The discussion centers on the critique of the Mann et al. (1998) climate index, commonly referred to as the "Hockey Stick" graph, by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Participants explore the implications of the M&M critique, the methodology used in the original study, and the broader context of climate policy and scientific communication.
Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the M&M critique and others defending Mann's methodology. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the validity of the claims made by either side.
Limitations include the dependence on specific data series and the unresolved nature of the statistical methods used in both the original and critique papers. The discussion reflects ongoing debates in climate science and the interpretation of paleoclimate data.
Readers interested in climate science, paleoclimatology, and the intersection of scientific research with public policy may find this discussion relevant.
THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS
Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
ABSTRACT
The differences between the results of McIntyre and McKitrick [2003] and Mann et al. [1998] can be reconciled by only two series: the Gaspé cedar ring width series and the first principal component (PC1) from the North American tree ring network. We show that in each case MBH98 methodology differed from what was stated in print and the differences resulted in lower early 15th century index values. In the case of the North American PC1, MBH98 modified the PC algorithm so that the calculation was no longer centered, but claimed that the calculation was “conventional”. The modification caused the PC1 to be dominated by a subset of bristlecone pine ring width series which are widely doubted to be reliable temperature proxies. In the case of the Gaspé cedars, MBH98 did not use archived data, but made an extrapolation, unique within the corpus of over 350 series, and is represented the start date of the series. The recent Corrigendum by Mann et al. denied that these differences between the stated methods and actual methods have any effect, a claim we show is false. We also refute the various arguments by Mann et al. purporting to salvage their reconstruction, including their claims of robustness and statistical skill. Finally, we comment on several policy issues arising from this controversy: the lack of consistent requirements for disclosure of data and methods in paleoclimate journals, and the need to recognize the limitations of journal peer review as a quality control standard when scientific studies are used for public policy.