Creator of Infamous Hockey Stick Graph Refuses to Turn Over Data to Court

[SSDD]

"OMG OMG OMG OMG NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

More logical fallacy. Do you understand the difference between logic and irrationality? Responding with a logical fallacy is irrational. The logical and rational response to someone stating that there is no actual data with which to support your position is to provide the very data they are claiming you don't have...unless of course, you actually have no data, in which case, your own position is both illogical and irrational.

You people are fucking morons.

And considering the fact that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data with which to support your position, alas realdave, the moron is you. Asking for data, contrary to your opinion does not make one a moron...holding a position for which you have no data in support makes you a moron.

 

[SSDD]

Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.

Guess you never saw him speak..especially when he is being confronted with his flawed data...he behaves much like you...condesending, responding with logical fallacy, pretending to be able to support his position, but knowing full well that if he actually presents the data upon which is position is based, he will be laughed out of the room.

Just like you.

 

[IanC]

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

The date is out there.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

You really are an ignorant piece of shit..

Science is about data and observations which either prove or disprove the hypothesis. You keep babbling on about consensus and ignore the fact you have no observed empirical evidence to support your position. This tells me that you are a political hack and nothing more.. Be a good little left wing puke, take your schitck and fuck off or you can grow up and admit you don't know shit.

Unfortunately, the climate consensus just keeps making up data to support their story. Here is five years of adjustments to Maine's temperature data. What will it look like five more years down the road?

I see you are once again duped.

NOAA explains why adjustments are made.

"Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine | Dana Nuccitelli

MMGW deniers are the absolute dumbest people on the planet.

Are we supposed to believe that NOAA didn't know about station moves, etc, before 2012?

Most of the changes in that comparitor graph are to pre-1980 data. What new information has come to light during 2012-2017 that would entail making such large changes?

And what about the large changes that were made from 2007-2012? We were given the same excuses back then.

And the changes between 1999-2007 weren't small either.

How long will it take before we can correctly 'interpret' the temperature readings written down decades ago?

These are global temp adjustments. Gotta love how they took Santer's climategate email about removing the 40's warming blip to heart.

 

[RealDave]

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

You really are an ignorant piece of shit..

Science is about data and observations which either prove or disprove the hypothesis. You keep babbling on about consensus and ignore the fact you have no observed empirical evidence to support your position. This tells me that you are a political hack and nothing more.. Be a good little left wing puke, take your schitck and fuck off or you can grow up and admit you don't know shit.

Unfortunately, the climate consensus just keeps making up data to support their story. Here is five years of adjustments to Maine's temperature data. What will it look like five more years down the road?

I see you are once again duped.

NOAA explains why adjustments are made.

"Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."

No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine | Dana Nuccitelli

MMGW deniers are the absolute dumbest people on the planet.

Are we supposed to believe that NOAA didn't know about station moves, etc, before 2012?

Most of the changes in that comparitor graph are to pre-1980 data. What new information has come to light during 2012-2017 that would entail making such large changes?

And what about the large changes that were made from 2007-2012? We were given the same excuses back then.

And the changes between 1999-2007 weren't small either.

How long will it take before we can correctly 'interpret' the temperature readings written down decades ago?

These are global temp adjustments. Gotta love how they took Santer's climategate email about removing the 40's warming blip to heart.

Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.

 

[RealDave]

Spoken like the asshole you have proven youserlf to be.

Guess you never saw him speak..especially when he is being confronted with his flawed data...he behaves much like you...condesending, responding with logical fallacy, pretending to be able to support his position, but knowing full well that if he actually presents the data upon which is position is based, he will be laughed out of the room.

Just like you.

Go fuck yourself Mr " OMG OMG OMG wherte's the data". The data has been shared amongst those who did the perr redview.

You worse than a little crybaby.

 

[RealDave]

"OMG OMG OMG OMG NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

More logical fallacy. Do you understand the difference between logic and irrationality? Responding with a logical fallacy is irrational. The logical and rational response to someone stating that there is no actual data with which to support your position is to provide the very data they are claiming you don't have...unless of course, you actually have no data, in which case, your own position is both illogical and irrational.

You people are fucking morons.

And considering the fact that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data with which to support your position, alas realdave, the moron is you. Asking for data, contrary to your opinion does not make one a moron...holding a position for which you have no data in support makes you a moron.

I know way more about logic than you.

The idea you think there is no data makes me laugh.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Actually realdave, you aren't supposed to believe anyone if they don't have a bucket full of actual data to back them up. Tell me realdave, can' you think of a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 40, 50, even 100 years ago other than to make the temperatures of the present support a particular narrative?

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.

Anyone who believes any scientific claim not backed up by observed, measured, quantified data is a f'ing moron...lets see the observed, measured, quantified data upon which your position is based dave? Got any? Of course you don't...guess that makes you a moron...question is....do you keep being a moron, or do you start to question why there doesn't seem to be any observed, measured, quantified data to slap me down with?

 

[SSDD]

Go fuck yourself Mr " OMG OMG OMG wherte's the data". The data has been shared amongst those who did the perr redview.

And what?...they locked it up to keep anyone from seeing it? The interesting thing is that there is ample observed, measured, quantified data demonstrating that the AGW hypothesis is flawed, but not a single shred supporting it over natural variability.

Explain that mr clap your hands over your ears and yell as loud as you can to keep from hearing the truth.

You worse than a little crybaby.

So again..you think asking to see data to support a scientific claim is irrational?...and questioning why there is none available is a problem? You are even further away from any sort of rational thinking than I thought you were. Maybe you are every bit as stupid as you are acting...all this time and not even an attempt to provide some sort of observed, measured, quantified data to support your position. have you known all along that there was none?...but believe anyway?

 

[SSDD]

I know way more about logic than you.

Which, I suppose is the reason you answer every post with at least one logical fallacy? You know as little about logic, and rational thinking as you do about climate science...which is next to nothing.

The idea you think there is no data makes me laugh.

The idea that you think there is data when you can't seem to produce even one shred just tells me that you are an ignorant dupe operating from a position of faith. Lets see a single scrap of that data realdave...what's the matter...you know you will look even more stupid than you already do if you show us what passes for actual evidence in that little mind of yours?

 

[RealDave]

Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Actually realdave, you aren't supposed to believe anyone if they don't have a bucket full of actual data to back them up. Tell me realdave, can' you think of a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 40, 50, even 100 years ago other than to make the temperatures of the present support a particular narrative?

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.

Anyone who believes any scientific claim not backed up by observed, measured, quantified data is a f'ing moron...lets see the observed, measured, quantified data upon which your position is based dave? Got any? Of course you don't...guess that makes you a moron...question is....do you keep being a moron, or do you start to question why there doesn't seem to be any observed, measured, quantified data to slap me down with?

They have the data. That's the part you are whining about.

There is measured data. Those that did the peer review saw that date.

I have news, your asshat buddies are complaining about adjustments to the raw data.

Which one of you are lying?

Are there adjustments or is there no data.

Its a simple question.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

The date is out there.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

You really are an ignorant piece of shit..

Science is about data and observations which either prove or disprove the hypothesis. You keep babbling on about consensus and ignore the fact you have no observed empirical evidence to support your position. This tells me that you are a political hack and nothing more.. Be a good little left wing puke, take your schitck and fuck off or you can grow up and admit you don't know shit.

Unfortunately, the climate consensus just keeps making up data to support their story. Here is five years of adjustments to Maine's temperature data. What will it look like five more years down the road?

This is why I fully support totally zeroing out all funding for climate "research"

 

[RealDave]

Keep acting like the 5 year old brat with their hands over their years screaming.

And still nothing more than a weak logical fallacy in response. This is a scientific topic...actual science requires observed, measured, quantified data to support hypotheses...there is none that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

And as to acting like a 5 year old....I am afraid that is you dave. Adults admit when they can't support their side of an argument...5 year olds keep on howling what they believe without regard to any actual support for what they believe. You keep claiming there is evidence and that you have seen it....all the while being completely unable to bring even one small scrap of it here.

As for calling me a liar, fuck you.

Just calling it like I see it...you claim to have done the research...if you had, one of two things would be happening here rather than your pathetically weak and impotent argument composed mostly of logical fallacies. had you done the research and paid attention to the literature you would:

A) realize that there is not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability..in which case you would a) be a grown up and acknowledge that you also have not seen any or b) slink away because you know that continuing to take part in a discussion about evidence that you can't produce would just make you look more and more stupid with every post.

B) in an alternate universe operating on different physics, you might be able to provide observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...although in that universe, this discussion wouldn't be happening with me, because I would have already seen the evidence and wouldn't be a skeptic...or at least as skeptical.

The date is out there.

No realdave...it isn't...and continuing to behave like a 5 year old brat with your hands over your ears screaming that it is, isn't going to make your case. If it is there, and you have seen it, then bring a single piece of it here...since it isn't, you might try acting like an adult and admitting that you can't find it regardless of what you wish. That tactic is known as facing reality. Try it some time.

Your probl;em is you can see past your ignorance. There is plenty of data.

You can't grasp that the greenhouse effect is proven science.

You can;'t grasp that more CO2 => More greenhouse effect => warming temperature.

Yet you keep running through the streets screaming " OMG OMG OMG no data no data OMG OMG OMG"

Furthermore, you can't grasp the there are many factors that go into determining our climate.

What is causing our warming? I suspect you;ll tell me contrails or cell phones.

You really are an ignorant piece of shit..

Science is about data and observations which either prove or disprove the hypothesis. You keep babbling on about consensus and ignore the fact you have no observed empirical evidence to support your position. This tells me that you are a political hack and nothing more.. Be a good little left wing puke, take your schitck and fuck off or you can grow up and admit you don't know shit.

Unfortunately, the climate consensus just keeps making up data to support their story. Here is five years of adjustments to Maine's temperature data. What will it look like five more years down the road?

This is why I fully support totally zeroing out all funding for climate "research"

No, you do it because hour political leaders said they want to do it.

The rest is just an excuse for you to doom future generations because you are really that fucking stupid.

 

[IanC]

Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Actually realdave, you aren't supposed to believe anyone if they don't have a bucket full of actual data to back them up. Tell me realdave, can' you think of a rational, scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from 40, 50, even 100 years ago other than to make the temperatures of the present support a particular narrative?

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.

Anyone who believes any scientific claim not backed up by observed, measured, quantified data is a f'ing moron...lets see the observed, measured, quantified data upon which your position is based dave? Got any? Of course you don't...guess that makes you a moron...question is....do you keep being a moron, or do you start to question why there doesn't seem to be any observed, measured, quantified data to slap me down with?

They have the data. That's the part you are whining about.

There is measured data. Those that did the peer review saw that date.

I have news, your asshat buddies are complaining about adjustments to the raw data.

Which one of you are lying?

Are there adjustments or is there no data.

Its a simple question.

There is real, raw data available. I think there are reasonable adjustments that have to be made to that data to make it usable.

Some adjustments are somewhat easy to calculate, some are not.

UHI is not easy to calculate, but you would think the general direction if not the magnitude would be possible to discern. Most temperature dataset products have a net zero adjustment for UHI, BEST actually corrects recent temperature UP for UHI. Does that seem reasonable considering UHI is usually multiple degrees of warming for any city?

There are many things that could be corrected. For instance, a Stevenson screen is painted white. Every year the paint deteriorates, adding slightly to the temperature readings. After five years it gets repainted and five years of progressive warming is reversed in one day. Homogenization techniques catch the repainting and adjust the one time cooling but miss the five years of spurious warming. This is repeated every five years. Is it better to leave the readings alone except for obvious station moves or instrument change? I think so. Homogenization has added much of the warming trend.

 

[SSDD]

They have the data. That's the part you are whining about.

So they have it but are keeping it secret? If that is the case, I still have to ask why you believe?

There is measured data. Those that did the peer review saw that date.

Sure, there is measured data...hell there is observed, and quantified data...but zero observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. Hell, for decades now poor dupes like you have been showing me measured data....hell if you hold a thermometer out your door you can get some measured data...but that data doesn't do anything to tell you what caused it...or why it changes...

I am not saying that there is no data...nor have I ever said anything like that...I have said that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. The fact that there is data doesn't mean that the data supports the hypothesis....

I have news, your asshat buddies are complaining about adjustments to the raw data.

Guess you aren't even bright enough to understand the question being put to you....

Which one of you are lying?

Think real hard here realdave....can you even start to comprehend the difference between data...and data that supports a hypothesis...Do you think that data indicating a temperature change even begins to start to demonstrate that it supports a particular reason for the change. I have a thermometer that read 55 degrees yesterday....today it reads 88 degrees. So you know that there was a change...does that tell you anything at all about what caused the change?

What I am asking for is some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the claim that we are causing a change in the climate rather than the natural variability that has been going on forever...nothing happening within the climate now is in any way different from the natural variability that has been happening here since....ever.

Are there adjustments or is there no data.

Whoever said that there was no data?...I have said that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. That is key realdave. I guess it is a difficult concept for you...but don't feel bad...most of your idiot warmer buds have the same problem...hell crick went on for days claiming that there was observed, measured, quantified data supporting AGW over natural variability...when he finally produced it, it was nothing but a temperature record with an assumption tacked on that we caused the change...the sort of data I am looking for is the sort that supports the claim that we are the cause of the change...if you don't have that, then all you have is what you believe...and climate science doesn't have the first scrap of actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that we are causing the climate to change rather than natural variability.

Its a simple question.

Apparently not for you realdave...you don't seem to be able to understand the difference between just data and data that actually supports a claim. You seem to be satisfied to see a temperature record and then just accept someone explanation as to why the temperature might be changing without any actual evidence to support the reason they claim that it is changing. Sorry realdave, but I am not that gullible...if you are going to claim that I am causing a thing...and that it is going to cost big bucks to fix, I am afraid that you are going to have to provide a bit more than that it is your opinion that I am the cause...I want some actual data that demonstrates that the change is something that I caused or something that would have happened whether I was here or not.

Now we know that the climate changed wildly before we ever walked the earth...and we know that it has changed wildly after we showed up and that it continues to change...what sort of evidence do you have that we are causing the change this time...actual evidence...not just your opinion...or your assumption...or your belief...actual evidence that supports the claim that we are causing the change and that it isn't just natural variability.

Tell me realdave...are you able to even understand what I am asking? Do I need crayons to draw you a wee picture?

 

[SSDD]

No, you do it because hour political leaders said they want to do it.

No realdave...it is because unlike you, he is able to think for himself and see that there just isn't any real data that supports the claims being made. He doesn't accept what anyone says unless they can provide some data to back their statements up...he isn't an uneducated dupe who can't really do much more than pick a political side and then accept what that side tells him to think.

The rest is just an excuse for you to doom future generations because you are really that fucking stupid.

So lets see the actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your prediction of doom. Or are you stupid enough to believe such fairy tales without seeing some actual evidence to support them?....never mind...of course you are...you prove it with every post.

 

[jc456]

"OMG OMG OMG OMG NO DATA!!!! NO DATA !!! OMG OMG OMG"

Ha ha ha ha ha.

More logical fallacy. Do you understand the difference between logic and irrationality? Responding with a logical fallacy is irrational. The logical and rational response to someone stating that there is no actual data with which to support your position is to provide the very data they are claiming you don't have...unless of course, you actually have no data, in which case, your own position is both illogical and irrational.

You people are fucking morons.

And considering the fact that you can't provide the first piece of observed, measured, quantified data with which to support your position, alas realdave, the moron is you. Asking for data, contrary to your opinion does not make one a moron...holding a position for which you have no data in support makes you a moron.

I know way more about logic than you.

The idea you think there is no data makes me laugh.

I believe no man who asks me for money or alter my lifestyle without evidence I'm responsible. Data is required. I haven't seen it, so I conclude there isn't any. you are gullible and readily hand out your dollars without questions. that's on you bubba. for us, we need to see justification of money. Right now, there has been very little if any sea rise, It's been colder in the Northern hemisphere over the years, the number of hurricanes has gone done dramatically rather than up as predicted. So what we have seen are many predictions that haven't come true, and many humans who think asking questions to see data.

 

[IanC]

Actually, you are expected to believe scientists & not political/fossil fuel funded hacks.

Anyone who still believes the debunked climategate bullshit is a fucking moron.

Who are these fossil fuel funded hacks?

I read both sides, and learn from both sides. I reject, or at least give less weight to conclusions that don't make sense to me.

The climategate emails are what they are. No one has denied that they are factual. Jones did call for AR4 correspondence to be deleted. Santer did ask for help in making the 40's warming blip go away. Mann and Jones did discuss how to keep skeptical papers out of publication. Etc,etc,etc.

Your choice is to believe the Grinch's version of events and his declared motives. My choice is to reject it.

 

[mamooth]

That's why he was found in contempt today and is now going to have to pay all attorney fees and be disgraced as a liar in Canada.....

Suuuuuuuuuure he was.

Billy, why do you bother making up such stupid shit, when you know everyone knows you're just making up stupid shit?

 

[mamooth]

So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?

Given that it's all freely available on the internet, obviously yes.

Data Sources

So, why are you making the lunatic claim that Mann has withheld data? Yes, yes, a crazy guy writing on the PSI conspiracy blog said so, but do you have any evidence that isn't faked?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, Mann complied with the court order to turn over his data?

Given that it's all freely available on the internet, obviously yes.

Data Sources

So, why are you making the lunatic claim that Mann has withheld data? Yes, yes, a crazy guy writing on the PSI conspiracy blog said so, but do you have any evidence that isn't faked?

So why didn't Mann offer your B.S. website as " data"?