Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

M&M strike again

  1. Jan 27, 2005 #1

    Remember the Hockeystick of Mann et al, the mainstay of IPCC?

    The prepublication.

    Is revolution on?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 27, 2005 #2
    Revolution? Maybe. But $10 says certain posters here still link to the hockeystick anyways.

    I'm not sure I'd call it the mainstay of the IPCC though.
  4. Jan 27, 2005 #3
    Well If you would want to convince the President, what would you put in figure one of your presentation?

  5. Jan 28, 2005 #4
    The Dutch paper "Natuur Wetenschap & Techniek" opens the hostilities openly.


    "Bewijs achter Kyoto deugt niet": The proof of Kyoto is faulty

    It narrates about the paper of M&M linked to previously. The result is a climate policy re-evalution congress shortly with this on the agenda.

    At least the discussion is on, which is quite incredible in The Netherlands, doubting Global Warming, that is.

    Quite interesting is: http://www.natutech.nl/nieuwsDetail.lasso?ID=2564&-session=NTses:D42BBCBC00FA5594DE6EC497AA7DC17E the questions to MBH and the answers of Michael Mann:

    Last edited: Jan 28, 2005
  6. Jan 30, 2005 #5
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2005
  7. Feb 8, 2005 #6
  8. Feb 8, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Having actually reading these papers, "something i urge people to do",
    I find myself at a loss, If the criticisms of Mann's papers are correct, and
    they seem to be, then all he has done is produce a load of public ally miss
    leading mumbo jumbo.
  9. Feb 8, 2005 #8
    Well at least the discussion is on. An interesting page here as well


    I don't think that MBH actually intend to produce misleading information, but it may have been a slippery slope with several slightly biased choices together produced something unrealistic to the neutral eye.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2005
  10. Feb 9, 2005 #9
    Some more usefull info of M&M

    So it's all about that mysterious Bristle cone pine. Have a look here. Note that the undamaged pine tree continues on an even pace trough time, whereas the "strip bark" damaged version starts an increased growth.

    Now carefully avoiding the "post hoc" fallacy but could there be a correlation between damage like stripping bark and reactive abnormal growth? And if so, could the hockeystick be mostly based on the damage of trees?
  11. Feb 18, 2005 #10
    For the Dutch and Belgians,

    Steve McIntyre is being interviewed right now to be on Dutch Television: KRO Netwerk tonite, I believe some 9:30 PM.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook