In a desperate effort to distract attention from the real issue, Steve McIntyre and one of his more loquacious acolytes have renewed their attack on the fabled hockey stick – cheering themselves hoarse over their one, small “victory” in climate science debate, even while the science itself continues to pass them by.

Mann’s Hockey Stick Graph

Michael Mann‘s Hockey Stick graph, above, was placed prominently in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in part because it showed so clearly how temperatures over the last millennium rode along fairly steadily for hundreds of years and then spiked in the latter part of the 20th century (approximating the shape of a hockey stick).

Steve McIntyre, an amateur statistician and retired mining stock promoter found in Mann’s work what he argued was a statistical anomaly, challenged Mann and was actually successful in getting Mann to submit a correction to the journal (I think it was Science) that originally published the graph. The excited chorus of “Ah ha!” rang through the deniersphere. Mann, they said, had “admitted he was wrong” (albeit on one small detail). And therefore, we could all go home and stop worrying about climate change.

This is stupid for a host of reasons. First, even Edward Wegman, the statistician who the (anti-climate change policy) Republicans “invited” to critique the “stick” agreed that Mann’s original conclusions were reasonable, even if not absolutely verifiable beyond about 400 years.

But more obviously, the stick has been replicated time and again, using different termperature proxies and different methodologies. And guess what? In every instance, the image looks like a hockey stick. And in NO instance has McIntyre or any of his cronies so much as peeped about the credibility of these pieces of research.

So, even if you wanted to walk away from Mann’s work (and we don’t; it was good work overall), there is still an overwhelming body of evidence that the deniers fear or fail to recognize.

To whit: the image at the top is from a paper by Jones, et al , that appeared in the journal Science in 2001. It’s based on multiple proxies, including tree rings, ice cores, corals and historical records, and like the Wegman-approved Mann hockey stick, goes back 400 years.

D’Arrigio, et al

But don’t stop there. What about the next image above. It’s from a paper by D’Ariggo, et al, published in the Joutrnal of Geophysical Atmospheres in 2006, also uses tree rings, but extends for the full thousand years.

Briffa, et al

Or the next thousand-year image (above), from a paper by Briffa, et al, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2001 and based again on tree rings.

Oerlemans

Then there’s the image (above) from a paper by Oerlemans, based on glacier records and published in the April 2005 issue of Science.

Jansen, et al

But let’s not stop there. What about the next graph (above) from Jansen, et al, published in the Fourth IPCC Review in 2007.

Moberg, et al

And as we’re on a role, why not also look at the next graph, from Moberg, et al, based on tree rings and lake and ocean sediment and published in Nature in 2005.

Wilson, et al

Then, we might reasonably consider the next graph, from Wilson, et al, more tree rings, different methodology, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2007.

Jouzan, et al

Finally, why not look at Jouzel, et al, (Note that this graph goes in the other direction) which covers not 1,000 years but 800,000, and which seems to show a hockey stick shape for about 110,000 years. Oh yeah, this was published in Science in August of 2007, ample time for the climate “experts” at ClimateAudit to use their vast statistical skills to identify an anomalies or debunk that which bears debunking.

Alas, no. Despite it’s quite pleasing new design, ClimateAudit is silent on all but the Mann graph and really has had NOTHING NEW TO SAY since 2003.

So, what do you say, Steve McIntyre, Bishop Hill, Chris Monckton and all the others who love to hold so closely to the Hockey Stick. Have you any legitimate criticism of all the other science that supports Mann’s work? Any criticism at all?

Or would you prefer to huddle about like has-been high school football stars, forever reliving that one great play – imagining, even today, that it made a difference?