mhaze,

Talking of "hockey sticks"....

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/01/14

"Mann et al spent many many years trying to hide the data and their methods behind the graph so as to avoid scrutiny".

That is a lie.

"Several subsequent hockey stick style graphs made the same error."

Oh yeah, which ones?

• Briffa – 2000

• Briffa – 2001

• D’Arrigo – 2006

• Esper et al – 2002

• Hegerl et al – 2006

• Huang et al – 2008

• Jones et al – 1998

• Juckes et al – 2007

• Kaufman et al – 2009

• Lee et al – 2008

• Ljungqvist – 2010

• Mann et al – 2008

• Mann & Jones – 2003

• Moberg et al – 2005

• Oerlemans – 2005

• Pollack & Smerdon – 2004

• Rutherford et al – 2005

• Smith et al – 2006

• Tingley & Huybers – 2010

Listen up closely Mr/Mrs/MsHaze - SHOW ME where have I concurred with your assertion of CATASTROPHIC AGW (CAGW)?

----

Poirot, ROFLMHO

Look at qanda go; like a clown on a pogo stick; the Briffa hockeystick, reduced to ONE tree, YAD061:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/briffa_single_tree_yad061.png

Mann's hockeystick; does anyone with more than a vacuum between their ears still believe in this rot; anyway McShane and Wyner have done the number on all the wretched HS's:

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/aoas1001-014r2a0.pdf

I note qanda hasn't included Gergis and Karoly's hockeystick paper; this would explain why:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/

I understand why fakers would link to McShane and Wyner (2011) but not to the rebuttal:

Their "absence of both proper data quality control and appropriate “pseudoproxy” tests to assess the performance of
their methods invalidate their main conclusions."

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/SMR_AOASDiscussion11.pdf

The fact remains: there is more than a team of 'hockey sticks' from differing paleoclimate reconstructions that together give further weight to a warmer and wetter world.

Tell you what Mr Cox, trot out and around with 'the Lord' (LOL) Monckton like you did last time, then we can all have a laugh.

You're such a pipsqueak qanda. McShane and Wyner deal with Mann and his buddies here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

M&S say about Mann:

"Before embarking on our discussion of their work, we must mention that, of the five discussants who performed analyses (DL, Kaplan, SMR, Smerdon, and Tingley), SMR was the only one who provided an incomplete and generally unusable repository of data and code."

Isn't that typical; Mann still can't manage to be transparent; or useful.

Anyway, Christopher Monckton is a good man; perhaps you can arrange for one of your cronies to debate him; they have such success when they do that; what about Flannery, or Karoly, or yourself since you are so erudite. Bring Poirot as your cheer squad.

Nah,

Flannery and the the 'Lord' are extremists, opposite sides of the fence of course.

99.9% of real scientists are down the middle, not that a 'denier' or 'fake sceptic' like yourself would admit anyhoo.

Btw, not surprised you frequent Evans/Nova and WUWT so much - dark matter at work.

Drop down to Tassie, you're missing stuff - again.