Tuesday
Feb022010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Fred Pearce on the Hockey Stick
Feb 2, 2010 Climate: MWP Fred Pearce has an article on the Hockey Stick in the Guardian.
The deniers say it is a lie. Climate scientist stand by it.
Given that the Hockey Stick fails its verification R2 in rather spectacular fashion (as well as the climatologists' own preferred measure, the RE statistic), this statement says much more about the climate scientists than the sceptics.
Fred, you need to read up on this.
Reader Comments (6)
That article is a total joke, also no comments are allowed or I definitely would have pointed him in the direction of your book.
Send him one Anthony
You can add all the comments you like (I have) on his other guardian article on climategate
have fun.
And you can def add comments DH, at least two mentions of the good book
there was one commenter though that was a bit disparaging of His Grace, having mixed him up with My Lord Monkton. If anyone is registered it may be worth pointing out that they are different people! The hockey stick is central to the whole debate, and it's good to see exposure on the MSM, even if they've not quite got it yet. Bish's book will be an invaluable tool in making this point.
"... scientist stand by it."
Seems to me an "s" is missing from this statement. Of course, its application to either the noun or the verb would make all the difference.
Also, Fred's continued use of the term "denier(s)" implies, to me at least, some remaining bias.
I don't know whether anyone else noticed this. One commenter on a Guardian article by Pearce asked the question "What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?". This was replied to by staff writer James Randerson, who inter alia replied:
[JRanderson, 3 Feb 2010, 9:30PM, Staff]
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions..."
In other words, it's not interested in looking where the science leads. AGW is the editorial line. It is being pushed from the top. Articles must support the AGW agenda even if it's phoney. If Monbiot and Pearce want to continue writing for the Guardian they are obliged to toe this editorial line. Therefore Pearce, who is getting involved in lots of articles now (over two months too late) simply cannot behave as a proper investigative journalist since he has to conform to an editorial line. This thus taints everything he says. Do bear this in mind when reading Pearce's articles in the Guardian.