Why did Michael Mann's famous Hockey stick graph not show the hot temperatures in the 1930s?

Can't wait for this guy to do jail time, he'll see how much good his hockey stick does him then.

Cuccinelli's civil investigative demand, or CID, concerning the research of Michael Mann, who left U.Va. in

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/govtp...

Cuccinelli's civil investigative demand, or CID, concerning the research of Michael Mann, who left U.Va. in

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/govtp...

Figure A2 also shows warm temperatures in the 1930s and early 1940s, possibly suggesting a longer-term oscillation in climate.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report07/atmosphere.htm...

It was a lie based on manipulated data, but this does NOT mean we should treat our planet with the contempt we do... however it does show that there is a VERY different agenda from the one we are being bullshitted with by the mainstream media, just underneath the surface. The J-curve hypothesis HAS been discredited, try the UK magazine New Scientist, which references sources from the Royal Society (a highly respected UK scientific body). The e-mails show that data is being suppressed, twisted and manipulated... WHY? The only thing we CAN all agree on is that our politicians have been lying through their teeth, THEY are responsible for the poor state of our planet, deforestation, species loss etc - and this proves they cannot be trusted as far as we can throw them!

Mann couldn't even get the hockey stick the right way up:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-whic...

"Mann didn't just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down"

Mann then decided to show that he could, in fact, get a hockey stick without using Tiljander. He did, but used bristle-cones which even the NAS panel said shouldn't be used in temperature reconstructions.

And not only did he use Tiljander upside down, he used one of Andy Baker's series upside down. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5766

In reference to how the blade of the Hockey Stick should actually go down rather than up, "The original authors (Tiljander et al) discounted the 20th century portion as compromised by agriculture, ditches and bridges and so the increased varve thicknesses were not considered to be evidence of global cooling."

Look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Tempera...

that's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:Holocene_Temperature

_Variations.png

You will see that Daly's graph is the same as a left-to-right mirror image of this, except that it deliberately leaves out the last century or so, and the marker showing the temperature in 2004.

So why do people keep on showing Daly's graph, when his denialist chart has been proved to be so bogus?

And he's not the only denialist to play this silly game; see Don Easterbrook's version, discussed here at

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At...

Your second link is to a denialist website, which does not challenge the data, but questions whether there is a serious problem.

Your third link, to the admirable Scientific American, actually contains the quotation

"Such efforts [to reduce CO2 emissions] are essential, because the blade of Mann's hockey stick will get longer."

The very opposite of what you are suggesting.

So why does the facade of denying the science continue, and when will denialists stop distorting the evidence, even as they quote it?

Dude what are you talking about several of your links show the graph and they show warming starting near the beginning of last century and continuing without much of a pause till the forties, how is that not showing warmer temperatures in the thirties, you need glasses man.

John Daly's first clanger regarding the 1990 IPCC graph is covered here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Common-graphical-t...

When he says 'This graph asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today', by 'today' he means 'the 50 year average centred around the 1920s-30s'. That's not today as far as I'm concerned.

The Hockey Stick has the 1930s as about 0.4-0.5C cooler than today because that's what both HadCRUT3 and GISTemp say. As written in the caption in the original papers, the instrumental record used is clearly stated. (GISTemp in MBH I think?)

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadc...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

So there's your answer. Alternatively, you could just have read the original paper.

<<Why did Michael Mann's famous Hockey stick graph not show the hot temperatures in the 1930s?>>

It also did not show that the Moon is made of green cheese.

What hot temperatures in the 1930s are you trying that stupid old denier trick of referring to the USA regional temperature and forgetting to mention it is for the USA only, that's an old one that has not been fooling anyone for some time.

In a nutshell! Because he's a liar! A cheat! A fully paid up member of the AGW propaganda machine who's sole remit is to rewrite historical facts by fair means or foul because the MWP totally destroys all credibility of the infantile and unscientific AGW theory!

Because he cherry picked the data to show the results he wanted to show. AKA he lied.