Graham,

I posted this with links a while back on another thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13951&page=0#241034

How is climate science different from medical science in the modern era?

Why is their a movement to label climate scientists (en masse) frauds, but not an equivalent movement to label medical scientists frauds?

Why is there a movement that employs, for the most part, amateur opinion and conspiracy theory to howl down the findings of climate scientists? Why don't they dish out the same treatment to scientists in other disciplines. Why should it be that only climate "scientists" are likely to be fraudulent?

I'll tell you why. Because the things that climate scientists warn of, using the best of their abilities, are not felt immediately - and the systems are more complex. If you develop Type 1 diabetes and I diagnose you and give you some insulin and knowledge, you will recover from your acute trauma and learn to manage your condition. You can't argue with that sort of advice and treatment because it produces immediate results. What if there was a movement to denigrate endocrinologists in the same manner as climate scientists, pushed by amateurs hollering "Conspiracy - they've got their noses in the trough?

I'm not sure what your point is Poirot. Medical scientists frequently disagree with each other and what you call "amateurs" frequently disagree with what is asserted to be correct and go and get a second opinion. This is nothing like climate science where we're all supposed to sign-up for the most extreme scenarios, whatever they may be.

We've just seen an example of that with the Climate Commission making unscientific pronouncements that don't even line up with the IPCC, and you'll get howled down for disputing them. That there is no agreed upon set of results that arise from CO2 emissions underlines how absurd and arbitrary pronouncements like yours are.

And the reason most medical scientists aren't called frauds is because they aren't frauds. And when they are caught out, like William McBride, they end up being prosecuted. Again, quite different from climate "science".

Just done a bit more Googling on the subject of Marcott et al. I think you need to go and wipe the egg off your face Poirot and find another drum to torture. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/#more-81951 has graphs of all of the proxies and not one of them forms a hockey stick that I can see.

So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?

This is yet more garbage being promoted by partisans without any regard for the probability that it is right or wrong.

I was right to withhold judgement until seeing the details, and my skeptical default position has been vindicated.

Hi Graham,

"So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?"

Its the beauty of these HS calculations. This sleight-of-hand is covered in lots of places but the best is Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion" which contains a thorough explanation of how it works and why its wrong.

Basically what is done is that you take a range of proxies that are all measuring somewhat different things in different ways with different results (as you've seen). Then you average these and all the bumps and nuances are removed providing what appears to be a benign and smooth temperature record. Finally you plunk the thermometer record on the end with all its bumps and lumps and then proclaim that it's different to the rest of the historic record and therefore AGW is proven.

This one is a little different to Mann's original HS (MBH98),as best we can work out given the lack of information as to methodology. In MBH98 they also did some fancy data selection that eliminated any proxy data that didn't concur with the thermometer record thus almost ensuring a HS. Indeed as McIntyre was to prove, using Mann's methods any random data yielded a HS. Put the phone book into a computer and Mann's methods will give you a HS.

People like Poirot buy the line that this is climate science and only climate scientists can critique it. But it is actually statistical analysis and when statisticians like McIntyre and Wegman looked at the methodology they were amazed at the ineptitude of the scientists. Nothing's changed.

Yet even after all that they still find that around 3000 of the last 11300 yrs have been hotter than the 20th century. And most of the times when that happened coincided with peaks in man's development. So where is the cause for concern?

By the way, who's Mark? :)

Bugsy, I have seen the SI but it is unclear about methodology. And now we find that the authors are running for cover when McIntyre asks one simple question on that point.

In related climate news, FOIA has released the zip file password thus allowing people to see the 220000 or so Climategate emails that were previously unavailable. Climategate 3 is off and running.

Not much has come out yet and when it does we should start a thread on it. But in the meantime and apropos this thread, a comment from a fellow warmist scientist explaining in private what they wouldn't say in public as to why they left the Mann's HS out of their analysis..."I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!"

There's also an exchange where Tom Wigley (who comes out of Climategate with a reasonable reputation) complains that "there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC" and Mann admits its true.

Pull up a comfy chair and get some popcorn...this is gunna be fun.

"So if none of the proxies individually makes a hockey stick, how are they supposed to collectively do so?"'

That's like the question, 'if no single state recorded a record high, how come the whole of Australia did?'

The education system is a big fail when it comes to arithmetic and statistics.

The paper describes the methodology. Here is a simplified explanation that most who are numerate will follow and it doesn't require any paranoid conspiracy ideation.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/03/13/art-of-the-anthropocene-the-scythe/#.UULiYRxHK_R

I am quite mystified by the lengths that deniers go to to accuse one of the top ranking journals of not understanding science! Read why one would *expect* the different proxies not all go up and down at the same time - (it's a bit different now of course, with global warming):
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/still-more-denier-weirdness-from-wuwt.html

and more here (as quoted by Phil Plait/Bad Astronomy on Slate)
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/03/watts-is-whopping-crazy-after-marcott.html