Whatever happened to Dr. Mann's "hockey stick graph"? part 2

Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick times three dozen!

I came across this collection of over three dozen climate studies that examined Earth's climate history from various angles.  Interestingly these studies consistently produce a hockey stick shape graph reflection of what's happened here on Earth.  

The list was put together by Professor Jim Milks over at EnvironmentalForest.blogspot.    It underscores the substantive nature of the much maligned and misrepresented "Hockey Stick Graph" which actually first appeared in the iconic Keeling Curve, but was made infamous by the Republican/libertarian's malicious attack against the paleoclimate studies of Dr. Mann, et. al.  
{I informed Dr. Mann of posting this. He pointed out: thanks Peter,

yes—it’s a good site, and I have linked to some of their stuff before.

There is one slight error in the piece below (the Keeling Curve is definitely *not* the Hockey Stick!).
To which I responded: That's my layperson's sloppiness at work - From my perspective seems to me that our planet's skyrocketing CO2 levels over the past couple centuries looks frighteningly akin to a "hockey stick" shape.  But your point is taken.}

This PR campaign singled out Dr. Mann lead researcher of a large team of experts who's evidence these special interests simply refused to acknowledge.

Reality is that Dr. Mann's work isn't needed to make the point that we are really screwing up our planet's climate system, (the thing we and our society depend on for everything).  

With thanks to Dr. Milks' for his permission, I reprint his Hockey Stick Graph Collection:

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Enough hockey sticks for a team

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick (usually meaning Mann et al. 1999) has been discredited.  Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999.  Here is a brief list of the ones I know:

Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)'s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years.  Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

#11 Questions for Heartland's Burnett, re Dr. Mann and more - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

{slightly edited at 10:00pm 4/26}

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 

Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University

______________________________________________ 

Steele writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process.  ... 

And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

_____________________________________________________

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  

I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this eleventh installment I'm going to give Jim another pass in order to linger on Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett's next question and his cheap shot at Dr. Mann which inspired a number of questions I'd like to direct to Mr. Burnett himself.

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science."  

Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  What kind of impact do you believe this scientific misdirection of global warming and you know sort of the single point of view of global warming has had on science in general.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What 
"scientific misdirection of global warming" ?

You don't explain a thing.
You don't specify what you are talking about.
You don't provide anything constructive to build upon.

Your goal seems to be sewing mistrust and confusion.
What about learning from the information at hand?
_________________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  You know the media just focuses like a hawk, it seems to me, on whatever horror, horrific climate spin story is sent out.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What's with this non sequitur?  

Are we discussing climate science, or profit driven sensationalistic media products?  Two very different issues buster brown, stop conflating them!
__________________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  Just following the old Mann trick, I believe the lead on climate is the same way, if it's disaster it's the headline.