Fraser Forum Is the Climate Really Changing Abnormally?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
heard the striking claim that the 1990s were “very likely ” the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 was likely the warmest year. This claim was based on a “hockey stick” curve (see figure 1) from the 2001 Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001). The chart used temperature proxies, such as tree ring widths and ice core layering, to create a temperature index that appeared to slowly trail down for 900 years, then suddenly bend upwards around 1900. The graph was originally introduced by researcher Michael Mann and colleagues in 1998, and was extended in a subsequent paper (Mann et al., 1999). The hockey stick figure featured prominently in reports by the IPCC, appearing not only in figures 2.20 and 2.21 of the 2001 Working Group 1 Assessment Report, but also in figure 1 of the Summary for Policymakers, figure 5 of the Technical Summary, and twice (in figures 2-3 and 91b) in the Synthesis Report. Each time the figure is used it is large (sometimes more than half a page) and in bright colour. It is no exaggeration to say that the hockey-stick figure was the poster-child in the popular case against global warming. The Canadian government also made heavy use of this graph in its arguments for adopting the Kyoto Protocol. But is it true? That was the question that
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".