Hockey stick wars, the story so far: McIntyre and McKitrick (M&M) first claimed that the hockey stick graph was the product of “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.” Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH) published a correction to the supplementary information about their article, but which did not affect their results. Next, MM argued that the hockey stick was the result of incorrect normalization of the data. However, Hans van Storch, a strong critic of the hockey stick, concluded that “the glitch [McIntyre] detected in Mann’s paper is correct, but it doesn’t matter, it’s a minor thing.” Next, MM argued that the hockey stick depended on the inclusion of the bristlecone pine proxies. However, a new reconstruction by Osborn and Briffa once again finds that the late 20th century is the warmest period in the last 1000 years and the result is not affected by the exclusion of any one, two or even three proxies. Mcintyre responded by arguing that many of the proxies used were defective (as far as I can tell, he thinks that all the proxies that show the 20th century to be warmest are no good.)
The latest development is that the NAS is convening a panel to assess the scientific evidence on temperature reconstructions for the past one or two thousand years. MicIntyre’s response? He is attacking the panel as biased because it contains people on the “Hockey Team”. As far as I can make out, the Hockey Team is Mann, Bradley and Hughes, plus any of their co-authors, plus any of the co-authors of their co-authors. Oddly enough, McIntyre is not complaining about the inclusion of John Christy on the panel. You see, Pat Michaels is a co-author of McKitrick — they wrote a paper which was flawed by the use of degrees when they should have used radians. And Michaels is a co-author of Christy. Looks like Christy is on the M&M team.