Steyn has lawyers now, Kornstein and Platt, and they are really big guns.Yup, if the motions are approved he should be good to go, so long as he doesn't argue with them.
That post is a month old, and like yours, is mistaken:You missed his post from March 18th there, bud. Steyn only posted today, too. I don't think Ken White can see into the future from March 18th, do you? Or did you notice my commentary was before Steyn posted? I'm guessing not.
This claim is also completely false. Go over to http://climateaudit.org/and read the complete history of the Warmists' conspiracy to deny rightful FOIA [and the UK counterpart laws] over many years, to many different petitioners.From Climate Audit's own FAQ: Earlier, Mann et al. made public the address for the data actually used in MBH98, rather than the address which they had previously provided us. The present articles reflect detailed study of this new material. In particular, we are now able to precisely diagnose the problems with the principal component series in MBH98, which previously were simply noted as being incorrect.
Untrue. It wasn't true when Popehat first claimed and posted it 5 weeks ago, and it obviously isn't true now.Steyn went pro se on January 24th. Several conservative and libertarian attorneys specializing in free speech issues offered their services pro bono between January 24th and March 24th, when he ren-engaged counsel according to his own documents. He refused all of those offers of help from other attorneys, before engaging Kornstein, Platt, et al., on his own. Those are matters of fact.
They are involved in a conspiracy, which is what the East Anglia email scandals were all about.As I've said previously, East Anglia has nothing to do with MBH98. Separate issues, separate nations.
This isn't Daily Kos, DU, or some other dump website where you're used to posting, where you can just post crap. Keep up to date with the facts, or don't post at all. And Welcome to FreeRepublic, N00b.My, such Christian behavior. Your greeting is noted and taken in the vitriolic spirit that it was intended. I turn the other cheek, as I am instructed to by God.
Scientific proof is NOT required to "stand up in court," GAFreedom, it merely has to falsify the thesisSo long as it is rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and has repeated experimentation, I certainly agree. But any proof that DOES undergo that process WILL stand up in court, simply by virtue of having been tested and forged in the fires of scientific inquiry.
Many question if tree ring data are even good proxies for temperature changes. . . and since the data for twentieth century tree rings DO NOT correspond to temperature variation, why should it be assumed that it does for any previous era???Well, with this question what you are essentially doing is stating that the science of dendrochronology is not accurate and cannot be relied upon, specifically the Uniformitarian Principle.
What???? That has nothing to do with this issue. The issue has to do with the comparable WIDTH of the rings on the same tree—and using the widths to claim greater width as a proxy greater temperature—but it is well known that rings from near the roots grow considerably wider than do rings higher up the bole given similar conditions. . . but Mann did not adjust for the discrepancy, assuming the later sampled root rings, with their greater widths, meant warmer, than the earlier sampled, but narrower rings from higher in the same tree.Replication WOULD take care of this, as it involves sampling more than one stem radius per tree, and more than one tree per site. Obtaining more than one increment core per tree reduces the amount of "intra-tree variability", in other words, the amount of non-desirable environmental signal peculiar to only tree. Obtaining numerous trees from one site, and perhaps several sites in a region, ensures that the amount of "noise" (such as variations from where the sample is selected) is minimized.
One other issue that archaeologists are well aware of is that dendrochronological data is basically about merely counting rings of growing seasons. . . But the rings' thicknesses represent a relationship to Draughts, no necessarily temperature. That is a leap of logic that is hard to make....that would be very incorrect. It's more than counting rings. Specifically, it's R(t) = A(t) + C(t) + ϬD1(t) + ϬD2(t) +E(t), where A is the age-related growth trend due to normal aging processes, C is the climate that occurred during that year, D1 is the occurrence of disturbance factors within the forest stand, D2 is the occurrence of disturbance factors outside the forest stand, and E accoints for random processes not accounted for by the other variables. Ϭ indicates either a "0" or absence or "1" for presence fo the disturbance signal.
Say what?! Let's see, since the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age—both of which occurred during the last 600 years—are "regional" and not "Global" affecting only the North American Continent and much of Europe, then they should be excluded from a data set and graph representing temperature claiming to show "global" temperature increases over 600 plus years using data COMPILED ONLY from the NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT and EUROPE??? You want to run that one by me again???? Do you realize how completely nutty that is?If you look at the link to the MBH98 data that I posted, you will see the data was not compiled only from North America and Europe, but included data from all continents. And as I stated to FredZarguna, McIntyre states that the complete data set. Would you please provide your sources that the data set only covers North America and Europe, please?
Re: Liberal... Fine you be hot. But we have a LOT of experience with trolls who write and claim to be conservative exactly as you are. . . They were trolls. Time will tell. so far I see no difference between them and you. I would prefer to be wrong. . . But, frankly GAFreedom, the odds don't trend well for you.Your insinuations and threats have been noted, sir. Etiquette and God forbid me response aside from denial of your claims on that matter.
As I've said previously, East Anglia has nothing to do with MBH98. Separate issues, separate nations.
More lies and distraction.
The Climategate emails proved that "The Team" engaged in a systematic conspiracy to deny publication to AGW skeptics, and to thwart the law with respect to FOIA requests, a pattern of behavior in which Mann himself participated. Your attempts to claim otherwise is typical of your leftist ilk, and interesting in light of your defense [by way of a supposed "non-defense"] of Mann, who himself has actually claimed that the East Anglia Whitewashes were in fact instances of commissions that "cleared" his name.
No such thing: "I am in the process of writing a post showing that Mann’s claim that he had personally been exonerated by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (report here) of a wide range of counts was also untrue. It’s so untrue that it’s hard to even make an interesting post of it."
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/
As for the 2005 FAQ you think is dispositive of "something." Interestingly, it is: "Since then, and largely because of the effect of the original article, a great deal of new information about MBH98 has been made available. In July 2004, at the direction of Nature, Mann et al. published a Corrigendum, which included a voluminous archive on data and methods used in MBH98.
So Mann's methods and data were not "available for years." They were made available under pressure from Nature as a direct result of AGW skeptics and the force of FOIA requests, and not out of any scientific ethos.
Nice try, lefty.
Excuse me, SIR! Dendrochronological studies, until Mann stuck his nose into it, did not assume your lovely formula as so important, especially the primacy of climate. That is an example of begging the question! petitio principii The ring pattern in a tree are created EVERY growing season. . . and the issue of how robust the ring is in any given season has more to do with the availability of water than temperature. Mann's confabulated the variation of tree rings widths with temperature variation due to climatological, I.e. TEMPERATURE variations, were NOT born out in studies of modern tree ring cores where KNOWN temperature variations had occurred! It was not even close to a significant correlation. Irrigation, snow pack, humidity, number of sunny days, length of the rainy season had far more impact on the width of the tree rings than any fluctuations in temperatures. The minor temperature changes that possibly could have been noted were lost in the noise of the other environmental inputs!
The deliberate exclusion of data from trees from the same areas and ages that DID NOT show the same results, and NOT including that exclusion, or the reasons for omitting these data, is still unexplained. . . and the cover-up and efforts to hide it. . . Unexcusable. The impermissible fabrication of data to extend it backwards to reach the 1400 AD target date he needed to make data set "more robust" . . . Reprehensible. The addition of "real instrument temperature" to "adjust" modern tree core data when they didn't fit his theory. . . Unheard of fudging of data! Why should we believe this fraud who had the gall to claim a Nobel Peace prize for himself?