You made a wild claim. You haven't substantiated it. If you believe otherwise you're just seeing what you want to see.
It is of course possible that you have some great insight or crucial piece of information that you've not shared with us so far. Be my guest...
You seem to be expecting a served up on a platter summary, confirming that Mann is discredited, perhaps in the form of neat bbc website pop-science wrapping. That is not going happen for a controversial area, where a clear-cut verdict is unavailable. The nature of science is thus.
In this instance you have the principal components:
- MBH98
- MM03 and 05 critiques of MBH98
- Wegman Report
- North Report
- Transcripts of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Hearings
They are all easy to find, and I linked to some. If you are interested in the controversy, read and make your own mind up. I am assuming from the comments that you made about 'having no opinion on Mann' that you are actually not that interested.
I have further explained why it's important to go to the principal components in this instance, as secondary reporting in this case is skewed (by both sides), and information on RC and Wiki, as well as the denier sites, is skewed to reflect those site's political allegiance.
So far the only person to even attempt to look at the evidence was Yellow Fang, and he based his opinion mainly on Wiki summary. Be very clear, the attempts to discredit Wegman are as political as some of the attempts to discredit climate science, and none of the plagiarism allegations have stuck. They also apply to side issues to the statistical analysis - which of course is the crux of the matter.
I fully expect, if you do actually invest any time in this, that you will come back and say (like FM already has done) - well yeah, there are some problems with MBH98, but it doesn't matter, because the work he has done since then has been fine, and anyway there are lots of other studies that demonstrate the same thing.
The trouble with statements like that, is that they are buying into a group think mentality, where getting the 'right' result is more important than using 'correct' methods. I don't dispute the conclusions of MBH98, I dispute the methods. And in science the methods are all. In my humble opinion.
Given how important it is that we (as a race) adopt the right policy steps with regard to CO2 emission management, it is very shortsighted to pretend that shoddy (or deceitful) science doesn't matter, because it's all for the greater cause. Much better to be open, honest and transparent in our approach to the research. Which is why I admire Curry, and detest Mann.
Maybe, if you're unwilling or unable to debate the merits of MBH98, you could share some of your heroes and villains in climate science, and we coould debate those? Then we might be able to move on from this impasse, where everytime I say something, you retort that it is unconvincing, without giving any substance.
. We did actually experience a shifting of the Gulf Stream a few years ago, It didn't cause a massive chill like in the film, but was cooler and we got a lot of rain (2007). The thing about this Gulf stream moving would mean that we would expect to experience winters like Canada or Germany which isn't really a biggie - we would adapt. There is an opinion on the last ice age being caused by global warming after the Hudson Bay ice dam melted, and desalinated a good dollop of the north Atlantic, and this subsequently increased the polar cap size and lowered global temps as a result.
