NAS did not affirm climate guy Mike Mann's Hockey Stick, NAS chair North publicly stated he questioned it

12/5/11, "There He Goes Again, Version 5.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS," TheHockey SchtickBlog

"In a letter to the editor published today in the Wall Street Journal, climate fraudster Michael Mann continues to falsely claim the National Academy of Sciences affirmed his hockey stick, insists there is 'overwhelming evidence' supporting the climate hoax [what specifically?], and again makes the ridiculous straw man argument that climate realists are fossil-fuel industry shills using political tactics of the tobacco and lead industries....

• (12/5/11, "Climate Contrarians Ignore Overwhelming Evidence," Michael Mann, WSJ Op-Ed)

9/26/11, "There He Goes Again, Version 4.0: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Affirmed by the NAS," The Hockey Schtick Blog

"In a letter to the editor published this month (9/11) in 'Scientific' American, spinmeister Michael Mann fires off ad hominem attacks and yet again claims his "hockey stick" was affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences.

• The NAS report did nothing of the sort, and in fact

validated all of the significant criticisms of McIntyre & McKitrick (M&M) and the Wegman Report:

1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107).

2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that

• Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero.

In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless. Mann’s data set does not have enough information to verify its ‘skill’ at resolving the past, and has such wide uncertainty bounds as to be no better than the simple mean of the data (p. 91). M&M said that the appearance of significance was created by ignoring all but one type of test score,

• thereby failing to quantify all the relevant uncertainties.
  

The NAS agreed (p. 110), but, again, did so in subtle wording.

4. The NAS said " Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions", i.e. produce hockey sticks from baseball statistics, telephone book numbers, and monte carlo random numbers.

5. The NAS said Mann downplayed the "uncertainties of the published reconstructions...Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

Mann never mentions that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ and devastatingly

• ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’.
  

Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel -- which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – was asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, he said they did:

• CHAIRMAN BARTON: Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH [Head of the NAS panel]: No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD [of the Royal Statistical Society]: Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE [of the American Statistical Association]: ‘the two reports [Wegman's and NAS] were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’
================================

Mann uses the 5 rules of propaganda in his defense, including the rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations

• [e.g. the NAS gave my hockey stick a clean bill of health].

Oct. 2011, "STICKING TO CLIMATE SCIENCE," Scientific American, by Michael Mann

--------------------
Link to the NAS report: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

-------------------
2006 Wegman Report (Wegman is a statistics expert) page 6 lists recommendations for future treatment of projects in which

• massive amounts of public monies and lives are at stake.

------------------------

At the bottom of p.7 of the Wegmen Report it mentions communication with the NSF among other groups. Aside from input NSF may have had on this particular topic, it is important to note NSF has not been a functioning science organization for many years and has itself acknowledged its inability to do its job. (scroll down) ed.

------------------------
Why should anyone be enraged if we want details on a topic that is claimed to be proof that we are criminals, must be enslaved and pay billions to thugs in perpetuity, and destroy our entire civilization, starting with California?

------------------------

Trillions of dollars and a generation of humanity have been wasted by the 'climate' industry. Since organized crime heavily profits from the intangible carbon offsets trading business, it's understandable people don't want to publicly admit the fraud. ed.



via Tom Nelson