"Hockey stick" debunking
The problem with the hockey stick graph appears to be that whatever set of data ("red noise") one feeds into the model used, in 99% of cases it produces a "hockey stick" graph. You could feed in the milk consumption data in 50 countries and out would come the hockey stick graph.
That I knew for a while. What I did not pay attention to was the fact that the initial data series for the entire study was the tree-ring data of only one particular species of trees - the high altitude bristlecone pine. How this part was not questioned before is beyond me. Extrapolating from one data series for one species of tree climate data for the entire planet? How about some other data like ice cap size or other types of trees?
The scientist who "believe" are responding to the new study with characteristic scientific vigor and argumentation: "This is simply pure and unadulterated rubbish" to quote one of them. Nice argument. I wonder where his grant money comes from.