Russ Steele
When I started investigating global warming, or as it is now known climate change, one of the go to web sites was Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit. I could not always follow the complex science discussed by Steve, visiting academics, and his fellow citizens scientist, but with a little side reading I could grasp the core issues. It was on Climate Audit that I leaned about the original Hockey Stick and the flawed science behind it’s construction and publication. Now Steve has uncovered some more corrupt science by the same "Team" that produced the first Hockey Stick.
John A writing at Watts Up With That has a “Cliff Notes” version of the story in: Steve McIntyre uncovers another hockey stick trick – where are the academic cops?
Just when you think the bottom of the Hockey Stick rabbit hole has been reached, Steve McIntyre finds yet more evidence of misconduct by the Team.
The research was from Briffa and Osborn (1999) published in Science magazine and purported to show the consistency of the reconstruction of past climate using tree rings with other reconstructions including the Mann Hockey Stick. But the trick was exposed in the Climategate dossier, which also included code segments and datasets.
In the next picture, Steve shows what Briffa and Osborn did – not only did they truncate their reconstruction to hide a steep decline in the late 20th Century but also a substantial early segment from 1402-1550:
You can read the rest of John A’s analysis here. If you want to go to the source and examine all the details go to Climate Audit and read:
- Hide the Decline: Sciencemag # 3
- Hide the Decline – the Other Deletion
- Hide the Decline: Sciencemag
- New Light on “Hide the Decline”
Then if you want to know more about the orgnial hickey stick investigation read The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford
Remember, CARB uses the discredited Hockey Stick graphic which was published in UN IPCC Assessment Reports as justification for AB32 and the reduction of CO2 in California. Here is yet again, another example of how bad science is being used to make public policy.
Exit Question: Why do we allow our public officials to use discredited science as a justification for carbon taxes? Oh!
