Hardly final, since there are nearly twenty other studies that confirm the basic shape of the graph.
Not from a statistical standpoint. It has failed evey statistical test run on it so far. From a methodology stanpoint it is a complete and utter failure. Even the people who Mann claimed gave it the green light said they didn't. He lied about what they said...not too surprising coming from a serial prevaricator.
The only way that the stick was found to work was when a SINGLE tree from the grove was used. The one tree was found to fairly accurately match Mann's graph.
Now that is a complete lie. But the kind of thing that you are good at, Walleyes.
Some of the leading scientists at the NAS did not like Mann's statistical methods, either. But when they used their own methods, the resultant graph was pretty much the same.
Seems that there are about as many statistical methods as there are statiticians.
The Hockey Stick Controversy: New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise - Media Advisory
Media Advisory: The Hockey Stick Controversy
New Analysis Reproduces Graph of Late 20th Century Temperature Rise
May 11, 2005
BOULDER—Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.
Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method.
Ammann and WahlÂ’s findings contradict an assertion by McIntyre and McKitrick that 15th century global temperatures rival those of the late 20th century and therefore make the hockey stick-shaped graph inaccurate. They also dispute McIntyre and McKitrickÂ’s alleged identification of a fundamental flaw that would significantly bias the MBH climate reconstruction toward a hockey stick shape. Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded. They first presented their detailed analyses at the American Geophysical UnionÂ’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco last December and at the American Association of Geographers Annual Meeting in Denver this year.
