Read here. A UK climate scientist specifically stated certain assertions about the infamous, Michael Mann "hockey stick" during UK Parliamentary Committee hearings. Later, Steve McIntyre posed this simple question to this UK climate "scientist" regarding her assertions, via this email: Now here is her response: "Dear Dr. McIntyre, Thank you for contacting me regarding the Parliamentary Committee enquiry. The enquiry focused on the instrumental record and the robustness of the warming signal in the 20th century. As far as I’m concerned, the instrumental record is robust, as is shown on the Met Office website where the release of data and code is documented. I’m also aware that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report had a special section devoted to the controversy around the Mann results. Of course the proxy reconstructions have greater uncertainty than the instrumental record particularly as one goes back in time. We accept that and as the AR4 discussed do our best to quantify it." As seems the standard operating procedure in the scientific community, a climate alarmist scientist makes a statement, claim, or assertion that is then challenged; she/he is unable to respond forthrightly because the original assertion was a blatant falsehood. Instead of policing its own, her/his science peers will slap her/him on the back, providing accolades to how clever she/he was in avoiding an honest and factual answer. And yet, the science community bemoans the fact that they are losing credibility worldwide - simply amazing."In your testimony to the Parliamentary Committee the other day, you stated that the controversy around Mann’s original methods had been “fully addressed in the peer reviewed literature” and those issues are now “largely resolved”...."Perhaps you can provide me with references for this particular statement."
