> Alex, the word
“refuted” needs to apply to some assertion.
I mean "refuted" in the sense that "just about everyone
other than Mann himself & Schneider has admitted that he was wrong."
[ph] I forget what the issue was. “Wrong”
is such an completely unscientific term. I hardly know what to do
with it. A complex system has dozens of different appearances
depending on what measure you use. There’s nothing ‘wrong’
if you are consistent in constructing a measure and say how you did
it. You say “wrong” as if explaining systems too
complicated to explain was an easy check box somewhere.
On your other point, although not related to the
discussion we're actually having, since the record of even today's temperatures
are hopelessly uncertain, yes, sure, you could probably have a "mediaeval
ice age" if you really wanted one and were happy enough to play around
with statistical uncertainty.
The point is, Mann has shown himself to be dishonest. There is no other way to
describe the page that appears to this day at his website. You can't say it is
merely unbalanced. It is a willful attempt to mislead.
[ph] I don’t think you could know
that, given the lever of analysis I’m hearing here.