Sorry, I have a lot of posts to get to, but real work has intruded for several days. I am trying to catch up.
Michael Mann is a professor in climate sciences who is an accomplished liar and also apparently statistically incompetent. He is the author of the infamous and debunked “hockey stick” of temperatures that is still used to justify the supposed climate emergency. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick actually understand statistics and data and issued the most devastating critique of the Mann fantasy. Mann has hidden his work as much as possible to avoid further examination, but McIntyre and others continue to peck away at the mountain of falsity in his research, including cherrypicking data and using inappropriate statistical methods. Recent work by another individual is highlighted by Steve at his blog, Climate Audit, found here: (Clim. Audit)
These are very technical posts, but worth reading as are his older ones. (Unfortunately Steve stopped regular posting for an extended time.) In addition, this Watts Up With That post describes the new research. (WUWT Post) The upshot of all this is that Mann is once again revealed to be a total fraud who commits research malpractice and then attempts to hide his work so it can’t be examined and then further attacks anyone who questions that fake research. Of course, you won’t read any of this or hear about any of it in the traditional media, which is fully bought into the climate scam and is servile to the interests of rich people who get even richer off the scam.
The Healthy Skeptic is a website about the health care system, and is written by Kevin Roche, who has many years of experience working in the health industry. Mr. Roche is available to assist health care companies through consulting arrangements through Roche Consulting, LLC and may be reached at 
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Overcast
PocketCasts
Radio Public
Stitcher
Anchor
RSS - Posts
The Mann-Mark Steyn lawsuit, now in its 12th year, is another example of how despicable this Mann character is. In addition to being a highly-awarded and revered (sarc) climate guru, Mann seems to be a nasty piece of work. To this date, as far as I know, he has refused to release his data. Steyn has had two heart attacks since the lawsuit began. Plan seems to be to wear Steyn down–the case has pretty much bankrupted him–or hope he dies in the process. “The law is a ass, a idiot,” as Mr. Bumble once opined.
That’s crazy, isn’t it? Our legal system is corrupted; the case should’ve been thrown out a long time ago.
The major problems with the multitude of HS studies are
A) the proxy selection,
B) the short proxies (less than 300 years) all show the blade which is reasonable considering that it is well accepted that the earth has been in a warming trend since the mid 1800’s. However the long proxies ( those proxies going back 300-1200 years are all semi straight shafts with no blade. Those semi straight shafts would indicate no LIA and no MWP . The paleo reconstructions just combine the short and long proxies to get the HS. So the paleo reconstructions therefore depict no MWP , no LIA and a sharp blade. Yet if those long proxies dont reflect the current warming, how can they reflect the LIA or the MWP?
george mentioned the Mann Simberg Styen lawsuit
Mann’s pleadings are a serious pack of lies, though to recognize the pack of lies, you have to understand the perimeters of the investigations . Of the 8 climate gate investigations, only the Penn state and the NSF investigated Mann. The Penn state investigation which was the subject Simberg post and Styens repeat of the Simberg post which was extremely superficial -a complete joke.
The NSF investigation report was even worse – though you had to understand the language used to understand that the NSF likewise did not investigate Mann.
The NSF memo report stated that Mann did not commit any fraud under the NSF standards. The report referenced the applicable NSF standards, yet what was overlooked was that the NSF standards for fraud only included the period of time in which the NSF provided funding. MBH 98 (the HS) all preceded the NSF funding. So if there was any fraud in MBH 98, then that wasnt subject to the NSF jurisdiction and therefore not fraud under the NSF standards.