That doesn't void Tom's point. Even if Mann is shown thoroughly to be corrupt, for instance, that doesn't mean that everybody on his side of the debate is also corrupt. Or their data bad. Guilt by association?
As long as either side has as part of their argument, "The other side is biased, so it must be wrong!" this is a crap debate. And even if we stipulate that the AGW side started the Ad Hominems, it's still an Ad Hominem to point that out as part of your argument.
The whole Mann thing is akin to Pons and Flieschman. That is, the event is used as ammunition against anything pro cold-fusion (or, heck, fusion in general). Is that fair? Forget fair... does that get us closer to the answer?
Mann is old, old news at this point. Anybody using that event doesn't have an argument, they have a vague opinion.
Frankly, I don't buy that AGW is proven by any means. But it's the arguments that point out that we don't understand the effects of the various possible inputs that are convincing to me. Not attacks on the credibility of some scientists (other than Mann) that I find very credible. They can be both credible, and even correct in the small scale, and yet wrong on the larger scale.
And the idea that there are no studies coming out that are pro-cooling (or pro-zero change) is ludicrous. I read them on almost a daily basis. right alongside studies that indicate warming. Arguments against AGW should stick to pointing out whether or not such data is being included in overall theories. Like the PDO data.
Huh, seems that somebody is paying attention to these things:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 230140.htm
Let's stop pretending that those two web-sites represent their respective sides in their entirity.
Mike