Investor's Business Daily POC#10 - “Ironically, Mann published his hockey-stick paper in 1998,”
Investor's Business Daily POC#11 - “after which satellite temperature data — the most complete and accurate weather data we have"
This opens up quite the can of worms, but if Investor’s Daily wants to go there so be it.
Investor's Business Daily POC#12 - “show virtually no statistically significant change in global temperatures."
but on a global scale given the slightest appreciation for the hydrological cycle and how our biosphere maintains itself, it is most definitely statistically significant.
Investor's Business Daily POC#13 - “Worse still, Canadian statisticians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick discovered that Mann's statistical manipulations of the raw data were mathematically questionable at best and dishonest at worst.”
Investor's Business Daily POC#14 - “When the two force-fed Mann's own statistical formulas with random data, they generated ... a hockey stick. So, in essence, the climate books were cooked to make global warming seem extreme, no matter what data were used.”
Investor’s Business is leaving out a really big part of this story. McIntyre and McKitrick did their computations wrong. No doubt I would too. That’s why I trust the community of skeptical experts when they tell me this equation equals this result. Particularly when it fits into the fundamental physics that I do have a good grasp on.
Investor's Business Daily POC#14 - "Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster child of the global-warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics," science writer Richard Muller noted in the 2004 issue of the MIT Review, on the controversy. "How could it happen?"