Actually, no, he hasn't. Much of his data is still hidden. That is one of the primary complaints on his work. . . and even his supporters admit it. Mann claims proprietary privilege. . . that cannot survive discovery.I'm sorry, friend, but you're wrong there. All of the data used for the hockey stick paper published by Mann in 1998 was publicly available data, which can be downloaded right here. That data is the whole enchilada, straight down to the methods and formulas that he used to get his results. Check it yourself.
It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesis, . . and the facts that the "hockey stick" data is using VERY limited data set chosen from locales that have been generalized so that people think it is valid for the world. An honest scientist includes ALL data, including data that doesn't fit. . . Mann, the Al, agreed to hide data that did not support their over all theory of AGW. . . and Mann, specifically did not include all the dendrochronological data that was available to him, instead cherry picking only those that seemed to show what he wanted, and excluding those that showed nothing or the opposite. . . and even his turned out to not be a good temperature proxy. It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show. The fact that Mann's tree ring data did NOT model temperatures for the 20th century for the areas where the trees grew—instead representing more closely known drought and wet seasonal patterns, and others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the boles—is an extremely difficult issue for Mann that was NOT disclosed in his work. . . as was Mann's impermissible extension of data he did not have to reach 1400 AD. , or the doubling of data sets. The data did not show the Medieval Warm period that is known completely historically which which should cause anyone to question the validity of the basic premise of the proxy. . . and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period. Using his misapplied statistical approach, you can put almost ANY data into his formulas and get a hockey stick (McIntyre). . . as many statistician have said. Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data. He is refusing discovery on why these important data sets were omitted on some in the court cases. He's stonewalling. Why? He dare not allow himself to take the stand.
By the way, some of these data errors Mann has admitted (doubling, extending his data back), but he has not corrected his papers. . . and in fact published again, using the same data, after admitting the errors. No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited. Drs. Mann, Briffa, and Jones have been caught conspiring to "hide the decline" in their own words. In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denier, said:
"McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this [hide the decline] and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t. Can anyone defend “hide the decline”? I would much prefer to be wrong in my interpretation, but I fear that I am not."Mann's response to Curry was to call her names and declare her a "climate-denier" and "anti-science," and threaten to file a defamation suit against her! This seems to be his modus operandi. . . someone criticizes his work, attack! Name call! SUE! Thin skinned, isn't he?
Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientist including people such as Bill Gates, and the FOUNDER of Greenpeace who have realized the bunk Mann has been pushing and who now disagree with him even though they may still agree with the premise of AWG. . . but he cannot STAND to receive critical fire in return. It seems it's all about his ego.
After all, Mann claims to have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, claiming "I won the Nobel Peace prize" in his court pleadings against Mark Steyn. . . . an under oath document!. . . when he did not even get a contributor certificate (actually, no one did) with the person and organization who actually DID win that prize. Only Al Gore and the IPCC were actually awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize received "Nobel Diplomas" for that particular 2007 prize, and did NOT include Mann who, according to Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute, added his own (vanity) award commendation wording to a copy of the Nobel Diploma! Can you say FORGERY! How egotistical can one get??? This behaviors shows a certain willingness to, shall we say, stretch the truth. . . or shall we be blunt and say LIE? The winners are tolerantly amused. . . Being Liberals.