|2011-03-31 09:29:51||Goddard, egged on by Morano, continues to conflate Mann with the decline|
I'm starting to see more clearly what's happening with "Mike's trick to hide the decline". There was no decline in Mann's hockey stick - there was very little tree-ring density in his 98/99 hockey stick data so there was no need for him to remove post-1960 tree-ring density data. So "Mike's trick" and the hockey stick have nothing to do with Briffa's "decline". That was the main point I was making in Muller Misinformation #1.
Then Marc Morano runs with this headline:
which links to Steve Goddard's
Steve does exactly what I was trying to speak against - conflates Mann with "hide the decline":
I think the root of this misconception is a desire for deniers to connect their hated hockey stick with "hide the decline". Anything to discredit the hockey stick, that most reviled of graphs. In hindsight, I might have spoken on this theme a little more clearly in the Muller post as it goes beyond Muller's misconception and is a general theme among the denialosphere.
Anyway, something to think about :-)
It's really amazing to me how fixated they are on the hockey stick. It's like they are blinded by their own hatred of a... shape.