The Marcott-'Science' Hockey Stick Fiasco: Audit of New Study Proves Bogus Data Manipulation

The Marcott et al. hockey stick study published in the journal 'Science' has now been debunked as bogus AGW science due to blatant data and statisitical manipulations - the author's own PhD thesis is corraborating audit evidence that charlatan-style science is required to produce hockey stick blade

(click on image to enlarge - original image source)

Read here. Rud Istvan has written a devastating critique of the new 'Science' journal article that is known as Marcott et al. 2013. His work is based on a hockey stick science audit that Steve McIntyre is in the process of performing (here, here, here, here, here and here).

Below are the key points that one can infer and/or determine from the audit results that Istvan describes:

 

1. Marcott's PhD thesis regarding a multi-proxy reconstruction of 73 unique paleo-temperature records did not possess a hockey stick "blade"

2. A multi-proxy hockey stick blade, which provides proof that modern warming is "unprecedented," can be fabricated from any number of individual records using several "statistical" techniques

3. Since the original 73 dataset thesis did not have the proverbial "blade," the Marcott et al. study chose to literally change (manipulate) multiple paleo-dataset ending dates to fabricate a bogus hockey stick blade

4. Of the 73 proxy paleo records used in the original Marcott thesis research, Marcott et al. moved forward in time 10 of the individual paleo-datasets and 9 backward in time - the other 54 dataset ending dates did not change

5. By simply manipulating specific paleo proxy ending dates, Marcott et al. were able to fabricate the imaginary hockey stick representation (see black curve in above alkenone-proxy chart) versus the original thesis non-hockey stick representation based on the actual paleo-dataset's beginning and ending dates (see red curve)

6. Marcott conducted no original paleo-dataset research for this 'Science' journal study, nor was he an expert on any of the 73 proxy records used - yet he changed the ending dates of the given expert's original science research without obvious requisite scientific merit/expertise

Conclusions: Per an audit of the 73 paleo temperature proxies used in the Marcott thesis, it is conclusive (C3's editorial opinion) that the hockey stick subsequently reported in the journal was a statistical slight-of-hand (manipulation) that conjured up a fabricated blade based entirely on charlatan-style empirical evidence. Why did Marcott et al. feel the need to do this? There is speculation that neither the 'Science' or 'Nature' journals would publish their study unless it visually provided "proof" that modern warming was "unprecedented" over the last 1,500 years (see study's own words in journal abstract).