Replies to post #10768 on 9/11 Reality

[mthead]

Mann's original Hockey Stick graph was flawed. When this was discovered through the peer review process, Mann and his group redrew the graph using better (more) data. The new graph was still shaped like a hockey stick and the revised study (now quite old) has never been "de-bunked" by the critics of the original study.

The warming skeptic crowd always points out the problems with the first Hockey Stick and ignores the fact that the errors were corrected and accepted long ago.

[kashasha]

>>quite frankly it's when people who are clueless about what they are talking about or take things out of context.<<

Not quite clueless, but close. I do read with a fair degree of comprehension, though. As far as taking things out of context, you were linked to the entire articles from which I admittedly excerpted items of my choosing, while indicating where I had made cuts.

As to the second part of your post, are you Robert - the one who made those comments on December 3 on a site called ecorazzi? If so, you know far more about tree ring science than I am able or willing to try and refute, and you might want to take the tree ring issue up with Steve McIntyre, whom I quoted. He offered a lot more than that quote in his presentation.

Data was manipulated. I think the question is whether that was done in a scientifically legitimate way, or whether it was done to serve a political agenda. Secrecy does not serve the interest of scientific evaluation. Let all the information be brought forth into the light, and let all the qualified climate scientists present their arguments. The spotlight has been shone on Al Gore for far too long, and he has gained a devoted set of believers much the same as the Rev. Moon. Now, let's hear more than one side of this issue from those who are qualified to speak to the subject before we give more of our sovereignty up to the international community.