Pretty amazing this hockey stick cult.

Here's Climateaudit carefully and methodically explaining that the newer studies supposedly supporting the stick are actually not independent at all.

I am absolutely gobsmacked by the findings pointing to a cover-up and further collusion to protect the stick.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945


This sort of stuff totally discredits science and those involved in the fakery ought to be strung up by their hind legs.

Graham, thanks for your reply, I have been busy elsewhere.

I am fully aware of the errors in Mann et al's method. I even think it 'wrong' that it slipped through the review process. However the tenets of their findings have held up to rigorous criticism, imo. Nonetheless, I would have done it differently.

In the same vane, I would no more say Roy Spencer was "wrong" in releasing his work in the blogosphere prior to accepted publication without proper review (I'm still waiting to see his retraction on 'ocean cooling').

I believe it is wrong to imply "the hockey stick" a hoax (or fraud) as that perpetuated on Windschuttle (he will make changes I am sure).

Your question:

<<Can a hoax describe something which is submitted just to trick someone, or must the trickery have the aim of exposing something about the person you are hoaxing?>>

The problem here is that one must assume the *trickery* (and intent) in the first place - it can be debated, I would suggest not here.

Q&A

the hockey stick is a hoax meant to deceived and anyone that makes excuses for the dishonesty is perpetuating it. This also applies to anyone like you that suggests other studies have backed it. Stop the two bob each way. It's a bunch of scientific crap. the only person I've seen suggest otherwise is Lambert and we all know how intellectually dishonest he is. Do you want to be tagged with the same brush as him?

Read the climate audit link i provided and tell exactly what is wrong with it?

go on.