Not to mention that the word “think” does not apply to what they’re doing. But, the point was that dick was complaining about it because he’s a big free speech advocate, according to one self-serving lie. And now that lie has been bared for all to see. He doesn’t give a flying fuck for the free speech, he only wants those he hates to be attacked with impunity.

And if dick wants to demand perfection then he can fuck off, because perfection isn’t necessary.

I think Mann’s graph is fraudulent, you don’t.

You – and the rest of the climate liars – have never produced one shred of evidence to support this libelous claim.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence right here in comment on this blog that you are a dishonest little shit.

So it’s pretty easy to work out who and what to back.

Continuing to say it is in the face of evidence to the contrary is simply repeating what is (to you) a comforting lie.

Steyn will either win or lose.

We can discuss after that.

“He also doesn’t use decentered PCA anymore (another wrong thing)”

No, not wrong at all. I know you think using big words makes it sound like you know what you’re saying, but you’re wrong there too.

Of course, I would also highly recommend reading all of Steve’s posts at climateaudit.org – as they are wonderful as well.

Given that readers here know for a fact that you are clueless, you should avoid making statements like this.

Since everyone knows you don’t understand the sciency stuff at all, the blatantly partisan nature of your comment is painfully clear.

Unfortunately for the liars’ corner, this is not in any way evidence of fraud in the original papers.

And if you actually *understood* any of this instead of merely parroting misinformers like McI and that other clown, you would see – instantly – that the cry of ‘fraud’ is both defamatory and impossible to demonstrate from the methodology, however hard you try.

And as we know, some people have tried very hard indeed. It got them – and it will get you (and probably Steyn) – nowhere.

I highly recommend you review this series of posts, to learn about all the reasons Mann 1998 and 1999 work is “wrong”:

https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/a-list-of-manns-screw-ups

There are 18 posts linked at the bottom for your reading pleasure.

Of course, I would also highly recommend reading all of Steve’s posts at climateaudit.org – as they are wonderful as well.

Michael Mann himself said (from an inline response at Real Climate):

“In some earlier work though (Mann et al, 1999), the boundary condition for the smoothed curve (at 1980) was determined by padding with the mean of the subsequent data (taken from the instrumental record).”

Right there you have data manipulation.

Doing what Mann did in his 1998 and 1999 papers was just plain wrong.

And that is just one of many many problems.

The proof is that Dr. Mann doesn’t do it this way anymore.

He also doesn’t use decentered PCA anymore (another wrong thing).

Steyn is going to win (in my opinion).

But we won’t know the outcome of the case until it happens – so we continue to wait.

You haven’t presented anything resembling evidence (no surprise since, as has been pointed out, his work has been supported repeatedly by the research of others). So no, there are no “reason” to say Mann’s work is wrong, other than

* a person doesn’t like what the results say
* a person is incapable of understanding the science, or unwilling to try
* a person decides to repeatedly lie about the issue

Those all apply to you.