Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Author admits the blade of the new bogus hockey-stick is not statistically significant

In an email to Steve McIntyre, the author of the new bogus hockey stick admits the primary finding of the paper, the alleged rapid rise of temperature from 1890-1950 is "probably not robust." Translation: it is not statistically significant and the hyped press releases from the authors are not scientifically nor statistically valid. 

Email from first author Shaun Marcott to Steven McIntyre:

Dear Stephen, 
Thank you for the inquiry. Please note that we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame. Specifically, we concluded this based on several lines of evidence.
Regarding the SH reconstruction: It is the same situation, and again we do not think the last 60 years of our Monte Carlo reconstruction are robust given the small number and resolution of the data in that interval.
Paragraph 4 from the paper is below. Did you catch that the primary finding of the paper is "clearly stated" to be "probably not" statistically significant? 

The paper also shows the bogus Marcott hockey stick blade "occurred" 50 years prior to Mann's bogus hockey stick blade


  1. The subtlety here is that Paragraph 4
    Seems to be speaking to "differences" thus
    Disguising it from what he'd now underscore:
    The infilling, data, and rise are a bust.

    He's talking to Steve McIntyre to cover
    His hindquarters on how that blade got up-bended
    But his actual code we have yet to discover
    We strongly suspect that the choice was intended.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    1. Exactly, Marcott hides the truth in gobbledygook in the paper, while now stating to Steve McIntyre that "we clearly state in paragraph 4 of the manuscript that the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust." Amazing the lengths to which these fraudsters perpetuate the AGW scam.

  2. Paragraph 4 actually says "o.6 degrees greater warming"

    Not less warming.

    A "convenient" typo from the authors, I suspect, so not to draw attention to the magic algoritm

  3. does "robust" mean the same thing as "statistically significant" in strict statistical language?

    1. They have similar meanings...

      "Robust statistical methods" are used to determine if a finding is "statistically significant"

  4. If he'd WANTED to say "data presented in this paper covering the last 100 years has any statistical significance and no conclusions about recent posited global warming should be inferred from these results" he would have. But, of course, he didn't, did he?

    1. No he didn't, and in fact did many media interviews hyping the "unprecedented" bogus blade without ever once telling the media it was not statistically significant. A new member of the climate scientist Hall of Shame.