The demolition of the "hockey stick"

Some excellent information about the IPCC "hockey stick" fiasco is here.

One excerpt:

As I will show, the hockey stick paper was deeply flawed, and it contradicted other credible evidence then appearing in the scientific literature. The flaws could have been discovered during the review process under even the most elementary fact-checking. Yet the review process not only allowed this paper through, but made it front-and-centre in the final Report.

If you're currently an Ivory-bill skeptic but also a climate alarmism believer, you really should give the above piece a very careful read.

As you know, as the centerpiece of CLO's "Ivory-bill" case, the Luneau video was thoroughly demolished when exposed to the review of outsiders. As the centerpiece of the IPCC's anthropogenic global warming case, the hockey stick has suffered a similar fate.

I think it's in your own best interest to learn about this situation now. As demonstrated in the IBWO case, it's clearly more fun to figure out the truth earlier rather than later.

More excerpts from this related post:

So compelling was 1,000-yr long “hockey stick” graphic, that it quickly became the poster child for anthropogenic global warming. As such, it was prominently displayed as the first figure of the oft-read Summary for Policymakers of 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The “hockey stick” graphic gives the appearance that left to its own devices, nature displays very little in the way of temperature variation, but that during the past century, humans have come along and thrown everything out of kilter. It is thus the perfect representation of the greenhouse alarmists’ message—humans have caused the weather to be like never before (and this is bad).
...
But, the “hockey stick” was remarkable. And as such, it will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight. The embarrassment that it caused to many scientists working in the field of climatology will not be soon forgotten. Hopefully, new findings to come, as remarkable and enticing as they may first appear, will be greeted with a bit more caution and thorough investigation before they are widely accepted as representing the scientific consensus.