And, I wish you Deniers would stop making Michael Mann rich and famous. In a rational world - the way it is in the world of science - he would have been forgotten 15 years ago. Mann couldn't even get the Hockey Stick paper published by himself - he had to recruit two senior scientists as co-authors just to get "Nature" to take him seriously. And if the IPCC would have put Briffa's comparable reconstruction on its cover, he would be rich and famous instead of Mann - which would be a good thing because Briffa is a cool guy and he deserves it.
I'm generally opposed to using tree-rings to reconstruct temperature, at all; and I particularly objected to Michael's use of them - and I told him that to his face - which is a lot more that you gutless weenies would ever do. In any case, it is irrelevant - except for the political mileage Deniers have made of it - because it did not tell us anything that we did not already know, its publication was coincidental with the consensus - not the cause of it - and it has had zero scientific effect. Climate science would be exactly where it is today if Mann had never been born.
>>Bristlecone pines, strip-bark trees should not be used for temperature reconstructions.<<
Quit acting like you know what you are talking about. There is no explicit definition of 'strip-bark' in tree-ring research because it is not a discrete variable, the geometry is complicated, and the biological basis is not well understood (and that means you sure-as-shlt don't know a damned thing about it). Don and I figured it out and I applied a simple practical rule for the Graybill and Idso paper, but Don was sick...and then died... and I went to Russia...and we never got around to creating an explicit empirical definition - and that is the reason one does not exist..
Before I forget, I saw the snippet of a program you linked to in your other question. Apparently, both McIntyre and you are too stupid to realize that it was written using FORTRAN 66 code - so it sure as Hell was not written by Mann. I think he used MATLAB for the Hockey Stick - and that is something of a Fortran-like language, The code McIntyre claims to have "found" on a UVA website was written by someone other than Mann,
As for your other complaints – the fact that you are too stupid to know who is telling the truth is sufficient evidence that you are too stupid to know the truth. You have no clue about Principal Component Analysis and, so, you may faithfully believe whatever you want – but you cannot have an opinion about Mann’s analysis because that that would require knowledge.
And then there are the Congressional mandated investigation by the National Research Council:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id...
and the numerous times that the Hockey Stick has been replicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Y...
Finally, since you know that you mathematically and scientifically ignorant, but continue pretending that you are not – that makes you a liar. And that makes you the same as McIntyre - except that he knows enough math not to be a fool.
=====
edit –
>>Are you saying paleo would be the same without him, or IPCC would be the same without paleo?<<
Absolutely. No one bothers with multi-proxy reconstructions. It's not worth the effort. There was going to be a multi-proxy graphic the cover that contained the Hockey Stick. The IPCC had decided that it would be either Mann's or Briffa's - and since the looked about the same, it would not have mattered which one.
And I love the way the way you think that you know people you have never met. I'll tell you exactly what Mann thinks of me - he thinks that I do not appreciate the power of slick mathematics and the reason I do not appreciate it is because I'm not as good at it as he is (and it is true that he knows a lot of stuff I don't). He also thinks that I'm an opinionated obnoxious bully - and although it is true that I once said "Bullshlt" during one of his talks loud enough for everyone to hear, I swear it just slipped out and I did not mean to say it out loud.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Gary F is a great one for protecting the lie. This is a classic example of the mechanics of doing this. Try to downgrade someone with bully tactics. Anyone who seriously considers anything Gary F's rants truly is in the ranks of that which he accuses us of, namely in idiot.
Why would anyone belittle anyone who exposes a fraud? That is by definition the sign of a sick mind.
My partner and i suggest using http://www.vpnmaster.org to unblock web sites. I am using their services for more than 3 years with no complications.
I'm sure McIntyre is like the broken clock that is right twice a day, occasionally he will come up with things everyone can agree with.
By the way, I'd like to compliment you on not using plagiarism as a source for this question.
EDIT: Oops Mike, it looks like you got buried again. Of course if you were a true skeptic, you might see that Gary F is a genuine scientist that has spent his career working on these problems, while McIntyre was a poseur that only entered the field in order to spread doubt.
But I don't think you really care what's true and what's false.
EDIT for Raisin Caine: I don't recall personally ever calling you a liar--but you do support other liars, of that I'm sure. And I've documented multiple lies by deniers in here before. Jeff Engr and Maxx have been caught in some whoppers. There are many others that are just so scientifically incompetent and delusional that it's a stretch to call what they "lying", because they are detached from reality.
Insults are what the warmers do when they can't debate the issue.
They have insulted and called me a liar multiple times because I have actually showed sources of uncertainty in both the data and the models. The can't deny the uncertainty, so when debate fails, insults are the last resort.
It is entertaining that for all of the "lying" us "deniers" do, that everytime you pin the warmers down on something, they cannot find a lie.
CR,
It could be because NASA changed the data to account for the UHI and magically the US temp record showed more warming. Either NASA is too stupid to realize that accounting for UHI would make the US temp record show less warming, or.. more likely,. they added other "corrections" that they "think" are stronger than UHI.
Yes, me.
Edit: I just read a good one. Apply this to the climate change issue: "Every great cause starts as a movement, becomes a business and ends as a racket."
I highly recommend making use of VPNPower to unblock sites. I have been using them since four years. http://www.vpnpower.net
Anyone can be right some of the time; even Steve McIntyre. When Steve McIntyre discovered NASA's Y2K bug, NASA acknowledged the problem and fixed it. Then the plant food hit the fan when denialists got upset with NASA for adjusting the data and started posting videos of graphs taped to see saws.
On the other hand, if Mr. McIntyre were truly interesting in using the scientific method to check the validity of Michael Mann's work, he would have got his own data and independently verified Mann's work, as others have done.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...
Raisin Caine
You mean like the sort of comments Jim Z made about Michael Mann.
And when have I ever denied uncertainty? The only people denying uncertainty are those who claim that fossil fuels have no harmful effects. No harmful effects = they are certain
Can not find a lie?
Denialists say that there has been no warming for 17 years. BUSTED.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Denialists say that the Sun is causing the warming. BUSTED.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Denialists say that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans. BUSTED.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoe...
Denialists say that scientists have been paid off by the government to promote global warming. BUSTED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...
It could be? It could be anything we pull out of the end terminus of our digestive tract, unless we go to the source. Google "NOAA temperature adjustments." And click on the NOAA site, not one of the sites with a video of a graph taped to a see-saw.
My partner and i endorse applying http://www.vpnpower.net to help unblock web sites. I've been using them since 5 years.
McIntyre had the gall to threaten a pillar of the statist religion. In fact all he did was use his expertise in statistics for mineral exploration. Gary F and other sheep don't like the fact that he exposed Mann for an incompetent and probably worse, a fraud and liar IMO.
Asked by GaryF, I thought I'd make it its own question.
Some points made by McIntyre:
Proxy was used upside-down in Mann et al PNAS.
Bristlecone pines, strip-bark trees should not be used for temperature reconstructions.
PCA was done improperly by Mann(Gary agreed with this but only to an extent, so he is not an idiot or a liar).
Haven't seen and cannot locate Gary's prior version of this question, which I would otherwise give priority to. Non-scientist Anthony Watts "agrees" with almost every anti-scientist who ever paraded his ignorance or dishonesty in public, so I don't doubt that he has from time to time featured non-scientist McIntyre, but that hardly avoids the second qualification in the question.
http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre
Well, NASA agreed with him when he discovered their Y2K error. Well, agreed or got pissed he found out about it.
No.
