>>In MBH1999, Michael Mann adjusted proxy values to handle theorized CO2 fertilization effects.<<

It’s bad enough that most Deniers are idiots who tell stupid lies – but, you’re lying about something you obviously never read, know nothing about, and lack the mathematical knowledge to understand. That’s pathetic, just pathetic.

=====

>>GaryF, have you bought Mann's book? <<

No, Michael and I don’t like each other – although I’ve grown to respect him for standing up to Denier lies.

>>In a 1993 article, Graybill and idso had shown that these very trees might be expected to exhibit a positive growth response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. <<

Yeah, I have some familiarity with that article. Graybill was my best friend – he died in 1993 - and I did the analysis and all of the graphics for that article – so I really do not need your stupid fcking opinion about it.

========

What corrections for what effect?

Mann used a straight-forward regression analysis - as well as using some of my data - and if you had read the article and knew anything about mathematical analysis, you would know that your claims are not only false, they are impossible - and impossibly stupid.

=====

kano --

>>The hockey stick is a joke and an embarassment to warmers<<

Oh yeah? Then tell us. Explain - without copying and pasting nonsense that you do not understand - one thing that Mann did improperly or incorrectly that made any significant difference in the results.

The only mistake he made was in his choice of the factor rotation method in his PCA. And that had no effect because although it changed the order to in which the PCs were extracted, it did not change the factor loadings in the PCs or the number of significant PCs - so the equation results were morphologically? the same and scaled only slightly differently - and if you knew the definition of 'linear,' you would understand that.

=====

edit ---

>>The above versions, one of them is the final from the paper, and others are different subroutines found in Mann's files during ClimateGate. Note the difference is now in the cooling trend that was being claimed.<<

Bullshlt Show me the subroutines (I'll tell you what they do) - and I'll show you McIntyre's (which I have already provided here several times) and explain to you how he lied about Mann's analysis.

Go ahead and keep digging your hole - so I can bury you in it.

======

edit ==

>>You ask for an error by Mann. How about using a proxy upside-down in Mann et al 2008 in PNAS? Pointed out by McIntyre again.<<

Has anyone who is not an idiot or liar ever agreed with McIntyre?

So it looks like on consecutive questions Mike has committed plagiarism http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?... and now slander.

Are you going for an unethical trifecta Mike?

Why don't we see any real skeptics in YA, except for the people that actually think AGW is real? Why are people that deny it so unethical? You don't care whether what you say is true or complete nonsense, as long as it looks bad for AGW.

Do you people cheat on your income taxes, steal from the church collection plate, tell lies about your friends behind their backs? Why don't any of you have any moral character? With some of you I'm sure you lie to yourselves too, and others are too stupid to know better--but a good fraction of you must realize that you're lying, and simply not care.

Nice job, Gary F, standing up to these lying punks. Your answer was reminiscent of that great scene in Annie Hall, where Woody Allen's character pulls Marshall McLuhan from out of nowhere in order to give the blowhard standing next to him in line his comeuppance.

It surprises me that no one talks about why this graph just looks wrong. That quick uptake in temperature from 1910-1940, is seen nowhere else in previous years on the graphs, yet was NOT caused by CO2. Sorry, but I don't buy that. I don't buy that a 30-year 0.5 degree increase from natural causes is only seen once. The warmers talk about how large of an increase 0.8 degrees over 100 years is. How such an increase is so fast that animals will not be able to adapt quickly enough and will die out.

So 0.5 degree over 30 years is OK, but 0.8 degrees over 100 years is very bad.

There is a very good book by Moncton called the Hockey Stick Illusion which I haven't read for a long time. If it weren't for McIntyre, I wonder if anyone would have ever checked them, certainly not our self proclaimed climate scientists. There seems to be very little oversight in climate science, but I suppose it has gotten better now that Mann let the genie out of the bottle. Even their fertilization theory was tainted using strip bark trees that were damaged. The tree naturally tries to compensate for the damaged areas so anyway there were lots of problems. Mann's biggest problem (lie) was a statistical technique (lie) to exaggerate any proxies that showed what he wanted. For example, if he removed bristlecones, it changed the whole kittenkabooddle.

Wow Mike. You do realize this is a wiki about a book, not a real Wikipedia science section

Mike ... stand alone graphs without a source don't prove anything

Z ... the hockey stick illusion is merely another professional denier publication which misses the mark and misinforms