Ah, we are back to accusations of cheating. Are you hoping to prove it by virtue of repeating it? You've offered nothing else...
You continue to peddle long-debunked myths whilst denouncing all evidence you don't like as a conspiracy. It's quite clear that you are incapable of objective analysis on this issue.
As tempting as it is to make reference to your sig line, I will make one last effort to show causality between using a completely wrong methodology for evaluating data, then presenting the result as proof of your original hypothesis, obfuscating at every turn when the faults are pointed out to you, lying to a Congressional hearing, and subsequently spending the rest of your scientific career throwing mud at any and all detractors; and being referred to as a liar and a cheat.
I take it as read that we are all agree that using Mann's method of short-centered principal components is biased and will produce hockey sticks from red noise; as you have not attempted to argue otherwise despite my repeated invitations to do so.
Ergo MBH98 is based on a flawed premise, and while we can broadly agree with it's findings, they were reached in error, and are unsupported by the datasets used.
So the only matter that remains controversial is whether Mann made the error in good faith, or whether he knew.
Exhibit 1: I have posted above, a reference to WA 07 methodology, which effectively replicates Mann's, including the r2 verification data. When Mann was questioned by the Committe on Energy and Commerce, he was specifically asked as to whether he had calculated this data for his analysis. He replied that he had not, as it would be a foolish thing to do. However, amongst the data that has come to the surface during the investigations of the various email hackings, is the source code for his original analysis, which clearly shows that he not only had run the r2 verification, and witheld the data from his paper, but that he had subsequently lied about the fact.
Exhibit 2:
Curry on Mann
McIntyre’s analysis is sufficiently well documented that it is difficult to imagine that his analysis is incorrect in any significant way. If his analysis is incorrect, it should be refuted. I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.
Exhibit 3: Eduardo Zorita on Mann (in his review of the rather flawed paper by McShane et al 2010)
The issue of the un-centered calculation of principal components is already quite clear (the way in which MBH conducted the analysis is not correct).
and
They claim that the uncertainties are much larger than those included in the 'hockey stick reconstruction' and that the shaft of the hockey stick is rather an artifact of the method. These conclusions are, however, hardly new. The flatness of the shaft is actually only defended by Mann et al. and more recently in a much weaker fashion then 10 years ago.
I dunno guys, will you engage with some of this, or are you just gonna sit there mumbling: ''...mmm Mann, ... mmm... plagiarised report.. mmm discredited... ...mmm debunked myths.... mmm.... ...show us more''.
There are far more respectable characters in climate science than Mann, I really don't understand why you have so much vested in defending him. Especially as you don't seem to know much about him.
Who wants to put money on AR 5 not having any Mann studies referenced in it at all?
. We only have to look at the way which low cloud cover keeps surface tempertures up overnight in comparison to a clear sky to see that all this stuff above and around us will act as a thermal insulator.
