Tuesday, 1 December 2009

“It looks like you’re trying to generate a Hockey Stick graph . . . “

Found this at the Flannagans’ blog:




  1. It was up on No Minister a week ago Peter.


  2. Just a problem or two Peter.

    First, the hockey stick was based on tree ring data for the historical record. That data was independently checked with other measurements and found to be in agreement. But from 1960 the tree rings and actual instrumental records diverged. So the instrumental records were used instead. So suspect data was replaced by actual data.

    Secondly, Saiers was fired for not following the recognised procedure for comments and replies, and actively conspired to prevent rebuttal of the so-called debunking of the hockey stick.

    All jolly hockey sticks, what, old chap?

  3. Luc

    Actually, this was yet another example of academic fraud. The data was corrupted beyond recognition in order to support a predetermined conclusion. Not much has changed.



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.