More or less.
Let's put aside the fact that the hockey stick graph that was used in the IPCC's 2001 report eliminated the "divergence problem" with tree ring data that didn't conform with existing temperature readings -- particularly Briffa's tree-ring data, that showed the planet getting cooler when the actual thermometer readings clearly showed it had gotten warmer.
After Mann was able to "hide the decline," the graph he produced was more or less aligned with the 1 degree C increase over the past 135 years. So, sure, putting aside "Mike's Nature trick" and the fraudulent splicing together of two completely different data sets, that post-1880 part of the graph aligned with already known temperature data.
Bullshit.
The first 900 years of the graph, based on the biased algorithm and the improper cherry-picking of unreliable bristlecone data, has no basis in reality. The straight downward slope created by Bradley, Hughes and Mann has been thoroughly discredited and is not supported by real-world evidence.
Don't take my word for it. Here's what Phil Jones -- one of Mann's closest allies -- said to Mann in an email on May 6, 1999:
"Keith [Briffa] didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale."
Indeed. "Very dodgy" is an understatement.
Climate researchers on all sides of the debate have trashed Mann's research. To cite another example, Tom Wigley -- another AGW champion -- said the following in an Oct. 21, 2004 email to Jones:
"I have just read the M&M [McIntyre and McKitrick] stuff criticizing MBH [Mann, Bradley and Hughes]. A lot of it seems valid to me.
"At the very least MBH is a sloppy piece of work - an opinion I have held for some time."
There are hundreds more to choose from, but let's just go with one more -- a quote from the late Harold Lewis, one of the American Physical Society's most distinguished members, in his Oct. 6, 2010, resignation letter from the APS over the "global warming scam" conducted by the likes of Mann and Jones (who were named in his letter):
"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
Scientists have concluded the hockey stick is fraudulent. That's why there is no mention of it at all in the IPCC's most recent report. And why not a single scientist anywhere on the planet filed an amicus brief supporting Mann in his current legal fight with pundit Mark Steyn and others.
---
The fact remains that what FAST posted simply confirmed what researchers knew -- from the recorded temperature data -- well before the hockey stick was ever published.
FAST's statement was not a confirmation of the hockey stick, and there was nothing in FAST's post supporting the outrageous claims made by Mann and the hockey stick champions, such as the baseless assertion that current temperatures are the warmest of the past 1,000 years (a claim that has subsequently been dropped by most climate researchers).
You can choose for yourself whether you want to believe the fairy-tale claims in the hockey stick graph.
It doesn't matter. It is a fact that you lied about FAST's beliefs. He never posted anything supporting those fairy-tale claims. You should admit that you lied and apologize.
Last edited:
