You lost me at the word "denier". That's shitty attack talk, reasonable people don't talk like that, therefore why converse with unreasonable people. Besides you're a dick.
1) I don't have to know shit about leprechauns to make fun of those who insist I need to chase them for their pot O gold.. 2) Prove it. 3) Next explain why there's more than 1 model if climate science is so God damn precise.
You mean the same Penn State that supported Jerry Sandusky and enabled him to go on abusing children because they did not want to lose football revenue. Of course, the very same Penn State was going to white-wash Professor Mann and 'clear him'. And for the exact same reason, they did not want to lose all the revenue derived from 'global warming research' which at the time was Penn State's biggest academic related 'money-maker'.
The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions. But all those studies and measurements were by commies. So we can't trust them.
Actually I trust the raw data from NOAA especially when combined with other reputable sources. Reports from the IPCC which pick and chose which data to use in order to promote their global warming agenda are not to be trusted in the least bit and are examples of some of the most fraudulent work in the history of science. BTW the proper way to chart Heat Content is GJ/M2 as noted by NOAA itself. Here is a chart with the information (it does not disagree with your chart but does not appear so alarmist). The point here is that the scale that people use on charts can greatly impact the presentation of the results. Many climate change promoters use scales on charts (range, linear/log, etc.) designed in the best manner to create panic. Source - http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
So one more chart. Keep in mind........... CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS. These last several charts and the above fact tell the whole story.
Actually go read the NSF Office of the Inspector General report, most of the counts were closed out with "insufficient evidence of violations of any of these statutes to warrant investigation." or similar text. The NSF report also stated they do not have oversight of the situation because their "guidelines do not apply to federally funded grantees who publish their research findings in the same manner as their academic colleagues". Basically the NSF wiped their hands of the entire mess and wanted nothing to do with it. They did not "clear" Professor Mann - they simply stated there is not enough evidence and they did not have oversight. Other interesting quotes include "Regarding the University's first Allegation (data falsification), however, we concluded that the University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes. In particular, we were concerned that the University did not interview any of the experts critical of the Subject's research to determine if they had any information that might support the allegation." http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/NSF-Mann-Closeout.pdf
You know what? Mann may be the biggest lying bastard around and falsifying data and conclusions left and right and it still would not change the science. Or the common-sense that if CO2 goes up so will temperature. You do have common sense right?