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 and his proxies DO fail to show that well known period.I see you've read the Wegman Report, which was retracted due to plagiarism and Wegman failing to submit it for peer review.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!"
Excuse me, but suing in a court of law is NOT how science is done. . . Nor is threatening lawsuits against other scientists who disagree with you. Nor is it done by suing laypeople who disagree with you. Michael Mann IS a fine piece of work... who has been caught with his fingers in the proverbial cookie jar and is throwing everything at the wall in hopes nobody will notice. I know a lot of scientists... and most of them are holding their collective noses at the NON-science that is coming out of Climate "science" these days. . . and the dancing they climate 'scientists" are doing to ignore the data from the last fifteen years.
Scientific proof is NOT required to "stand up in court," GAFreedom, it merely has to falsify the thesis. . . and when data that falsifies the thesis is systematically excluded from the presentation, not reported in the studies, and then actively hidden to prevent the contrary data FROM falsifying the thesis, that is serious.
In the mid 1990’s the Polar Urals were the place to be for interesting tree rings, but then as the data got updated and yielded a medieval warm period that Team AGW preferred to ignore, they moved their focus to the Yamal Peninsula. There was plenty of data to pick from, but that’s the point. They chose 10 data sets from 1990, and only 5 post 1995. Which seems curious as presumably there is no shortage of 20 year old trees on the Yamal Peninsula. As Ross McKitrick notes, a small sample may have been passable, but it appears that these trees were not selected randomly.All of this, and more, in the form of other dendrochronological data from OTHER trees from the same periods, in different locations, that DO NOT SHOW the same climatological (general temperature proxy) data, have been repeatedly been brought forth. . . many of which were close to the same trees that Mann claimed showed good proxy representations. . . But these don't. Why not?Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.
. Many question if tree ring data are even good proxies for temperature changes. . . and since the data for twentieth century tree rings DO NOT correspond to temperature variation, why should it be assumed that it does for any previous era???
That 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.
What???? That has nothing to do with this issue. The issue has to do with the comparable WIDTH of the rings on the same tree—and using the widths to claim greater width as a proxy greater temperature—but it is well known that rings from near the roots grow considerably wider than do rings higher up the bole given similar conditions. . . but Mann did not adjust for the discrepancy, assuming the later sampled root rings, with their greater widths, meant warmer, than the earlier sampled, but narrower rings from higher in the same tree. Carbon-14 would not help on any of this. . . bad assumptions are bad assumptions.
One other issue that archaeologists are well aware of is that dendrochronological data is basically about merely counting rings of growing seasons. . . But the rings' thicknesses represent a relationship to Draughts, no necessarily temperature. That is a leap of logic that is hard to make.
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.
Say what?! Let's see, since the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age—both of which occurred during the last 600 years—are "regional" and not "Global" affecting only the North American Continent and much of Europe, then they should be excluded from a data set and graph representing temperature claiming to show "global" temperature increases over 600 plus years using data COMPILED ONLY from the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT and EUROPE??? You want to run that one by me again???? Do you realize how completely nutty that is?
Re: Liberal... Fine you be hot. But we have a LOT of experience with trolls who write and claim to be conservative exactly as you are. . . They were trolls. Time will tell. so far I see no difference between them and you. I would prefer to be wrong. . . But, frankly GAFreedom, the odds don't trend well for you.