Starting out with specific "extreme" events was a great diversion because it is a red herring. He implies that AGW and climate scientists have made specific claims (that they of course have never made) while maintaining his own deniability in making any such assertion.
His interpretation of the Reanalysis Project is just a joke.
>>In other words, there appears to be no supporting evidence over this period that human factors have influenced the major circulation patterns which drive the larger-scale extreme events. Again we point to natural, unforced variability as the dominant feature of events that have transpired in the past 140 years.<<
He has removed the "G" from AGW and redefined it as "AWTMCP" (Anthropogenic Warming of Three Major Circulation Patterns).
And every time he references "new" studies or evidence, he is referring to one of his own references (60% of which he was either author or coauthor).
And in a great example of denier sloppiness, on page 15 he cites "McKitrick et al 2010", even though McKitrick does not appear in his list of References. Given the fact that his report contains only 15 references and 21 call-outs - not to mention that this was for an appearance before a congressional committee - you would think that he would have been more careful. On the other hand, maybe he was just following the Denier tradition of cutting-and-pasting without thinking or letting someone else actually do the work instead of doing it yourself.
To quote Dana: "is English your second language?" And the same , apparently, applies to the lecturer.
First, "hide the decline" is not a "mathematical trick". In fact, there is no math involved. Mann removed the tree-ring data (leaving the actual recorded temperature intact) because of a divergence issue that has been discussed in the scientific literature for over 10 years.
The speaker leaves that out and presents only the tree-ring data with the holier-than-thou claim that is the way HE would have done it. Well, it had been done. Not only did Mr. Science fail to mention that part, but he also failed to mention that Mann's hockey stick paper was not a paper about tree-rings.
The only "trick" being played here is on the audience of that video. It is, absolutely, intellectually dishonest - and it is done intentionally.
It is a cheap, fallacious argument from authority with the speaker using himself (and his position as a physicist) as the authority to convince people he is right. It's disgusting. If you want to see a real example of a scientist behaving unethically - just watch the video again.
On second thought, this is what I think.
The only reason that the whole thing is not a joke is because the penalty for being stupid has real-world consequences. The committee members (from both parties) are incapable of having an informed opinion on global warming or anything requiring scientific understanding above the high school level, and Christy’s testimony was that of a political advocate and not as a scientist presenting scientific findings and evidence.
It is just one more step down the road of politics co-opting science. Millions of people already seem unable to tell the difference between scientific understanding and political opinion, and circus stunts like this congressional hearing only further blurs that distinction.
When scientific truth is defined by popular opinion, the result is the Dark Ages. The reason the scientific and industrial revolutions occurred in 19th century instead of the 9th century is because science was controlled by (and, therefore, defined by) the prevailing social/political/religious beliefs of the time. If the Renaissance has not occurred there would still be whacked-off heads rolling down European streets and life expectancy would probably only be half of what it is today.
And that is the penalty for having an uninformed and intellectually lazy public.