Sooner or later you will have to confront the fact that hockey sticks tell a false tale. They have perverted the search for the answer to the question of attribution, and the delay is unnecessarily tragic. There may be forgiveness for the perversion, but science is unlikely to forget. Not this one.
===========================

Any idea how long I will have to wait? I mean it's been 18 years since the first one, and so far, the hits just keep on coming.

Phil Clarke, so you are sticking with the Flat Line of climate history presented by Mann. No LIA or MWP?

Have you read the comments on the article you linked to? The author claims 11 exonerations for Mann and his Hockey Stick following Climategate. Lawyers acting for Steyn (possibly not Mann), may want to call him as a star witness.

Is this what you are relying on to push the Greenpeace message?

Radical Rodent, it was frightfully jolly hockey sticks of Phil Clarke to flag up another own goal. The article was a few years ago, I am not sure if Mann still considered his outstanding fiction to be worth a Nobel Prize back then. Obviously Mann still considers himself worth a Nobel Prize, unfortunately the Nobel Prize Committee didn't read Mann's opinions.

I can only guess that Phil Clarke hadn't bothered to read the article he linked to, but I can recommend it. I am not sure whether any more of those Hockey Stick papers have been withdrawn, but references to "Mann" and "proxies" seemed to infest Phil Clarkes research material. He is going to be stuck without his crutch.

I am not sure whether any more of those Hockey Stick papers have been withdrawn

Gergis et al was withdrawn and so removed from the list of studies that reproduced the broad findings of the MBH studies, leaving a mere 36.

You apparently missed this Update: I've posted two lengthy responses rebutting "Anonymous" in the comments. Quite frankly, none of "his" numerous claims stand up to scrutiny.

Powerful Morton's Demons you two have there.

I do not think Wilson had practitioners like Mann and Marcott in mind when he wrote the lines below but his observations appear quite relevant to their work.

" The same freedom that empowers a statistician to pick a true signal out of the noise also enables scientist to manufacture nearly any result he or she wishes. Cajoling statistical significance where in reality there is none, a practice commonly known as “p-hacking,” is particularly easy to accomplish and difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis. And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings, there is often nothing to re-analyze and check even if there were volunteers with the time and inclination to do so."

His comments on Peer review appear to be quite germane when one considers the shrill insistence of their proponents as well:-

" ....once an entire field has been created—with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck—pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm"

That should wake up EM, aTTP and Phil!

 And since the vast majority of studies still do not report their raw data along with their findings,

Name three. I notice Wilson does not include any references to allow us to check his facts. Irony? Using the superluminal neutrinos as an example is just ignorant, the CERN team were pretty sure they'd made an error, made all their data available and enlisted the international community to help them find it.

Fail.

These days, frontline journals insist on archiving of raw data as a condition of publication, a lot of climate proxy data is in public archives eg the International Tree Ring Database. As a software engineer, maybe Wilson is not quite up to speed on current practice.

First Things is published by the Institute on Religion and Public Life

Other things you can read there: The Defense of Catholic Marriage, Catholic Astronauts Keeping the Faith in Space

A religious body is anti-science! I am shocked, shocked I tell you. I want to know Wilson's position on the talking snake.

Phil Clarke, if you are basing your faith, in faith based Green Propaganda, good luck.

How many of those 11 exonerations of Mann are you relying on? Or is Mann relying on?

RR - Europe <> Global.

HTH

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Phil Clarke, as you note, the Gergis et al paper was withdrawn.

Anyone not familiar with the tactics of the Hockey Team, and the emergency repair team, might like to Google Gergis et al, along with Climate Audit, WattsUpWithThat, JoNova, even a site called Bishop Hill.

Real Climate even had a post celebrating the Gergis et al paper, which given the list of authors, is not surprising, but it isn't all there.

Why did Gergis et al get so far, and past peer review, to support Mann, when it was 'flawed'? Lucky that people who do not refer to themselves at Climate Scientists were available to spot the mistakes Climate Scientists argued did not exist.

That is but a single example, note also that Gergis and Neukom published basically the same paper in 2014 in Nature CC:

Lead author Dr Raphael Neukom from Switzerland said the study showed the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon. 

http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/new-southern-hemisphere-climate-data-provides-clearer-global-picture-0

Does the phrase: “You only want the data so that you can prove me wrong…” ring any bells with you?

A very poor choice of words, I agree. The substantive point, though, was that the data (HADCRUT Station Data) was released and it showed exactly what the scientists said it did.

Phil Clarke, well spotted! Gergis et al was largely rehashed into Gergis and Neukom 2014, and it was still rubbish. Note the Gergis involvement in PAGES2K, and rehashing of Mannian proxies.

More details at Climate Audit for those, unlike Phil Clarke of a more discerning nature. nb, articles in Nature, are not discerning about climate science.

Your use of circular reasoning, and mutual admiration cliques, as referred to by Radical Rodent 11:24, isn't really getting you anywhere.

The Ocean2K “Hockey Stick” at Climate Audit is worth a read, including the comments. There really was so little of significance, that it is of little use to climate science, and that includes the anomalies about the anomalies.

Radical Rodent, interesting you should mention 'burying stiffs in permafrost'. That was one of those niggles in the back of my mind 10-15 years ago, when I started to question the veracity of the Hockey Stick. It was the archaeological re-excavated graves in Greenland.

Either the residents in Greenland were living on permafrost during the Medieval Warm Period, and used diesel engined excavators to dig graves, or the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than it is now, and there was no permafrost, and they dug graves with spades.

Obviously climate science experts are not very good at digging their way through history, so have no understanding of digging graves. Which is not consistent with Phil Clarke's expertise at digging holes for himself and all of climate science.

The Ocean2K “Hockey Stick” at Climate Audit is worth a read

Well, it certainly confirms McIntyre's addiction to lying by omission - he points to the lack of a blade in the 20th century ocean proxies, apparently forgetting the title of the paper: Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era and curiously 'forgets' to inform us that the study's authors caveat the 20thC data as unreliable:

Because of the limited number of composited data series within these comparisons, the limited degrees of freedom in the correlations, and the complexities of localized conditions on decadal time scales, these results suggest that these comparisons should be interpreted cautiously

I'll stick with Nature, thanks.

Phil Clarke, you refer to HADCRUT providing data, as scientists said it did.

"HADCRUT4 Adjustments – Discovering Missing Data or Reinterpreting Existing Data? (Now Includes September Data)" is an interesting article from WUWT, and includes comments from Tim Osborne of CRU, co author of one of the articles you reference earlier with Keith Briffa, also of CRU.

It does not seem that CRU data is considered a 'reliable' source outside of the Hockey Team. Do they earn special recognition in Data Adjustment circles, to have attracted such commendations?

See slso "CRU abandons Yamal superstick" at Climate Audit, which also includes a link to the "Rockwell Turbo Encabulator", which explains some of the technical science terms, and is well worth a 2 minute laugh.

Huh? I was referring to the HADCRUT station data, not paleo reconstructions, widely used outside CRU and in good agreement with other datasets.

Your faith in taking everything McIntyre writes as true on its face is touching, but disqualifies you from the title 'sceptic'.