Andrew had no 'methodology' he Andrew just drew a line between...

Andrew had no 'methodology' he Andrew just drew a line between two points...
If I had the time, I recon I could do Andrew Bolts job.

The line on 'Andrew chart' is nowhere to be found in Ross R. McKitrick paper.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?DOI=10.4236/ojs.2014.47050

This is what the 'fallacious' do, they 'link' a report, butcher the content to suit their 'bias'.

Stevo, your a smart bloke, why not read the 'original report' for yourself and post the actual report?
Why do you have to 'believe' what ever Andrew Bolt tells you?



From the report.

3. Conclusion
I propose a robust definition for the length of the pause in the warming trend over the closing subsample of surface
and lower tropospheric data sets. The length term MAX J is defined as the maximum duration J for which a
valid (HAC-robust) trend confidence interval contains zero for every subsample beginning at J and ending at
T −m where m is the shortest duration of interest. This definition was applied to surface and lower tropospheric
temperature series, adding in the requirement that the southern and northern hemispheric data must yield an
identical or larger value of MAX J . In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower
tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.
MAX J estimates based on an AR1 estimator are lower but likely incorrect since higher-order autocorrelation exists
in the data. Overall this analysis confirms the point raised in the IPCC report [1] regarding the existence of
the hiatus and adds more precision to the understanding of its length.