Mann’s Hockey Schtick, Er, Stick, Collapses With Modern Tree Rings

I have to wonder when Warmists switch to a narrative of “fake but accurate” when it comes to “climate change”

(Jo Nova) You’ll be shocked that after decades of studying 800 year old tree rings, someone has finally found some trees living as long ago as 2005. These rarest-of-rare tree rings have been difficult to find, compared to the rings circa Richard III. The US government may have spent $30 billion on climate research, but that apparently wasn’t enough to find trees on SheepMountain living between the vast treeless years of 1980 to now.

I’ve always thought it spoke volumes that many tree ring proxies ended in 1980, as if we’d cut down the last tree to launch the satellites in 1979. We all know that if modern tree rings showed that 1998 was warmer than 1278, the papers would have sprung forth from Nature, been copied in double page full-fear features in New Scientist, and probably the IPCC logo too. (snip)

Steve McIntyre has been asking for an update since 2005. He has the details of the new paper by Salzer, and produces this devastating graph below. The black line is MBH98 – the Michael Mann curve of Hockeystick fantasy. The red line is HadCRU (the Hadley best guess of surface temperatures, from surface thermometers and computers). The droopy green line is the Graybill chronology to 1987, while the blue lines are the updates to the SheepMountain series of tree ring “temperatures”. Oops.

As Ms. Nova points out, Mann’s hockey schtick, er, stick, depends on not using tree rings after 1980. Warmists often accuse Skeptics of “cherry picking data”, either because Warmists are dishonest or just deluded, depending on the situation. What are we to make of their inability to grasp that working backwards from current time in order to show that there has now been an 18 year 2 month pause is not cherry picking. If we were only looking at, say, data between 1980 and 1996 (which is when a spike in global temps occurred), that would be cherry picking. Is it cherry picking that we look at all the computer models and see that 95% have failed?

Make sure to read the rest at Jo Nova’s site, but, let me make it clear, this doesn’t invalidate that the Earth is currently in a warm period. Skeptics do not deny that. The debate is not over warming, but causation. We say it is mostly natural, just like it has always been. And, no, do not ask me for what those natural forces are, Mr/Ms Warmists, because we have told you time and time again. Don’t blame us if you have the memory retention of a constant stoner. Warmists say it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. Yet, they won’t practice what they preach, they “modify” data, they invent data, and say that computer models are more important that actual measurements. Did I mention they fail to change their own behavior?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Mann’s Hockey Schtick, Er, Stick, Collapses With Modern Tree Rings”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Global warming ended today thanks to Steve McIntyre! Finally. Thanks, Steve! Now none of us have to argue about whether the Earth is warming or not.

    The scientist authors (suckling the teat of the US National Science Foundation) of the actual paper cited did not suggest that they had falsified the Theory of AGW. Perhaps they didn’t realize it – or were reluctant to state it outright out of fear of retribution from Obama or the IPCC.

    The graphic in McIntyre and jonova’s blogs was not in the original paper, either. But that’s OK. The authors clearly show that Bristlecone pines at the upper treeline on the northern side of a mountain have a different tree ring pattern than Bristlecone pines on the southern side or if they grow some 100 meters down the mountainside. If that doesn’t disprove Global Warming, nothing does! Read em and weep, warmists!

  2. Casey says:

    Wow. After that pathetic non-argument I’m surprised you have the cojones to call skeptics “deniers.”

  3. WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by searching for ftp

  4. Jeffery says:


    Thanks for you engaging and thoughtful comment.

    Can you explain in a few sentences how the new data disproves the Theory of AGW?

  5. John says:

    Teach it is more important for many people to change a little ( thanks for switching away from incandescent )
    Than it is for a few to change a lot
    Even Spencer now agrees that the planet is warming
    And that 50% is caused by man
    Yet you feel compelled to continue trying to discredit even that
    Knowledge that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation has been known for over 100 years

Pirate's Cove