It seems McIntyre and McKitrick, a mining engineer and an economics professor can no longer be ingored in their critique of Mann's hockey stick graph. Their critique will soon be published in Geophysical Research Letters and also in Energy & Environment. Evidently their critique has merit or I doubt GRL would be publishing it.

I find it very unsettling that since Mann's hockey stick study was done, the only people interested enough to examine the underlying data and methods were to be found outside the climatology community. It seems the community's attitude was, "If it supports out position, we accept it as true. No further analysis is necessary."

It seems it was as tough as pulling hen's teeth to gather the information Mann & Co. used. I am not a scientist, but it seems inexcusable that the information and methods would not be archived and readily available to the scientific community, so that others could replicate the work.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html has links to the papers.

http://www.canada.com/national/natio...9-dd43aed1f224

Are there any standards in the other sciences that require public archiving of important information, data, and methods for others to analyze?

If not, why not?

__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open.

The difficult thing is that a lot of the evidence has come about since the publication of the Hockey Stick. I believe the New Zealand ice core that confirmed the Little Ice Age was some time after '98 (I could be remembering completely incorrectly). The problem is not so much that Mann came up with his Hockey Stick (although I have read a bit about the M&M study and something to do with Mann improperly copying convenient data from one series into another), but that he and his supporters clinging to it in light of evidence confirming the MWP, LIA and the M&M and S&B studies.

Many journels, including Nature where the Mann et al articles were published, do require that the data be available on request. That is one of M&M's early complaints, that Mann et al did not provide the data for several series, making it harder to accurately reproduce the results. I don't think that was ever completely resolved, even with the Corrigendum.

Anyway, the M&M site update is pretty interesting (as discussed on the other thread). Their strongest evidence, IMO, is still that feeding random data into Mann's program yields the same hockey stick shape.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.