AN ASSAULT ON SCIENCE

Mann's hockey stick graph was NEVER peer-reviewed.

So McIntyre claimed. Dozens of different temperature studies have confirmed the basic chart of Mann and shown McIntyre's argument to be pretty baseless.

I should qualify this statement. A paper by Mann was published in Nature (which thereafter suffered an immense blow to it's reputation) and that paper was peer-reviewed. However, for many years Mann refused to provide underlying data or his "formula" (ridiculously claiming it was his "proprietary property"). It was therefore impossible to "review" that information.

. Now let me ask you a simple question, layman.

Are you seriously arguing that the earth has cooled since 2001

I wonder how McIntyre could write a criticism of the methods within 6 months of the paper being published then. Did McIntyre write his criticism of the methods based on not knowing the methods? It seems that is what you are arguing.

Above are two separate temperature reconstructions running from 1400AD, both use tree rings, one is from California and one is from Arizona. Both were were part of the data used by Mann and included in the Hockey Stick average. The top one shows a temperature up tick at the end in the 20th century like the final Hockey Stick, the other shows a relatively flat temperature for the 20th century. Mann’s statistical trick gives the top series, the one with the desired Hockey Stick shape a weighting in the data that is 390 times that of the bottom series just because it has a Hockey Stick bend at the end. This means that whatever data is fed into Mann’s statistical manipulations is almost bound to produce a Hockey Stick shape whether it is actually in the data or not.

McIntyre and McKitrick showed that the data mining procedure did not just pull out a random group of proxies, instead it pulled out a single eccentric group of bristlecone pine chronologies published by Graybill and Idso in 1993 called the Sheep Mountain series.The original authors of the bristlecone study have always stressed that these trees are not proper climate proxies, their study was not trying to do a climate reconstruction and that they were surprised that Mann included it in the Hockey Stick data set.

McIntyre and McKitrick had discovered that just removing this odd series from Mann’s proxy set and then applying Mann’s own eccentric statistical averaging caused the Hockey Stick shape to disappear....In the graph below the dotted line is the original Hockey Stick chart as published by Mann and as adopted and promoted by the IPCC.

In doing this research McIntyre and McKitrick had legitimately accessed Mann’s public college web site server in order to get a lot of the source material, and whilst doing this they found the data that provoked them to look at the bristlecone series in a folder entitled “Censored”. It seems that Mann had done this very experiment himself and discovered that the climate graph loses its hockey stick shape when the bristlecone series are removed.

Since the publication of McIntyre and McKitrick’s critique of Mann’s work there was an immediate counter attack by some climatologists who had worked closely with Mann in the past. The attack on McIntyre and McKitrick’s critique of Mann’s work really boiled down to saying that of course the Hockey Stick disappeared if you stopped using Mann’s techniques and that you should carry on using Mann’s techniques and then you could get the Hockey Stick back!

Until the 1990s there were many, many references in scientific and historical literature to a period labelled the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) lasting from about AD 800–1300.... Based on both temperature reconstructions using proxy measures and voluminous historical references it was accepted that the Medieval Warm Period had been a period when global temperatures were a bit hotter than today’s temperatures. Until about the mid-1990s the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. The existence of the Medieval Warm Period was accepted without question and noted in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990.

The way that the Medieval Warm Period dominated the recent climate graph challenged the basic argument for CO2 forcing which was that the late 20th century climate was some how unique. As Jay Overpeck, an IPCC participant said in his email to Professor Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”.

Between the 1995 second IPCC report and the 2001 third IPCC report there was a complete revision in the way that recent climate history was portrayed. The supporters of the theory that CO2 changes were driving temperatures up had succeeded in their goal of eliminating the Medieval Warm Period. This rewriting of climate history and the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period was achieved through the famous Hockey Stick graph.

How did McIntyre show errors in method and data when he had neither?

I get a trend line of .15 increase over the time period using a simple linear line. That is certainly not remaining flat

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52

Really? You recall? Did you read McIntyre's paper?

reconstruc-
tion that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th
century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit.

September 11, 2013 1:19

Review of the published literature on the Medieval Warming Period in South America and finds "(1) the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon that was comprised of even warmer intervals than the warmest portion of the Current Warm Period, and that (2) the greater warmth of the Medieval Warm Period occurred when there was far less CO2 in the air than there is nowadays, which facts clearly demonstrate that the planet's current - but not unprecedented - degree of warmth need not have been CO2-induced."

The Wall Street Journal
Nov. 9, 2012 10:02 p.m. ET

In 2001 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change adopted the "hockey stick" graph devised by Michael Mann at the University of Virginia and colleagues. That graph helped to persuade many people (such as me) that recent temperature rises were unprecedented in scale and speed in at least 1,400 years.

Four recent studies have now rehabilitated the MWP as a period of unusual warmth, though they disagree on whether it was as warm or warmer than today...Taken together, these studies cast doubt on the IPCC's conclusion in 2007 that "the evidence is not sufficient to support a conclusion that [Northern] hemispheric mean temperatures were as warm, or the extent of warm regions as expansive, as those in the 20th century as a whole, during any period in medieval times."

List of excuses for ‘the pause’ in global warming is now up to 52

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-is-now-up-to-52/

Look, reputable scientists are all over the board on these issues.

So why didn't you find a peer reviewed paper then since it is so easy to find them? What you found was a "review" of literature self published by CO2science. That isn't actually science.

“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” (Nietzsche)