these manipulative grant seeking charlatans are trying to do is the real catastrophe here.

Manipulating data for an essentially political/quasi-religious fraudulent claim they would bankrupt anyone they can and impose a draconian level of obedience to an entirely *new* lifestyle in which that they dictate all that is acceptable.

At least Communism for all it’s flaws seemed a bit more straightforward in it’s (ultimately failed) aims.

Those who seek power over others, no matter the cause, should be looked at skeptically and tarred, feathered and ran out of town on a rail as needed (at a minimum)…

I had a real clever rejoinder to opus402′s vomitus but it looks like he withdrew his comments.

Thanks for the b/day greeting vladimir.

Until reading the Iowahawk post, it never occurred to me that the “models” the warm-mongers have been talking about were simply OLS multiple regressions. I guess I was thinking scientists would have something really cosmic and sciency, especially since the policy implications of what they are peddling are so huge. And after reading that, what they are peddling is manifestly a load of crap.

Even if you assume Mann et al. are exactly right about their model, according to Iowahawk you get an R Squared of ,5, which means 50% of the “meaning 50% of the variation in actual 1856-1980 temperatures can be accounted for by the principal components (and by inference the original ice core and tree ring proxy variables).”

If we’re going to spend trillions on this, I want the science to be a lot more dead-to-rights than this. And tossing out your raw data is a major no-no. How do I validate the data cleaning effort? Those two things make this all a non-starter. Go back and get better science.

That the proxy values like Brissa’s MXD don’t come near matching “real temps” after 1960, and they ignored this, “hid the decline”, and published 850 years of “hockey stick” proxy data anyway …, well, can you spell f-r-a-u-d?

nt