Nick Stokes has his teeth into the hockey stick for a while. Back in 2011 he explored Deep Climate's exposure of the Wegman hanky panky, Nick found that if you didn't do the cherry pick the results were much less hockey stick like for decentered PCs
Then this March Nick explaned how McIntyre and McKitrick effectively truncated the Gaspe cedar series by fifty years, leaving, well not very much or really not very much global data for 1400-1450. MBH had padded out that series from its end in 1404 by persistence, but a Steve McIntyre relied on a narrow reading (and Steve McIntyre is famed for such) of MBH 98 to justify that step, except they were very legalistic in not clearly explaining what they had done, until Nick Stokes worked his way through the thicket.
Then this September, a festival at Moyhu. Three posts on the manipulations necessary to be Steve McIntyre. Evidently Kevin O'Neill had gotten to the creative nature of Steve who was compelled to come to the defense of the Wegmans. Nick looked on with bemusement at how the vegetables were being manuvered
Brandon Shollenberger responded by trying to move the goal posts. The selection by HS index used by Wegman had the incidental effect of orienting the profiles. That's how DC noticed it; the profiles, even if Mann's algorithm did what Wegman claimed, should have given up and down shapes. Brandon demanded that I should, having removed the artificial selection, somehow tamper with the results to regenerate the uniformity of sign, even though many had no HS shape to base such a reorientation on.
And so we see a pea-moving; it's now supposed to be all about how Wegman shifted the signs. It isn't; its all about how HS's were artificially selected. More recent stuff here. So now Steve McIntyre at CA is taking the same line. Bloggers are complaining about sign selection:"While I’ve started with O’Neill’s allegation of deception and “real fraud” related to sign selection,...". No, sign selection is the telltale giveaway. The issue is hockey-stick selection. 100 out of 10000, by HS index.Nick earlier had provided a simple explanation why only looking at PC1, as McIntyre does, leaves a distorted picture (Eli has made this point in the past) and today, well today more on flipped curves from both McIntyre and Moyhu
Now Eli is a simple bunny, and likes to start with definitions. McIntyre defines the hockey stick index as
. . "as the difference between the 1902-1980 mean (the “short centering” period of Mannian principal components) and the overall mean (1400-1980), divided by the standard deviation – a measure that we termed its “Hockey Stick Index (HSI)”.If they had defined it as the absolute value of the difference BS and SM (well, Eli notices these things) might have a leg to stand on, but sorting on the defined HSI SM eliminated all negative going curves from their collection of 100. Accident or incompetence? Once again Eli notes that Steve McIntyre insists that he is incredibly precise. Eli reports, you decide.