[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GreenSpartan

My understanding is the Wegman report says Mann used the wrong statistical technique. You've claimed he dishonestly manipulated data and was "repudiated". Those are two very different things, and as I said earlier you get caught doing something dishonest in science and your career is over. You can crack about tenure all you want but it is no defense against dishonesty in research. Just ask that Korean guy that went from a star of South Korea to a pariah overnight.

Meanwhile, the existence of the hockey stick increase in temperature has been independently verified by continuing research. So regardless of of the quality of Mann's papers, the sudden increase in temperature still exists. He was essentially vindicated by a 2006 National Research Council report (discussed in my link in my previous post). From the report:

green,

I thought I politely asked you to just follow along. Now, unless jack waives off, I'm going to address further statements to him. I find that in order to respond appropriately, one musn't be pulled in too many directions.

I will quote this finding from Wegman:

Wegman explains and demonstrates in simple terms the statistical error made by Michael Mann et al. It will produce “hockeystick” shapes even if the input data are pure noise. McIntyre shows evidence for a Medieval Warming that is greater than the Modern Warming.

Add to that the reports findings that they statistics cited by the dominat group of climatologists appear to be reviewed by each other.

"As statisticians, we were struck by the isolation of communities such as the paleoclimate community that rely heavily on statistical methods, yet do not seem to be interacting with the mainstream statistical community. The public policy implications of this debate are financially staggering and yet apparently no independent statistical expertise was sought or used."

Authors of policy-related science assessments should not assess their own work.

Finally, I will reproduce the most damning finding

Mann et al., misused certain statistical methods in their studies, which inappropriately produce hockey stick shapes in the temperature history. Wegman's analysis concludes that Mann's work cannot support claim that the1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium.

Just to flesh this out a bit, here is another link exploring the Wegman report:

Statistics needed

"Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported," Wegman stated, adding that "The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable."

When Wegman corrected Mann's statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Finally:

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that "may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians." Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

There is plenty more. I'd rather discuss this with jack, unless he's done.