Online Experiment With the Latest Hockey Stick

Ok, two days ago I published a report on the data called The All Important Blade of the Stick Uses Less Than 5% of the Data This report detailed what I consider powerful evidence that Mann and his group may have intentionally manipulated data in creating this paper.  I don’t say this lightly.

It is very clear that the proxies, which no one is sure represent temperature, were in fact extended using questionable statistics and then correlated to demonstrate that they match measured temperature. The addition of an up slope to 90% of the data was pasted on according to less than 5% of the data.  I am very suspicious that this 5% was chosen specifically because of its up slope in recent times. Think about that only 55 series determined the outcome of the majority of the 1209 series data!!

What really tipped it though was that Mann and crew made graphs like this one below.  I don’t care how good of a statistician you think you are, the PINK extension of this graph is obvious CRAP and has absolutely nothing to do with temperature. A four year old child can pick out that the graph below isn’t quite right!

So, my suspicions are so great now that I am putting my butt on the line here.

There were 148 proxies available to Mann which were discarded for unknown reasons.  These were accidentally posted on an NOAA server as original data for this paper.  As far as I can tell these series were not discussed in his paper.  Of the 148 – 64 had data in the current years which would have been very useful for calculating the pink extension. Why didn’t he like these 64 series?

It is my contention that these series will have a negative slope or more negative slope than the 55 proxies which were used.  I have no way of knowing that, but looking at the piles of BS data I have previously noted and considering the pressures on Mann (internal and external) I believe they may have taken the step of intentionally eliminating data which did not support their conclusion!!!

My belief (based only on what I say are suspicious methods) is that the critical end of the latest hockey stick has been created from cherry picked data!

The experiment!

PART 1

I am going to plot first the 5% which was used to put the end on the 1083 data series and I WILL POST IT FIRST. The critical portion of this 5% will be the last 50 years because this is what was used to insert (INVENT) data at the end of 1083 of the 1209 proxies.  These proxies (after modification) will have an up slope at the end 50 years!! I have never seen one plotted by itself let alone an average of all of them.

PART 2

I will plot the average of the 64 series which were long enough to be used for extending (INVENTING) data and I will lay it on top of the first. It is my contention that the up slope in the last 50 years of the rejected data will be visibly less than the up slope of the used data!!

Some proxies (series) will need to be cut from the 64 series group that Mann rejected, i.e. boreholes and Luterbacher simply because he stated he wouldn’t use any data with temperature or historical information for pink colored proxy extensions either way. — Just following the paper.

PART 3 – What happens if I am wrong.

If I am wrong I will  take the time to actually look up and name the whole Mann group here, list all of them by name and apologize for being so suspicious of them that I even ran this online experiment.

Lets do this thang.

———————————————————————————————-

Results.

Ok, step 1 is complete.  I plotted the first graph below.

Holy crap.  Look at that.  Jeff Id steps out to an early lead.  Jeeez,  I’ve never actually been mad at a graph before this.  Look at the huge upslope in the last 100 years.  How about that nice warming period from 400 to 800 ad.

This is the 5% data series used to paste an end on 90% of the data Mann’s group used.

I didn’t expect this extreme of an example when I started this post!

It’s not over yet though, I still have to plot the data which wasn’t used.

The final data!!!!

How did I guess.  This experiment could have gone horribly wrong for me.  The pink line represents the average of the not used data.  Of the 64 series, there were a bunch of Luterbacher datasets so the 64 turned into 46 series to generate the purple line.

There will be no apology today!

Summary

Mann used a select few data sets to paste an up slope on the end of 90% of the data in his latest paper.  The series used to make the pink line above could have been used in the process but were conveniently eliminated from the paper without mention.  Mann accidentally posted these series on a national server and cannot eliminate them easily.

It was my guess that these series would have a reduced up slope compared to the data selected in the last 50 years,  I had no idea the selected data would demonstrate such an extreme slope so I could have lost.  I can’t prove it yet but this now looks like deliberate manipulation of data to me!