the oft-heard claims that the original hockey stick was the result of “programming errors,’ or was “not reproducible,’ or there was some scientific misconduct involved

I don’t know who said that the hockey stick was caused by “programming errors.” Sounds like Mann is distorting something. And the problem wasn’t that the hockey stick was “not reproducible” in the usual sense of others using the same or similar data and methods and not getting the same results. Rather they were not reproducible because neither the data nor methods were available, making reproduction ATTEMPTS impossible. Finally while Mann is saying that the NAS provides no evidence concerning scientific misconduct, that’s because the panel failed to look for it. By which I don’t mean that there necessarily was misconduct which was covered up, but that for them to be in a position to say anything about it they’d have to have taken a great deal more evidence. Thought it’s certainly true that Mann and others have failed to live up to the standards they’re supposed to concerning providing information to interested researchers. Whether that’s misconduct or not is a matter of definition, I suppose.

on the NAS report?

“The academy panelists also dismissed critics’ earlier insinuations that the Mann team played fast and loose with data, a point that pleased Mann, who is now at Pennsylvania State University.

“The report … provides absolutely no support for the oft-heard claims that the original hockey stick was the result of ‘programming errors,’ or was ‘not reproducible,’ or there was some scientific misconduct involved,” he said in an e-mail. “These claims were always spurious and should now finally be laid to rest … The (academy) report is very good, and I’m pretty happy with it, especially given the short time interval over which the committee had to familiarize themselves with a complex and often quite technical debate.”

found here: San Francisco Chronicle June 23rd:
http://tinyurl.com/qok8b

One not need believe in a conspiracy to have doubts about “consensus” claims of AGWing, one only needs to ask if climate science actually practices what every high schooler is taught as fundimental to all science, the scientific method?

So, in Climate Science are methods, data, and calculations freely available for replication and verification? Is there due dilengence in verifying the legitamy of accepted work? Are contrarians given full and balanced hearings by independent reviewers? Or does contemprary politics drive scientific conclusions and a “consensus” ?

The answers to these questions (in the negative) give the lay person no confidence in the claims of AGW supporters, let alone their related claims on its impact and their recommendations for its “cure”. When Steve B.’s says that “IMHO the relative flatness of the blade (i.e., MWP and LIA magnitude) was never important scientifically…; i.e., in a direct sense the hockey stick says nothing about current climate change prospects.” he is unintentionally making my point – since when is it not scientifically important to show the 85% of paleoclimate history of the last 1000 years of accurately? Since when is 85% of a “consensus” of not of scientific concern? Well, only to those who have strapped their political bandwagon to the end of a stick, I suspect.

#29 I think Richard Nikon’s quote was, “I am not a crook”. Think of the movie point break. lol

Why are you so sure Steve is right? Why, if he is right, don’t any others see this? Perhaps becuase he’s found insignificant problems?

So that was back on March 8th. Does the recent NAS report count as “any others see this?”

Wouldn’t there still be copyright issues?

Do you not have acess to a scanner with OCR?

Nothing in that post, and none of your subsequent verbiage, resolves the vagueness of your “reasonably good” in that post.

I have a pdf, but I believe it is copyrighted material.

Maybe if you’re more clever than me, you can figure out how to extract the thing from , here,, got to warn you,I spent a quite a bit of time trying to find it there. Funny how Science went to a lot of trouble to scan in the “Front Matter” (~25 Mb worth of ads and the cover), but doesn’t appear to have scanned in the News and Commentary section. Easiest thing is probably to find a “good” library and dig it out of the stacks.

You equate religious imposition of dogma with ‘scientific consensus,

Actually, I don’t. It’s curious what you read into things.

…blame the model for the excesses of the church, and you’re going to engage in one-line zingers rather than substance.

I made a much more subtle point – obviously too subtle for you.

I’ll continue to treat you with precisely the seriousness you deserve.

Let me know if anything changes.