What Happens When You Don't Know How To Do Statistics?
As it turns out, what happens is that you get slapped down publicly by a committee of statisticians for doing bad statistics. Were the 1990's the warmest decade on record? Not proven by current climate science, and, what's worse, unlikely to be properly examined by climate scientists, due to bad peer review procedures. For those looking for the report, try "wegman report" on Google.
Here's a summary:
‘It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.’
I have to keep saying this. If you're in college, take a course in statistics. It will be more useful than anything else you take, even in your major. If you're out of college, or never went, talk to your local community college about extension courses in statistics. Take them. This is the heart of modern reasoning, folks. You have to know this and logic. NOTE: People are catching on to the fact that Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph was a fraud.