"Note that the author of 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' is an accountant, not someone that has a degree in global climate science."

Has one considered why the distinction needed to be made? Could it possibly be that the accountant’s analytical approach to the events highlighted practices not exactly conducive to the scientific method and that some would thus prefer people didn't read it? Furthermore, is it a requirement of MSM reporters to have a degree in global climate science before being allowed to comment? Did Michael Mann have the requisite statistical expertise to produce a paper so heavily reliant on 'new statistical techniques'?

Many years ago, my naive understanding of science was one of honourable professional people carrying out research and experimentation in the cause of furthering human knowledge. They would condense their thoughts, reasoning, methodologies and results in 'papers' and offer it to their peers for honest review and debate. Exemplifying this is a saying popularised by Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". Would one then not consider a claim overturning a swathe of previous peer-reviewed research extraordinary? Steve McIntyre certainly did.

As with Andrew Montford, Steve McIntyre is also not a global climate scientist. What he is, however, is something of a mathematics whizz, whose experience in the mining exploration business was extremely beneficial as it necessitated a comprehensive understanding of statistical analysis. He was thus well qualified to check the data and computer code underpinning Mann's graph.

Having casually discussed climate change with a geologist friend, McIntyre was told that climate conditions in the past were sometimes hotter than those of today. His friend also viewed the alarmism as something akin to creationism. His curiosity piqued he decided to research the issue and quickly came across Mann's graph; noting its slick presentation and promotional qualities, from the expertise he gained in reading mining industry reports. He also knew, from experience in dealing with speculators and some rather unscrupulous people, that such presentations were sometimes merely a veneer and not at all what they first appeared to be.

He contacted Mann requesting a copy of the data, who replied promptly, though in doing so claiming he had forgotten the web address for the ftp site hosting it. McIntyre thought this extraordinary: that a man whose report had thrust him into the limelight and provided him huge notoriety could just simply 'forget' where his paper’s supporting data was stored. He also considered the implication of the IPCC using material which had never been adequately audited: that they were, in essence, demanding political change on an unprecedented scale, on what was, effectively, a mere say so.

An associate of Mann's finally provided a version of the data, and upon review it immediately became apparent there were issues: McIntyre couldn't for example, determine how the shape of the hockey stick was derived. Suspicious of data cherry-picking he input some random 'red noise' data and out popped a hockey stick. He started posting his findings on blog sites, but his comments were different insofar as they were data-driven rather than emotional. This led to his being approached to write a paper on his findings and teaming up with Ross McKitrick to write it. Together they managed to get corrections made to Mann's paper though not the underlying claims.

Nonetheless the consensus team were stung by the criticism, and so together they started the Real Climate blog in an attempt to debunk their detractors. McIntyre was made aware of what was going on and that writing an academic paper was simply not enough to combat online comments where views and opinions could be easily manipulated. Thus he started Climate Audit which, like his previous postings, is a blog site driven by data, not emotion.

During the almost daily sparing between the websites, the issue of divergence appeared. This was the concept of proxy (tree) data not reflecting actual thermometer data; i.e. that from 1961 the former was indicating a temperature drop while the latter was indicating a temperature rise. It was then discovered that some climate scientists had actually removed the modern-day portion of their graphs and spliced in the thermometer data; the rationale being the trees were not capturing the modern higher temperatures. However, if that were the case is it then not reasonable to assume that similar could have happened in the past: that temperatures could have been higher and not been ‘recorded’ as such?

McIntyre was deeply suspicious, particularly when the like of Rosanne D’Arrigo was happy to quip about picking cherries in order to make cherry pie. He requested more data and code from Mann, but by this time Mann had completely cut him off. He thus turned his attention towards Phil Jones and the work of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Although McIntyre was by this time a published author and an IPCC reviewer, the CRU rejected his request citing confidentiality agreements with the countries supplying the data. However, he then discovered that they had already shared the data (nullifying such agreements) so tried again. This time the response was that the confidentiality agreements only allowed them to share the data with academics. He tried a different tack and summited an FOI request to see the confidentiality agreements (and asked his audience at Climate Audit to do likewise), but again the request was rejected. Does this sound like the actions of an agency working in the best interest of the public?

The stonewalling spurred some of McIntyre’s readers to start trawling the web and it quickly became apparent that the CRU had an ftp storage site which they could rummage through and was vulnerable to attack. In November 2009 Climategate erupted. The CRU files showed the massaging of data, pressure being applied to some to change their results, collusion to delete emails and withhold data and shocking admissions of doubt and uncertainty with their methods.

For a brief moment, there was some hope that the demands for transparency would be enacted, but after the various inquiries, which were so skewed that the term whitewash doesn’t do them justice, it was clear the establishment wanted no such thing. And to this day, Michael Mann has refused to release the data and code, underpinning his graph, for review. Meanwhile McIntyre continues to criticise the use of cherry-picked and unsuitable data, such as the upside-down Tiljander sediments used by Mann and the one tree to rule them all by Keith Briffa – though that has subsequently been corrected.

This is a (very) brief overview of the Hockey Stick controversy, Mike’s Nature trick, Hide the decline and Climategate – and not a global climate science degree in sight. It doesn’t need one.

Note:
By profession, Andrew Montford is, indeed an accountant. He runs the Bishop Hill blog, though having taken up a position at the GWPF, his postings on it have become somewhat sparse of late.

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

I have no doubt, but those contaminated by data and the methodologies of Mann, it would be a surprise they didn’t. Have they provided their data and code for independent review?

List of organizations that have made formal statements that Global Warming is real and that humans are at least partially the cause. That URL also contains a link to international organisations that too have made the same formal statements.

As I’ve previously said, you’ll get no argument from me over whether or not the Earth is warming or that there’s an anthropogenic component to today’s atmospheric CO₂ content. The issue, however, is that no one truly knows its extent, its effect on the climate or indeed that of CO₂ as a whole when exposed to dynamic weather systems. What we do know, however, is that the increased CO₂ level has encouraged a planetary re-greening and aided the considerable increases in crop production. Perhaps one should listen to the views of Dr Richard Keen, who just happens to have a PhD in Climate Change.



"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

Oh dear.
* The Oreskes study, though appearing in a peer-review publication, was not peer-reviewed.
* The Doran and Zimmerman study was based on a questionnaire sent to circa 10,500 Earth scientists; the respondents to which being whittled down to the opinion of just 76 out of 78. Methinks the opinion of 90 leading Italian scientists trumps that (no pun intended).
* The Anderegg was based on a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements. It is thus assumed one offering no view agrees with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans which, of course, is no proof at all.
* The Cook report is such a joke I believe one should read the full critique by José L. Duarte to get the whole picture. Here, however, is a taster…

"The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.

Let's walk through that sentence again. The Cook et al. 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change. This study was multiply fraudulent and multiply invalid already – e.g. their false claim that the raters were blind to the identities of the authors of the papers they were rating, absolutely crucial for a subjective rating study."

The fundamental problem with all these studies is that they are entirely subjective and based on the preconceived opinion of members from just one side of the argument. In essence, therefore, they are not worth the paper they’re written on.