Sentences with phrase «also produces hockey sticks»

Not exact matches

You also claim that McI and McK were correct when they showed that Mann's statistical method produces hockey stick shapes from trendless red noise but then you write «they would have a valid point in principle, but the critique would not matter in the case of the hockey - stick.»

Were they also forced to stop and reflect why they produced such lousy scientific (unscientific) work as the hockey - stick, and why the whole climate - science community applauded and promoted this piece of rubbish?

Also it would highlight how it is the Mannian data mining statistical technique which can produce a hockey stick out of any data.

As IO have extensively proven in my papers and by proponent of the AGW (see for example Crowley, Science 2000), the traditional climate models produce a signature quite similar to the hockey stick graph by Mann which not only simply disagree with history but has also been seriously put in question under several studies.

That Manne manipulated his «hockey stick data» to produce a kink to «prove» AWG covering the industrial revolution to the present, is all the more amusing, not only for the juk science entailed in that abuse of maths but also in the breath - taking silliness involved in altogther eliminating the record which, before matters of science as laid out by Eshchenbach, simply makes nonsense of such claims.

The article also incorrectly equates instrumental surface temperature data that Jones and CRU have assembled to estimate the modern surface temperature trends with paleoclimate data used to estimate temperatures in past centuries, falsely asserting that the former «has been used to produce the «hockey stick graph»».