That's all you got? From the way you were foaming at the mouth, it sounded like you had a real smoking gun or something. If this is all it takes to permanently discredit someone's scientific opinion, then you must permanently discredit Mann's as well, since Wegman et al demolished his hockey stick. To do any less is to be hypocritical.
Oh in your *dreams*, pinhead.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/07 ... _stick.php
Unfortunately, WSS stop there and do not address the question of what difference this makes to the reconstruction (which is not the same as PC1). The NRC panel did address this question and found that it made little difference.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... n-hearing/
The hockey stick *is* the reconstruction, which Wegman never analyzed. As usual you just parrot the idiot denialist blogs instead of actually bothering to try and understand what really happened yourself. Which is why its so trivially easy for me to do the online equivalent of kicking sand in the nerds face.
Oh, and Wegmans report had errors in and of itself:
Wegman, Scott and Said are statisticians, not climatologists and this has lead to some errors in their interpretation of the literature. For example, the temperature graph in the first IPCC report is schematic and not quantitative, but they interpret it as if it was quantitative.
There's a big difference between making mistakes and being incompetent. McKitrick et al have been right more often than they've been mistaken. Even NASA has redacted faulty data found by McKitrick. So unless you got something more damaging than the trivial shit you cited, we shall conclude you are simply showing your extreme prejudice.
In your dreams, pinhead.
There is a big difference between making trivial mistakes that ultimately don't effect your final result in any meaningful way, as the NRC report on Mann's work reported...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06 ... ck_rel.php
...and making blunders the scope of which would embarrass a high school student. If you can't understand how stupendously flawed it is to conflate degrees with radians or zeroes with nulls (and how it would completely invalidate your results and conclusions) then there is truly no hope for you.
But go ahead and glom onto them if you want. Just don't be surprised if you end up being embarrassed, again, along with them. Misery truly loves company.
By the way, this is yet another example where you have tried to sell your personal opinion on the matter, despite your repeated claim you have no opinion on this topic. You clearly take sides despite that you are not a climatologist and are not qualified to take sides in this debate.
I do not have an opinion or belief regarding AGW itself, just as I do not have an opinion on earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, El Nino, solar flares or any other natural phenomena of which there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence. I simply accept it as a reality of the natural world.
This is the difference between you and I, Xoup. To you AGW is nothing more than a belief system. Hence not only are you wrong; you are not even capable of ever being right as this isn't a matter of faith.