Never forget the “Hockey Stick” and how the McIntyre and McKitrick destruction of same set the IPCC world on the path to Climategate

I have been told (thanks Dave) about the www site A Sceptical Mind and this history of the Hockey Stick millenial temperature time series. I wonder what readers think of the article and does anybody know who the author is.

6 comments to Never forget the “Hockey Stick” and how the McIntyre and McKitrick destruction of same set the IPCC world on the path to Climategate

  • Very well informed. In particular, it clearly states there is no direct evidence for CO2 warming over the period of interest since 1970.

  • I was quite impressed with this article,and a quick look at some of the others on the site makes me want to add to bookmarks. Someone above my paygrade for sure. A good find guys.

  • Graeme No.3

    A very good summary indeed. No idea who it is though.

  • I noticed about half way down where he says – [Then an unlikely hero emerged in the shape of Stephen McIntyre a retired mineralogist from Toronto. McIntyre is not a scientist or an economist but he does know a lot about statistics, maths and data analysis and he is a curious guy.]

    I would have thought a mineralogist is a scientist OK – so I doubt it is valid to say – [McIntyre is not a scientist.] Not that I am aware SM is a mineralogist. This is small nitpicking.
    IMHO M & M richly deserved a Nobel Prize.

  • Whois says the domain is register to an anonymous domain service in Utah.

    My guess is an academic scientist who doesn’t want to be publically labelled a ‘denier’ and the rest of the abuse bandied around. He certainly writes like a scientist and a very good one at that.

  • Lank becomes unstuck

    Yes, a good summary which should be distributed widely. Very little is heard of the hockey stick now – just swept under the rug when it was found to be fake.
    I remember having a heated debate with a warmist friend who used this fake graph as his main argument. Now he just shrugs but wont budge or offer any sensible science. I suspect he is too embarrassed or just too plain stubborn to admit that his main argument was a scam.
    Perhaps anyone teaching science history could use this as an example of how many educated people can be fooled by media hype of shabby science and how human nature leads people into a corner, then find it difficult to extract.