4 thoughts on “Another coat of Climategate whitewash”

  1. The thing that bugs me most is that they are techincally correct on page 3. There isn’t sufficient evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Mann falsified data. At most you can say that he is completely statistically ignorant.

    However, their errors of omission are telling. On point 2 of their conclusion, while the data may be available (after hard word by McIntyre).

    Further, they did also dismissed the data destruction charge based on self-reported “I did not delete these emails”. Just by passing on the request, he violated Goodness knows how many laws and ethical standards, nor did they do even a cursory examination to determine if there were any documents that were destroyed.

    Finally, both UVAs and NSFs dismissal of allegation 4 really burns. Mann’s “Nature Trick”, where he ignores tree ring data during the thermometer era, would land you in jail if you tried that on the EPA. Without that trick, NONE of the tree ring datasets that he uses would pass statistical muster. “Hide the decline” isn’t just a catchphrase, it was the core of the entire hockeystick. There are basic standards to which you must be held, and Mann just didn’t.

  2. They’re just hoping if enough time passes, the turd will dry up and won’t stink so much.

Comments are closed.