fact....the hockey stick is real
fact...Mann's papers were only crap in the denilosphere
You either don't know what you're talking about or you are just refusing to admit the truth. I'd like to say Mann's papers were statistical nightmares, and they were -- but worse, they were data nightmares. It is important in inferential statistics that you not violate the basic rules with the data. That's before you even begin applying statistical methods to it.
If you are missing data points, you're missing. You can't just infill them arbitrarily without adversely affecting the entire analysis. There were, literally, 100s of problems with these papers. Some minor, some, not so much.
The bottom line, as I'm sure you're aware, is that Mann's model was such that whatever data you put into it, you'd get a hockey stick. Pretty much anything. This was a result of a clearly identified bug in his PCA centering algorithm. We know this; McIntyre proved it, very publicly. AFAIK, Mann NEVER made the requested information available to McIntyre who had to to dig it out piece by piece.
The years of ongoing bullshit with the so called peer reviewed journals was absolutely outrageous. If you aren't familiar with it you should be as it totally makes it impossible to have any confidence in them. Most important, though, are the statistical failures with respect to temperature proxies. The hockey stick used proxies that should not have been used, proxies that are not even known to BE proxies, and as previously pointed out, proxies for which the entire dataset for some years consisted of a SINGLE tree.
The so-called climate scientists are interested in getting the result they want, not the truth. The mathematics are simple enough for you to understand. I can only assume you are choosing not to find the truth. |
