard practice. Con's only reference for the contention that "past reconstruction has problems" is Mann's realclimate.org website, which is essentially a blog supporting global warming crisis. Of course its true that past reconstruction has problems, that's why the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics surveyed 250 separate reconstructions to conclude unambiguously that the MWP and Little Ice Age existed, and therefore the hockey stick is wrong. If there is larger study by a more prestigious organization that shows the contrary, then Con should present it. Con cites Mann's credentials as being a bona fide climate scientist. I agree. All of my sources have credentials every bit as good as Mann's. So therefore some well-credentialed scientist is wrong about this particular issue. That means that we must look at the specific points of contention. I claim that Wikipedia and realclimate.org cannot be viewed with nearly the credibility of M.I.T. or Harvard. "The IPCC is a UN outfit. I need to know what my opponent means by "political" so as not to include himself." I do not understand why noting that the IPCC is UN organization does anything but support the fact that it is political. That is what the UN does. In any case, the IPCC membership is about two-thirds government functionaries, and about a third are climate scientists. None of the IPCC reports or results are subject to the peer review process. The key IPCC report summary for decision makers is written independently of the technical sections prepared by scientists. The scientists are directed to produce results that support the summary. The final IPCC report is not voted upon by the participating scientists. Many of the scientific contributors object vehemently to the conclusions of the report, but it is nonetheless issued with all their names. As an example, the expert on hurricanes refused to conclude that global warming was the cause of increased hurricane activity. Some one higher up in the organization changed the section without permission to conform to the desired conclusion that global warming was responsible. I don't understand why Con seems to care whether or not I am "political." I am happy to be political if that makes Con happy. I am not arguing based upon my own authority. I am citing data and the opinions of qualified experts. Con asserts, "My opponent does not believe global warming exists." I will claim authority on the issue of whether or not I believe global warming exists. I do believe that global warming exists, and I have indicated that in my profile on this site ever since I've been using the site. Con states, "It's pretty obvious my opponent has some, shall we say, questionable source material. Where on Earth is he getting this garbage? Why don't I just debate them?" This is a curious remark. I cited Michaels (Prof of environmental sciences University of Virginia), McKitrick (Univ. of Guelph), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Harvard Univ, Cambridge MA), and Technology Review (published by M.I.T., Cambridge, MA). I also cited climate data in an article by Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc. and lecturer at Abo Akademi University, Finland. The McKitrick article provides 42 references to the scientific literature. What makes them Questionable? Is it anything other than that he doesn't agree? Why does Con think unsigned wikipedia articles and a blog are more reliable? The rest of Con's statements are completely irrelevant. I think he doesn't like my attempt to put conditions on the debate, like knowing something about the subject. Obviously my intent was to scare off debaters who aren't serious about the subject, but it's also obviously unenforceable. He should address the subject in comments; it is poor conduct in the debate. The resolution is affirmed.