As I pointed out in reader tips, this new paper is also receiving extensive coverage over at WUWT.

http://tinyurl.com/32x5apd

When Mann et al scammed the IPCC, hundreds of billions of dollars of scientific research were diverted from legitimate research into the great Climate Scientology Ponzi scheme.

There is a huge opportunity cost for that diversion of funding. Medicines haven't been invented, new materials haven't been developed, innovative techniques haven't been discovered.

And even worse, $Trillions of dollars of public sector policy decisions have been invented which has resulted in programs chasing policy options warped by the belief in the carbon dioxide devil.

Massive scientific fraud results in dead people.

Any one old enough to remember the "new math"? Well this is what they call the "new science". In the "new science" you draw your conclusion then carefully screen any evidence available to admit only evidence that supports your conclusion. You then back up that carefully screened evidence with a fancy 'computer model'. It works most of the time since most people have been indoctrinated into an unshakable believe in 'science' and there isn't a much higher oracle in the 'science' religion than a 'computer'. Heh it aint honest but it sure beats working for a living.

Someone did something similar with the Mann model a few years back. I had 8 or 10 examples of the hockey stick posted in my cubicle at work. All were generated using the Mann model and randomly generated values. Everyone gave a hockey stick result.

I came across something similar years ago in the medical literature on gun control. A method was used by the authors that created a discontinuity in the graph that coincided with the passage of a gun control law in Detroit. Several respondents to the journal pointed out that the used method will -always- produce a discontinuity no matter what data are used. No response from the authors other than boiler plate ad hominem.

The usual, in other words.

Mann has proven that in this climate con game if you're caught high sticking, it's only a minor box penalty.

The Warmongers can't count the number of people in a crowd, let alone do advanced Stats.

They lie about everything as their pathetic scheme falls apart under the cold, hard truth of reality.

http://tinyurl.com/2cwbcz3

Nobody with any intelligence is disagreeing with the 'normal' degree-per-century average increase in global temperature that's been happening since the last ice age. Nor with the warming and cooling cycles above and below that average increase.

What rational skeptics disagree with is the alarmist, so-called 'unprecedented' recent rise in temperature touted by Mann and his cohorts. That 'unprecedented' recent rise in temperature is based on bogus data and simply isn't substantiated by fact, only by computer models based on questionable inputs. Anyone who has worked with computers should know they're anything but infallible, and 'garbage in , garbage out' is always true.

The slightly increased warming we're seeing today has happened before. Most recently 1000 years ago when the Arctic was mostly ice free for half the year, the Tule advanced across the Arctic and traded with the Norse, Greenland had ice free fjords and farms, grapes grew in Vinland [New England], and all sorts of other ample evidence that it's been warmer than now before, and will be warmer again. It isn't caused by human generated CO2.

Humans are causing unprecedented and disastrous changes to the earth's ecosystems. That's happening from overpopulation and toxic pollution, not CO2. Those are the real problems we need to deal with, however that's not going to make carbon traders and other eco-messiahs rich. In fact reducing population and pollution will have quite the opposite effect and the rich folks who are getting richer from toxic pollution don't want that to happen. Wake up and smell the pollution, you're being scammed by kings with no clothes.

BTJ = troll.

Fairly lame troll too.

Just love it when Mann made global warming is refuted yet again. M&M showed this years ago but getting the same results published in a highly regarded statistics journal is just icing on the cake. I haven't read the paper in detail, but I love the confidence limits on the temperature 1000 years ago; the error is so large that the proxies tell one f_all about what the temperature was in 1000 AD. We're left with the extensive writings which describe the MWP which was a worldwide event.

BTJ seems to be the lone warmist frequenting SDA and, BTJ, no-one denies that there was generalized warming during the 1990's. Unfortunately, we now seem to be in a cooling phase. Anthropogenic CO2 seems to have an absolutely minimal effect on worldwide temperatures. UHI is why people feel that things are warming up but UHI applies only to densely populated portions of cities.

Please cite references to the oceans warming up as everything I've seen shows that they're starting to cool. Given the thermal mass of the oceans these changes are slow. Right now the best correlation between the earths climate and external factors has been solar activity. We may be heading towards a new Maudner minimum which is going to kill way more people than the scariest global warming scenarios would have. I hope I'm wrong on that account and that Lanscheid's predictions are mere numerology, but so far Landscheid has done way better than the GCM's.

Do Not Feed the Troll. It's not here to have a discussion, it's here to hijack the thread.

Wow...really? Someone felt the need to erase my postd...which contained links to research that CLEARLY shows warming oceans?

Pathetic...utterly pathetic.

Pretty obvious too, since there are no posts by me yet there are responses.

Nice work, I see we like to be left in the dark rather than face the light...consistent with the view of wikileaks.

Just curious how you managed to get your post under the submission form of this page. Was going to look at the html later but it disappeared when I updated the page 30 minutes later.

Anyone not following the statistical arguments, might want to google Freeman Dyson on global warming, to see another approach which also completely lays bare the false arguments of the global warming freaks/crooks, and their cold-blooded facilitators in the ruling class.

Dyson is a publicly spirited mathematician who many feel should have been part of the Nobel citation that the physicist Richard Feynman received,because his work was so vital to the developing Feynman's theory. In very clear, non-mathematical language Dyson talks about the science, and finally asks a very salient question about devoting the huge amounts of money that will be required for the schemes favored by Mann: Do we as a society, really want to throw away what small prosperity we have, by putting the entire economy into the hands of the politicians?

There are computer models that "prove" President Kennedy was killed by Oswald, and computer models that "prove" a gunman on the grassy knoll. I've seen both.

I guess my very brief time in buffdom was worth it after all, just because all that weirdness made me skeptical of the 'hockey stick' and all these "theories" from day one.

"Nobody with any intelligence is disagreeing with the 'normal' degree-per-century average increase in global temperature that's been happening since the last ice age. Nor with the warming and cooling cycles above and below that average increase."

According to Wikipidia - so we know it is true - the last ice age ended 12500 years ago give or take a few. Anyone with intelligence knows that this is 125 century's which if the degree per century is correct the mean temp would be 125 degree give or take a few.

Since all temperature is local and the atmosphere is a turbulent fluid there is no meaningfully globule temp. Also during the last Ice age there had to be massive globule warming going on at the same time to cause the evaporation of oceans to supply the snow for the Ice age. My this is intellectually complicated,

"Humans are causing unprecedented and disastrous changes to the earth's ecosystems. That's happening from overpopulation and toxic pollution, not CO2. Those are the real problems we need to deal with, however that's not going to make carbon traders and other eco-messiahs rich. In fact reducing population and pollution will have quite the opposite effect and the rich folks who are getting richer from toxic pollution don't want that to happen. Wake up and smell the pollution, you're being scammed by kings with no clothes."
John Galt

Agree. But it is also true that rich, modern western countries have done much to regulate toxic polution. There is always room for improvement but we have come a long way. In the 1950's, what was flowing down Niagara Falls was considered poison. All around the great lakes, industries were dumping unfiltered.

Slowly we legislated clean but unfortunately greed is harder to control so the poluters moved to Mexico, China and others where these "developing" countries don't have to deal with 'climate change'.

Full circle: FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.

"Full circle: FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL."

Ok...all the money is oil and gas.

The US Commerce dept. still refused to recognize climate change.

There...followed the money trail...seems to lead to people who's interests conflict with climate change.

Wow BTJ (Bozo The Jester?) you must be the only deluded person on earth that thinks everyone can be prone to corruption EXCEPT the climate change pushers and their army of salivating investors and collectors.

Heres a reality check for you: Even the Catholic church has been exposed for what now is considered an epidemy of child molesters. Imagine that! Men of the cloth who are supposed to represent good.

Now, the youth's new 'religion' where preachers are replaced by scientists and "educated" elites in the church of climate change are supposed to be incapable of human weakness?

Your naivete is amazing, kid.
I have canned carbon credits to sell you. Cheap, but you have to buy a minimum of 4 caisses to enjoy the saving and if you act now, I'll double your order free (Just pay separate shipping and HANDLING)

Regarding McShane and Wyner

//the fundamental error is calibration only against a hemispheric average, when local data -- the 5x5 degree grid cells of instrumental data as used by Mann et al. -- provide a so much richer source of variability -- i.e., signal -- to calibrate against.

It is this poor signal/noise ratio that helps the calibration pick up spurious low vs. high latitude temp difference "signal", which in the reconstruction interacts with the Earth axis tilt change effect.

What stands is the observation that doing the calibration against the instrumental PC1 (instead of hemispheric average) will give you back pretty exactly the genuine Mann stick(TM) even in spite of this.//