Second expert panel shows "ClimateGate" was a ClimateSham

You have just delivered proof positive that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THE DATA. One does not just "plot the numbers" of a correction factor. When legitimate scientists correct one another, they correct the result, they do their own work, they explain how their work differed, and they explain why their approach is more valid.

Legitimate scientists DO NOT just declare that use of any correction factor constitutes fraud. (Legitimate scientists also do not steal data nor leap to the conclusion that theft victims are guilty and criminals are justified. So unless and until somebody besides climastrawman101 reads this, everything I'm saying is just casting pearls before swine. But he ticked me off.) What legitimate scientists do is assess the need for a correction factor and whether the correction factor used is correct.

In the case at hand, there is no dispute among legitimate climate scientists that "the divergence problem" in the tree ring proxy data do require a correction factor.

The burden falls to the accuser, climastrawman101, to prove that

1) the correction factor was incorrect
2) the scientists employed the wrong correction factor knowingly, and
3) with nefarious intent

In light of the findings of all qualified professionals who have examined this case, it is no surprise that climastrawman101 is not carrying his burden. But what does call for an explanation is that he does not concede he's wrong, shut up and go away. And stay there, in his well-deserved humiliation. Silently.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost