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.
It's what he left out that he's not reporting, the exculpatory data that DID NOT support his thesisOK, I can go with this. What is the exculpatory data that is missing and what instrumentation did it originate from? Tree ring data, I presume?
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.Yes, McIntyre and McKitrick did claim this in 2003. A rebuttal to that was provided by Wahl and Amman in 2007 in their paper "Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence" I assume you think the rebuttal is insufficient; would you please tell me why?
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 oppositeI've seen that accusation before, but I've not seen any type of proof that would stand up to a court of law. And before you bring in ClimateGate and East Anglia, that's a separate issue totally unrelated to the work done by Mann in 1998. If you want to have a separate conversation about that, that will be fine, but I prefer to stick to the on topic. Now, if you have convincing evidence that Mann lied and hid the data - and by convincing proof, I mean documents, videos, audio recordings, so on - please feel free to link me.
It is now known that other tree ring data was deliberately excluded because it did not show what Mann wanted it to show.OK. What tree ring data and what facility did that data originate from?
others turning out to be sampled from differing parts of the trees, I.e. Close to the roots as opposed to farther up the bolesThat wouldn't matter in dendrochronology. Replication would take care of that, and if it didn't, comparison of radiocarbon dating with the dendrochronology would resolve discrepancy.
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.I see you've read the Wegman Report, which was retracted due to plagiarism and Wegman failing to submit it for peer review. Wegman failed to acknowledge that since the Medieval Warm Period (and the Little Ice Age) was a regional and not global phenomenon, they should not be included. If Mann's paper was about the regional temperature record of Europe over time, it would need to be included then.
Data has been hidden, and Mann is refusing FOI releases. . . Including RAW data.I linked to the raw data, which can both be downloaded from there and freely requested from NOAA. Please explain what data was hidden and which facility/agency that data originated from.
No one is using the hockey stick except the popular press. It's been discredited.Now that's just plain not true. Aside from the IPCC using it, the North Report put out by the investigation of the National Research Council verified that while there were minor statistical issues with Mann's work, they confirmed his results. I do not know of any major scientific institution that does not currently use the hockey graph. If you are able to name a few, I would appreciate it.
In her testimony before Congress Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry, hardly a AWG denierJudith Curry was a friend and professor of mine at Tech and I am well-familiar with what she said regarding the decline, which she summarized in her Hiding The Decline posts, the start of which I just linked to. I have had some disagreements with her on the subject, but in general we agree on the original Mann paper. We are in definite agreement that there is a problem with CRU.
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?If someone publicly declared my work with copier technology to be fraudulent, thus impacting my livelihood, you may have no doubt I would file a defamation suit and seek damages. I hold a grudge that way. I understand why Mann did what he did, even if I disagree with him doing it.
Mann spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter insulting other scientists, and non-scientistOh, he's an a-hole for certain. That's generally what a-holes DO, you know. No disagreement there. I even agree that he stretches things in the name of ego.
You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.And this is where I stand up and point at you, shouting, "YOU LIE!"