I will be posting agin on this matter soon at a major blog. if you sent a letter to CHE please forward to me.

It’s your blog, I’m a visitor, so feel free to make Swiss cheese out of my comment.

Alternatively, rather than see this as adversarial, you’re also welcome just to explain what, if anything, I’ve misunderstood. (While I’ve looked at the link to Dr Mann’s citation web that you provided, which was interesting, I couldn’t tell how it would solve my objection.)

I’ll happily retract my comment‚ and say sorry, if you can help me see that I was in error.

As a bonus, I’ll also explain to my friends, several of whom share and would endorse exactly the view I just expressed, why they’ve been mistaken all these years. We’ll all modify our opinions in light of new understanding.

Wouldn’t that be nice? A real teaching moment! Actual knowledge, extended across the deep gulf of climate incomprehension.

You might actually win converts.

Brad

PS In case of ambiguity, I was referring to the original and best Hockey Stick paper, the graph whose replication (from everything I’ve read) eluded the entire community for at least 4 years because (from everything I’ve read) Dr Mann did not disclose the things I called “key details” of his methodology. When I say it was unreplicable for 4 years, I mean that (from everything I’ve read) nobody (other than the authors) could figure out how *an HS shape* emerged from the input data. Competent, scientificly literate, statistically literate, numerate people followed the instructions in the paper, but (from everything I’ve read) it never output the *right* *shape*.

This latest comment from you is pretty weak and it is quite easy to make Swiss cheese out of. However, before I start poking holes, I will give you the chance to retract the comment. Just say the word and I will remove the comment or edit it to your liking.

I am trying to be a good sport here.

Oh, and you might want to check this out. And also look up the word “key”.

I’m sure if we had access to private emails about you and everyone else in the world, we’d learn that you and everyone else in the world, too, are not respected by your and their colleagues. (And while we’re at it, let’s not stop at emails: let’s get recordings of all the hallway conversations and phone calls where your and their names are mentioned.) I don’t know about Mann the person, nor do you. That’s none of my business. But I do know that his research is robust and has stood the test of time, as it has been cited repeatedly by other scientists and the criticisms of it from outside the scientific community have been shot down by the repeated investigations into it from scientists at the NAS on down. I trust scientists who operate from the scientific method and publish their work via peer-reviewed journals to a good job. I don’t trust those whose approach is to attack individuals via their private correspondence.