You asked me this:
I gave you a page with a list of recent works supporting Michael Mann's work and the hockey stick graph....
Mann's work was based off of tree rings originally, I recall.
Independent investigations of ice cores, done since Mann's work, have also confirmed his findings:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/
So there you have one easy to read example and a list of other, independent research that back up Mann's findings.
Excerpt from "A Disgrace to to his profession by Mark Steryn".....Here an sample what his fellow climate scientist think of the Mann Fraudent Hockey stick.
Mann of the past ONE TREE-RING TO RULE THEM ALL It is difficult to avoid the impression that the IPCC uncritically accepted scientific work that “repealed” the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age because these two well-known features of the climate record placed Global Warming Theory in doubt, at least for the global public.
DR JEFFREY E FOSS, PHD BEYOND ENVIRONMENTALISM: A PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE (2009) THE HOCKEY stick is what’s known as a “proxy reconstruction”.
There’s only two things wrong with it the proxies and the reconstruction. Other than that, you can take it to the bank. First, the proxies: The hockey stick is generally believed to show global (actually Northern Hemisphere) temperatures for the last millennium. But Mann does not, in fact, have any temperature readings for, say, the year 1143. That’s because your average medieval peasant village did not have a weather station, and neither Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit nor Anders Celsius had yet been born.
So Mann has to divine his 12th century thermometer readings from “proxy data”. What is a proxy? Well, it’s something like an ocean coral or an ice core or some lake sediment from which one can “reconstruct” the temperature history. In Mann’s case, it was mostly tree rings. Much of the world isn’t terribly forested, and most of the parts that are can’t tell you the temperature for 1143. For a shot at that, you need a thousand-year-old tree, and there are only a few of those around, here and there in Siberia, in parts of Canada, in California. That was his first mistake:
His proxy reconstruction uses the wrong proxy. To a kid, a tree ring is simple: Jack counts in and finds out whether his tree is older than Jill’s. But, if you’re trying to figure out the temperature, it’s more fraught. “The original ‘hockey stick’ graph figured strongly in the IPCC 2000,” Professor Anthony Trewavas told the British House of Commons. “But it is an artifice… The size of the tree ring is determined by everything that affects all aspects of plant development. These are: soil nutrients and structure; light variations; carbon dioxide; competition from other trees; disease; predators; age; rainfall; previous developmental activity as well as temperature. Temperature, for which it supposedly acts as a proxy, is just one contributor amongst many and of course reflects local conditions only. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ failed,” he continued, because “tree rings on their own are not a reliable proxy.” Oddly enough, boreholes and other proxies disagree with tree-rings when it comes to the temperature record. Mann had a few alternative proxies in his mix, but just a soupçon , so he could claim to have included them if anybody asked. And then he further refined the process:
Having chosen the wrong proxy trees he took the additional precaution of using the wrong kind of tree. Those ones in the American west, for example, are bristlecone pines. They’re certainly old: There’s a bristlecone pine in California’s White Mountains that has been precisely dated 5,064 years old in 2015 and is believed to be the oldest tree on earth. Unfortunately, the guys who know bristlecones including the very scientists who collected the data Mann used say they’re unreliable as thermometers. Those California bristlecones are sensitive to higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of whether the temperature’s going up or down. Mann knew this. As Hans Erren observed, Mann’s North American trees did not match the North American temperature record. Yet he decided that, even if they couldn’t reliably tell you the temperature for the bit of sod they were planted in, they could reliably tell you the temperature for the entire Northern Hemisphere. Even the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences bristled at the cones:
For the earliest part of the 1999 analysis, Mr Mann’s group relied heavily on bristlecone pines from western North America. The original study noted that there were some difficulties in using such trees because of peculiarities in their recent growth, but Mr Mann and his group attempted to quantify those problems and to work around them.
The National Research Council suggested that researchers avoid using trees that are the most difficult to interpret . The NRC can “suggest” all they want: for years, Mann and his Hockey Team continued to rely on bristlecones as failsafe treemometers. Yet, even when you decide to apply the wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet, repealing the Medieval Warm Period is harder than you think. So Mann additionally decided to apply the wrong weighting to his wrong example of the wrong proxy to the wrong part of the planet by giving tree-ring data that produced a hockey-stick curve over 300 times the value of tree-ring data that didn’t. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location…
But what else do we need? Ah, yes, the wrong method. Put aside the bristlecones in MBH98 and Mann’s hockey-stick curve for the entire Northern Hemisphere up to 1421 comes from just one tree, and from thereafter to 1447 from just two trees both from Québec’s Gaspé Peninsula . (And from 1400 to 1403 from zero trees: he just extrapolated the 1404 reading.) By contrast, reputable dendrochronologists won’t use data sets with fewer than five trees on the grounds that one or two (never mind zero trees) might not be that representative. But Mann did and then he made them even more mega-representative by double-counting that pair of Gaspé trees in two separate data sets.
And suddenly you can’t see the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period for the trees or tree. Wrong proxy, wrong tree, wrong location, wrong method = right answer: LIA( liitle ice age) equal to MIA( Missing in Action) . MWP( Medieval Warm Period) becomes RIP ( Retired in Peace).
