[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's totally: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

[Richard Crowley]

"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

[Geoff]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

[Geoff]

geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

.... and then there's that 'round earth' conspiracy...

geoff (again)

[Richard Crowley]

"geoff" wrote ...
geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote ...
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

I just farted in my room. But there is no smell.

geoff

... and then there's that 'round earth' conspiracy...

Take it up with Algore.
YOUR arguments have no bearing here.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 23, 1:32 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North agrees with every word of Wegman Panel's
condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's totally: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

Richard Crowley wrote:
According to my warming-believer friend who went to hear him
speak last week, even Algore is backpedaling on global warming.

Over here we hear more and more that, "Global warming is dead, long
live sudden climate change, up or down." When even Al Gore is
embarrassed by the lie, it is past shameless! -- Andre Jute

[landotter]

On Nov 22, 7:32*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[spamsnip]

You subscribe to hysteria that's over three years debunked. Don't they
have mental health services in your country where you can subscribe
for the fresh hysteria and FUD?

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Nov 23, 2:58*pm, landotter wrote:
On Nov 22, 7:32*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

[spamsnip]

You subscribe to hysteria that's over three years debunked. Don't they
have mental health services in your country where you can subscribe
for the fresh hysteria and FUD?

How can evidence under oath before the US Senate by the world's
leading statistician be either "debunked" or be "hysteria? A lie is a
lie is a lie and stands forever. Global warming is a lie, and this
explains how the lie was made. I give it to you again, Maxine,
straight between the eyes:

*********
Mann's "Hockey Stick" NOT supported by National Academy of Science
*********
Wegman Panel under oath before US Senate describes Michael Mann as
incompetent and dishonest
*********
NAS Panel under Gerald North on oath before US Senate agrees with
every word of Wegman Panel's condemnation of Michael Mann's Hockey
Stick.
*********

The purpose of the IPCC/Michael Mann Hockey Stick is to flatten the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Age, historical events that prove
that our time does not suffer global warming but is merely not very
far along recovery from an ice age towards a time of milk and honey
and mildly warm temperatures. This historical truth does not suit the
alarmists among the bureaucrats at the IPCC, and they have suborned a
substantial section of a branch of science called paleoclimatology to
lie for them.

They got caught out, first by McIntyre and McKittrick, who wrote a
paper politely damning Michael Mann as an incompetent and the IPCC as
fools for believing him and on his crooked account advising
governments to spend trillions on global warming. Among other
condemnations, M&M worked out that Mann's algorithm would invariably
turn red noise (a kind of random number sequence that looks vaguely
like graphs) into a hockey stick graph! This alone totally invalidates
any finding of Mann's: whatever he concludes is statistically
invalid.

Mann then refused to give over his data for additional analysis to see
if any truth could be extracted. This was data for which the taxpayer
had paid (and the IPCC is also a publicly funded body!) and after
several years of controversy the US Senate got involved in the
scientific scandal of "scientists" and bureaucrats who held themselves
to be above the law and the practice of decent scientists.

The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.

The National Academy of Science Panel (NAS Panel) under Gerald North,
another distinguished academician, was set up specifically to counter
the Wegman Panel. But after studying the Mann papers, the NAS Panel,
while expressing itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel, in
every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result. Remember, this
is a panel constituted specifically to exonerate Mann!) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were then also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
then asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings,
and this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their criticism. In
fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to the extent that
they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'

In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...

Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with a total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick: 'Overall, our committee
believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the
hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of
the millennium cannot be supported by his
analysis.'

In short, the whole thing is a lie. Zero global warming happened, and
Mann lied about it. NASA later admitted that they knew 1998 wasn't the
warmest year of the century, that 1934 was.

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, North's Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger! And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nonetheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age remain, and while they
stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

The IPCC and Mann and his co-conspirators like Briffa and Jones, still
tell the Hockey Stick lie over and over and over again, long after
they were all proven to be liars. The Hadley Hack proves in their own
e-mails that they knew there was no global warming, that their proof
was manufactured, that 1998 wasn't the hottest year of the century,
that they were fraudulently seeking and accepting public funds under
false pretenses, that the hysterical panic they tried to throw into
the public and policy-makers was a lie.

If business executives behaved this criminally, they would be jailed.
If politicians lied like these panic pushers, they would be forced
into retirement.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute. This article may be reprinted in full with
this notice in/on any not-for-profit medium or site. Use of any part
or commercial use only with written permission first obtained.

[landotter]

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!

[Ben C]

On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:
On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

"realclimate" is a right wing disinformation site funded by industry.
We've been through this before.

All you do by linking to it is show how loyal you are to your
authoritarian brain infection.

[landotter]

On Nov 24, 2:47*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-11-24, landotter wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:56*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
[drivelsnip]

Not a single link to *any* sources--just a crapstorm of lies. It's
funnier when you link to the weather guy climate expert who's high on
solvents!

Keep posting! We're all thirsty!

Here's a link to the "how to make a hockey stick" paper:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...ockeystick.pdf

Ross McKirtrick? Do you ever check your sources?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Ross_McKitrick

He's a shill for the Fraser Institute--a right wing political
propaganda organization.



Plenty of rebuttals and so on on RealClimate.org, but please read the
paper, then look at the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

Plenty of rebuttals? Really? I've yet to see anything that's not right
wing authoritarian propaganda driven purely by politics, fear, and
Sansabelt conventionalism.