Not. there was NO SCANDAL, no misconduct. It was ALL made up by the dev-oil powers that be to try and delude people into thinking there was a scandal and hence the data are all wrong and hence AGW is not happening. These are zombie arguments – roundly disproven, but keep coming back.
And I’m getting sick and tired of people slandering and harassing innocent climate scientists out there doing hard work and lobbing death threats at their small children. It’s like they don’t like the message, so kill the messenger. Eventually the miscreants doing this will have to pay the piper – here on earth or when they are barred from those pearly gates.
And regular people seem willingly to be deceived by those evil, deceitful lies maybe bec they want to believe, bec they do NOT want to get up off they bottoms and turn off lights not in use and the many other things Pope Francis is calling us to do.
Or maybe they are ideologues who cannot accept that we have run up against some earth systems limits and need to retrace our steps a bit. They refuse to share earth’s wealth and resources with others, claiming there is an infinite amount and if the poor don’t have a bigger share in it is bec they are lazy and no good, etc.
I’m really not to sure why regular folks would allow themselves to be so easily deceived. But I do know why the deceivers are doing it – for money and profits.
If I were you, I’d not be a part of this bogus and deceitful slander-machine. It’s not good for your spiritual health and it feeds into harming and killing people thru environmental harms.
Hi Lynn,
'Snot slander when you speak da truth. 'Snot a zombie argument to keep repeating relevant facts.
Fact: Mann’s paper stated that he used 112 proxy series, but he later revealed that it was actually 159.
Fact: His paper reported that he used standard principal components analysis, but he later revealed that he employed a non-standard variation and also a technique called a step-wise procedure.
Reasonable Conclusion: Mann materially misrepresented his research. You will probably say, “No big deal.” Well it is if you are trying replicate the study or evaluate his methods.
Fact: Mann was slow to release his data. When McIntyre first approached Mann about access to his data, Mann informed McIntyre that he couldn’t remember the location of the online archive and that he would have a colleague, Scott Rutherford, locate it. Rutherford then informed McIntyre that it would take a while to assemble all the data. Several weeks later Rutherford directed McIntyre to an anonymous FTP site which provided McIntyre with the data for his initial analysis. There were numerous problems with this data (gaps, mislabeling, poor sourcing, obsolete, etc.). After McIntyre’s first paper was published, Mann then accused McIntyre and his co-author, Ross McKitrick, of using the wrong data. He then revealed the existence of another FTP site, undisclosed up to that point, which contained the actual data. On numerous occasions McIntyre would request additional data or explanations, and the email record of their correspondence shows that Mann was not responsive and eventually cut off all communication. Despite repeated requests, Mann refused to give McIntyre his “residuals” from verification tests.
Fact: In addition to misrepresenting his methods, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena. He also completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery.
Reasonable Conclusion: Mann stonewalled and tried to prevent a fair audit of his study. Incidentally, this was standard operating procedure through the paleo community.
Money is something that is meant to be shared because it comes from God and most certainly we can’t take it with us when we go.