Reddit reviews The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science

Sure it does. Why did temperatures fall in the late 2000s, only to rise again, while C02 concentrations rose steadily? Because greenhouse gases aren't the only variable we need to consider in the debate. We need to consider a host of factors, for example: ENSO, aerosols, the sun, a great variety of things. The debate is not as to whether the recent low-frequency warming trend is occurring, it is about whether humans are the primary cause, i.e. the magnitude of AGW. Of course, if you take the "it's just weather vs. climate" side of things, you can average the "climatology" over the preferred temporal scale and come up your increasing linear trend. We shouldn't just discount high-frequency characteristics out of hand, however, they could contain important clues about the real phenomenon that everyone is searching for. Don't take my word for it, read about the most famous instance of this. I'm not sure why you keep trying to paint me as anti-AGW, this is not the case.

"Watermelons" by James Delingpole is one of my favorite books about climate skepticism:

http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409

Here are some other books that I recommend.

The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740

Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change:

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert:

http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Worlds-Climate/dp/1466453486

The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate/dp/1906768358

That's an excellent article. Non-tree ring proxies, done by a skeptic, and still shows a fast upswing to temperatures slightly above the MWP.

But the RealClimate article is a review of The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill.

Many redditors are too young to remember the Climategate fraud "let's use Mike's trick to hide the decline."

[The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science ](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1906768358/
)

Strangely Mann didn't sue when whole blogs and numerous books were written about the dubious statistical machinations of the Hockey stick. Many of his fellow scientists agree with that.

This case seems to be about him being compared to a child molester.

Climate scientists have a sordid history of academic fraud and collusion, often circumventing the scientific method in favor of political activism.

>Sure but I'm not revealing who I am.

Did you think I asked you to?

>Name one then.

Richard Lindzen. Shall I name another, or is this counterexample sufficient for you to change your post?

>Again you have very very few and most did not gain widespread acceptance. Do you have an example

The expanding earth theory was replaced by plate techtonics not all that long ago, and with much ridicule of the latter by geologists who adhered to the former.

Tabula rasa in psychology was established science that was finally overturned.

Einstein's static universe has been almost universally rejected.

Luminiferous Aether was universally accepted until photon theory of light was established.

Most recently, the idea that eating fats leads to body fat is undergoing a major revision.

>One example is not really worth anything.

One example is sufficient as a counterexample to your assertion of the saintliness of all scientists.

>I know plenty of professors who have challenged the norm and won.

Please share.

>Without details I can't even check your story or if that guy was right (not that I'm even in astrophysics).

Halton "Chip" Arp.

>There is data from different parts of the world if you read carefully parts have been shown to cool during the medieval warm period.

Cite, please.

>McIntyre isn't a reputable source.

Why?

>McKitrick I've never heard of.

He wrote the paper debunking Mann with McIntyre.

>Got a link?

The whole story of how M&M refuted Mann can be found here

>The IPCC does not use that much paleontological evidence. Mostly it's based on models.

Is it your assertion, then, that the climate sensitivity derived from paleontological evidence that you were so keen on may not be as reliable as you implied?

Sure, I'll bite. Mann's stupid Hockey Stick used tree ring data that was cherry picked to exclude any indication of the MWP or the LIA. Because those would make our current warm period look like more of the same.

Then he tacked on temperature data from a dataset skewed upward by urban heat sources. Unhappy with how slowly the graph was "spiking", his cronies at CRU "fix" the numbers by applying a correction -- in the wrong direction.

Mann and his UVA cronies refuses to disclose how much he tweaked his data, but more than one book has been written about his junk science. But he keeps clinging to it: “there’s not just a hockey stick — there’s a hockey league.” The mann is an embarrassment to real researchers everywhere.

I'm not going to defend their lack of publishing. In my opinion lot's of low-end stuff can slide through peer review, since peers are human. It's healthy to be skeptical of that process, which has long been deemed inadequate by many. It's why a website like retraction-watch exists. Politics has long swayed science.

Especially when it comes to matters climate/climatology, there has been much controversy surrounding establishment scientists, journal editors and peer-review panels / process : The Climategate Emails, The Hockey Stick Illusion

These guys may have trouble getting published in a major journal (remains to be seen), but I argue it is not going to be because of their science.

Watching this video is not going to make anyone's head explode. It's just two scientists presenting a study they've been working on for years. It goes against a proclaimed "scientific" consensus but many believe that consensus is not scientific at all, but political.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358