Why do you still have to work? Why, I thought all of us Skeptics were living large on the payroll of Exxon! Don’t tell me you didn’t get your monthly check from BP yet!

Thanks to my Skeptical attitude, I now own three homes, lounge around with a bevy of beautiful babes on my motor yacht and blow out nearly as much CO2 as Al Gore.

is your ignorance willful or can you really not assimilate data? even the IPCC has abandoned mann. mckitrick, mcintyre, and the canadian government study performed at multiple universities were UNANIMOUS in their findings of elementary mistakes. again, you attempt to twist away from the clear facts of the matter by ducking the issue and making an ad hominem attack.

what does the unit error made in another piece have to do with the veracity of other statements by mckitrick? you didn’t even read that. you just googled it. so anyone who ever made a mistake can never be trusted again? is that your implication? anyone who ever made an error is “discredited”? if so, then are there any credible scientists at all? you ever actually do any science? ever make a unit error? mislabel data in a computer model. it’s pretty easy to do. this is why peer review exists. to catch this. mann’s errors were so fundamental that they ought to have been readily apparent to an expert. but the were not caught. so what does this tell us about IPCC review?

we are talking about one specific piece of science here: mann’s “hockey stick” and it’s obvious and demonstrable failures. you appear to want to do anything you can to duck and weave away from the substance of the matter and shift the issue. i’m going to keep pulling you back though. talk to the science. show me why you think the specific criticisms of mann’s science are invalid. explain to me why the IPCC dropped it. explain to me why random numbers dropped into his model generated nearly the same shape. and still he refused to release his data and calculations to be checked. how is that good science? you sound a lot more like a shill than a scientist.

do you have any grasp of this subject matter at all or is it some kind of AGW tourettes that causes these comments of yours?

morganovich – you would love to believe that Mann et al (1998) has somehow been discredited, clearly, but unfortunately it hasn’t. It’s been backed up by later studies. McKitrick, however, has been discredited. He can’t tell the difference between radians and degrees, among many other things.

Patrick Hadley – the existence of grapes growing further north now than ever before is certainly due to many effects, of which temperature is without doubt one. Other independent and much more robust lines of evidence point to global temperatures now being higher than they were in mediaeval times. In any case, the author of this blog made a major factual error, and has since shown no sign of either understanding that or rectifying it.

This one is very interesting.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2514
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=774
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425559/posts
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html

Try these for size.

can you truly be defending the mann hockey stick that has been so thoroughly discredited or are you just being pickyune to deflect the actual thrust of the discussion?

if you doubt this, read the results of multiple, independent assessments including the one performed at the request of the canadian government:
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

then ask, how could such a poorly assembled and unreviewed piece of psuedo-science ever have been the the centerpiece of an entire IPCC draft. where was the review process? where were the diligent and skillful scientists checking the data?

oh, and have a look at the data he ignored: (loehle etc )

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

and your argument about “giving greenland a good name” says precisely zero about whether it was truly green. so he didn’t name it ericland or whatever. demonstrates nothing. nice rhetorical trick, but it’s not going to cut any ice. the real issue here is that mann used ludicrous techniques to get his results and no one called him on it. the IPCC was either too complicit or too ignorant do do so.

care to discuss that?

As far as Greenland is concerned there is an article on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland which seems to contain quite a lot of evidence about the MWP. I know Wiki is not always reliable, but the article seems to be pretty reasonable. It does not say that Greenland was once largely green (so your criticism of the comment above is certainly valid) but it does give evidence that it was rather warmer in the MWP, together with details of research which supports that view.