Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled
in [Design]
|
From: Jan Panteltje on 29 Nov 2009 08:28 On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in <dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3f3f(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: >John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the >difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind >of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a >scientific education and you might be able to do better. I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours. And, on top of that, just found in a Usenet newsgroup: From: "Eric Gisin" <ericg(a)nospammail.net> Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics,uk.politics.environment Subject: Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:20:27 -0800 Message-ID: <hespbh$aat$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review 28 11 2009 This statement was released by Penn State here. Oddly, while mentioning the NAS report, there is no mention of the Congressional commissioned Wegman report, which you can see here full report (PDF). Or for a quick read the fact-sheet (PDF). University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann's research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann's seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann's results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions. In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised. h/t Joe D'Aleo http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d28-Penn-State-to-investigate-Michael-Mannor-whitewash-him Penn State to investigate Michael Mann--or whitewash him November 28, 8:02 PMEssex County Conservative ExaminerTerry Hurlbut Dr. Michael E. Mann, famed originator of the "Hockey Stick" graph, is now officially under investigation by his current employer, Penn State University. But Penn State's own press release raises an immediate question of how thorough that investigation will be. Anthony Watts, of WattsUpWithThat, reported today that Penn State had issued this press release announcing its intention to review Dr. Mann's work in order to "address" certain "question" and "concerns" that have been "raised" by the recent exposure of the CRU archive. Watts' report was noted by Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters.org. In its press release, Penn State referred to a report, titled Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2000 Years, by the Board of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Academy of Sciences. This report, made at the request of then-Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), essentially concluded that Mann's hockey-stick results were "sound." Climatic Research Unit (Photo courtesy CRU)However, as Watts points out in his entry, the NAS report was not the only report on Mann's work. Another report, commissioned by Representative Joe Barton (R-TX-6) and written by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, and his associates, reached the opposite conclusion: that Mann's work was unsound. More than that, the Wegman committee raised questions about the conduct of climate science generally that anticipate, in nearly every particular, the questionable research methods revealed in the CRU Archive. The Penn State press release admits that the CRU Archive and its contents "raise" various "questions" and "concerns" that were not the subjects of the NAS report. What those concerns are, Penn State refuses to state. Possibly they include Mann's guilty knowledge of, or participation in, the willful destruction of data that might be subject to a Freedom of Information request, either in the UK or in the USA. E-mail file 1212073451.txt contains the most damaging information in this regard: Mike: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. By "AR4" Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, means the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Mann's contemptuous attitude toward the committee formerly chaired by Rep. Barton has already been discussed. However, the more important question is why Penn State chose to ignore the Wegman report. That report raises a number of concerns of its own about the then-current (and still-current) state of climate science. Specifically, Wegman et al., charged that the "Hockey Stick" is the product of improper statistical treatment of the data and for that reason alone was not valid. Furthermore, Wegman et al., stated that Mann et al. had formed an "inner circle" and refused to interact with the general community of statisticians (who might be expected to have an opinion on their treatment of the data), and that Mann and other principal investigators had a habit of "review[ing] one another's work" and "reus[ing] the same data sets." This, said the Wegman committee, meant that the work of Mann and other investigators might not be as independent as they pretended. In fact, as the CRU Archive plainly shows, Mann, Jones, and the other investigators named in the CRU Archive have never changed their practices since the time that the Wegman Committee sat. That the NAS report should never have mentioned any of the concerns raised by the Wegman report, calls into question the quality of the work of the NAS, especially since the Wegman report has now been more than vindicated. And that Penn State should have ignored the Wegman report raises a question of how objective Penn State's academic reviewers intend to be. (The Wegman Report is hardly a forgotten piece of criticism. It bore mention on examiner.com as recently as October, a scant six weeks before the CRU Archive story broke.)
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 08:53 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:55:50 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 28, 3:58�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 27, 2:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:18:18 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 26, 7:35�pm, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:07:13 -0800 (PST)) it happenedBill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote in >> >> >> <6e3552a1-ae05-4a2c-835f-9f245f6d0...(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >> >> Without the [fossile] energy companies there would be no media, no energy= >> >> >> >, >> >> >> >> as your car does not run on electricity (yet). >> >> >> >> Without those machines, used to build cities, roads, transport goods, the= >> >> >> >re would be no civilisation >> >> >> >> and not even internet, and no printing material, no paper, some paper man= >> >> >> >ufacturers have their own power plants. >> >> >> >> >And if we keep on digging up fossil carbon and burning it, all these >> >> >> >nice things will go away again. >> >> >> >> >> Been there. >> >> >> >> Now wake up from your green dreams. >> >> >> >> >An ironic appeal, since it comes from someone who clearly doesn't know >> >> >> >what he is talking about. >> >> >> >> mm, why do you say that of everybody except your comic book scientists? >> >> >> >I don't say it about everybody, but there are a number of people who >> >> >post here on subjects that they know very little about, and they quite >> >> >often post total nonsense. >> >> >> --- >> >> Like about being able to extract energy from a varying magnetic field >> >> surrounding a conductor by wrapping a solenoid around the conductor? >> >> >Joel Koltner was making a joke. The smiley should have told you that. >> >> --- >> He wasn't making a joke, he was being humorous in his presentation, you >> wretch. >> >> But, whether he was making a joke or not is immaterial, since I _proved_ >> my point by experimentation and presented the data and method for anyone >> who cared to replicate the experiment to do so. > >Few people are so lacking in a sense of proportion that they'd bother. --- You really are no scientist are you? The point of doing the experiment and presenting the method, the data gathered, and the conclusion reached was to allow the experiment to be replicated so that the veracity of the conclusion could be ascertained. You, however much data is presented to prove you wrong, refuse to acknowledge the data or your error(s) and prefer invective to investigation. --- ><snipped the rest of the rant> --- Of course... cast it in an unfavorable light and ignore it. Just one of your ways of not having to come to terms with "inconvenient truths." This, from Joerg, puts it nicely: "I have the feeling you will not accept any proof and will try to find all sorts of excuses and hair in the soup. What's next? Their language wasn't Norwegian enough anymore so they don't count?" JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 09:09 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 28, 4:19�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:44:15 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 28, 4:44�am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:07:11 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 26, 8:33�pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:36:14 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >It is a pity that I got it wrong. Peer review would probably have >> >> >> >prevented this. >> >> >> >> >James Arthur happens to be wrong - his concurrence doesn't create a >> >> >> >concensus, which in practice is confined to the opinions of people who >> >> >> >know what they are talking about. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> Then nothing you post would lead to the creation of a consensus. >> >> >> >Certainly not to a concensus of which you'd form a part. >> >> >> --- >> >> I'd certainly keep it from becoming a consensus by showing you up for >> >> the fraud you are. >> >> >There you go again. I'm not a fraud, but you are too ignorant and dumb >> >to get to grips with the evidnece that makes this obvious to the >> >better equipped. >> >> --- >> As is typical with frauds, instead of honestly addressing the issues >> causing contention, trying to resolve them amicably, and taking your >> lumps when you deserve them, you resort to invective in order to try to >> silence your critics. > >John Fields has learned the word 'amicable". It is sad that he shows >no evidence of knowing what it means. --- Really? I get along quite well with almost everybody here, while you, with your neverending pomposity and penchant for using deception to foment discord seem to have trouble getting along with _anybody_. --- ><snipped the usual rubbish> --- Of course... Pretend what you can't counter is worthless. JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 09:31 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:31:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 27, 9:58�am, John Larkin ><jjSNIPlar...(a)highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> Hilarious. Why is it that useless, incompetant, and unemployed >> "progressives" think that they are able to "educate" people who are >> none of the above. > >James Arthur certainly isn't competent to comment on climate change. >He managed to put his foot back in his mouth again this evening. He >might have done better if he had read the paragraph of text directly >below the numbers he'd grabbed to support his half-baked argument. > >But you think that he is useful, competent and employed ... and that >you own judgement is entirely sound. --- It sure seems to be! After all, this _is_ an electronics group and, rather less than between the lines, he was calling _you_ useless, incompetent, and unemployed, which is spot on. JF
From: John Fields on 29 Nov 2009 09:42
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:10:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote in ><dc44176d-0d2d-43b4-b9b5-a498b93c3f3f(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>: > >>John, you really don't have to remind us that you can't tell the >>difference between peer-reviewed scientific publications and the kind >>of rubbish that denialist web-sites spread around. Get yourself a >>scientific education and you might be able to do better. > >I will take John's understanding of science anytime over yours. --- That's very kind; thank you! :-) JF |