[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 5:18*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
*Andre Jute wrote:





On Dec 13, 10:38*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. *To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

--
Michael Press

You've been patient amazingly long, Michael. My own patience ran out
in 1996, even before Michael Mann's lying hockey stick appeared. It
was already clear then that the politics was driving the science, not
the science the policy.

Anyway, there is no need for patience, as the confessed climate crooks
were in charge of the "science" on which everything else in manmade
global warming rests like an upside down pyramid. If you remove the
hockey stick, manmade global warming collapses like the fraud it is.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich

Third Reich was 1933-1945 by my accounting.

--
Michael Press

The IPCC was founded in 1988 so it is now 21 years old, near enough
2z12 = 24. But, lest I be accused of doing arithmetic like a
paleoclimatologist who is also an IPCC lead writer, I'll modify my sig
to:

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 1:48*am, Les Cargill wrote:

You still have to get the data *out* of the quantum computer. Into
another quantum computer? Then into what?

We're not short of flops. We're short of peripheral bandwidth.

Do all the technology you want; the culture will not be ready for it.

If you mean the culture of scientists, who cares? If you mean the
Culture of the Black Box, God bless the consumer who doesn't ask what
is in the box as long as it does its job.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio
constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of
wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

[RichL]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to
refine their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of
QM to Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information
about both the position and the momentum of objects at every
moment in time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power
of all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one
*cannot* predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier
tube, to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons
being emitted by an ensemble of atoms.

The photomultiplier tube is composed of atoms.
Many of those atoms are deliberately put in a
state where they are tuned to resonate with the
atom being observed. You pay lip service to the
notion that observation changes the observable
than ignore it.

Your use of *general* statements of limited applicability doesn't
invalidate what I said.

First off, learn how a photomultiplier tube works. For instance, most
commercial PM tubes have a broadband spectral response; specifically,
atoms within it are *not* deliberately put in a state where they are
tuned to resonate with atoms being observed. The photoelectric effect,
which forms the basis of operation of a PMT, excites an electron from a
bound state within a *solid* (with continuous energy bands) into the
continuum.

http://www.chem.uic.edu/tak/chem5240.../notes8_09.pdf

(scroll down to Figs. 7 through 9)

[RichL]

On Dec 14, 6:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of the
people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's analysis)
who interact strongly. There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

I was going to let this go, but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:
---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and
human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to other
researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of
all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.
----------

There ya go, folks. Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians, and
more interdisciplinary emphasis.

Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

No "fraud"
No "corruption"

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 10:42*pm, Ben C wrote:

Another benefit of the leak is it's making people also have a closer
look at a whole lot of data from other sources.

If there's a clear lesson from all this for both sides it's don't just
trust the "consensus" but actually look at the evidence and the basis
for the claims yourself.

IMO you don't have to do that for very long to see that the AGW case is
much weaker than most people imagine.

I dunno how much weaker than non-existent a scientific case can
possibly be, but wherever that point falls, AGW will surely become the
case study. That is why the stupidity of uncosted precautionary
political action is rooted so strongly in climatology. These people
knew that manmade global warming would never stand up in the light of
global temperature history, that they would be caught out the moment
enough people saw the graph before 1800, which is why Michael Mann
became such a hero for devising the statistical fraud that flattened
the Medieval Warm Period. Now that it is reinstated, the case for AGW
falls flatter than a quantum pancake -- try to measure its thickness
and its gone to another dimension. Sad, really (ha-hah-HAH!).

I wonder what all those consensual climate "scientists" -- the ones
who laboured on the fringes and believed and won't be going to jail --
will do now?

Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with *much* less science

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 12:38*am, RichL wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of the
people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

Sure, if you're sure that's what you want. I'll let you help, so you
can see how it is done:

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

This is the sort of sentence one throws in for sociologists and other
poorly educated folk like Leavitt; basically you write, "The research
has proven conclusively that people know the people they know," and
the idiots go, "Aah!"

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's analysis)
who interact strongly. *There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

Well, you searched in vain, sonny. I happen to know that Wegman, like
every other real scientist, expects peer reviewers and the publication
process to be indepedent. If they all know each other, if they're all
in the interacting clique, the process is not independent and the
outcome is corrupt, as we have seen in Climategate. (Whoever gave you
a PH.D. if you cannot make such simple connections, hmm, Richard P
Leavitt?)

I was going to let this go,

You should have, because I'm about to stomp you again, no doubt at the
cost of you whining in a dozen or more posts about how unfair it is to
have your lies and misrepresentations exposed.

but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:

Post away, sonny.

---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and
human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

This is corruption again. If this were an SEC report on stock market
dealings, the lack of verification and the lack of arms-length dealing
that Wegman refers to would be enough to send someone, more likely
several parties, to jail for corruption. If you aren't smart enough to
understand that Wegman's polite language describes the fraudulent
insider trading of science, you shouldn't be carrying on this
discussion, Leavitt.

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to other
researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

This recommendation arises from Mann withholding data and trying to
hide data, a corrupt practice under the code of ethics of the NAS.

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of
all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

This arises from the finding by the Wegman Panel that Mann is
statistically incompetent. Wegman suspected that he was crooked but
didn't want to say so. Read with the Climategate self-incriminations,
we now know Mann wasn't incompetent, he was highly competent in
finding, corrupting and presenting crooked data.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.

This refers to the fact that neither the Wegman nor the North Panel
believed Mann's hockey stick. In fact, they believed firmly in the
Mediaval Warm Period and said so.

----------

There ya go, folks. *Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians, and
more interdisciplinary emphasis.

The question is why these recommendations were necessary. And they
were necessary because the Climategate Clique had perverted the
process of science, and science itself, in paleoclimatology, and then
further corrupted the IPCC process to political purposes.

Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with this total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by
his
analysis.'

No "fraud"

It is true that Wegman's report merely describes Mann as incompetent
and his conclusion unwarranted by his analysis. Wegman upheld
McIntyre's criticisms' of Mann. To arrive at fraud, one merely adds
the Climategate confessions of Mann and his clique.

No "corruption"

See above. Wegman found and describes corruption in the peer review
process and the publishing process and the IPCC process. If global
warmies are so used to corruption that they cannot see that it is
corrupt for bum buddies to be "peer reviewers" of each other's papers,
that is not my problem.

Finally, it is worth hammering home the point that anyone in business
who behaved as corruptly, fraudulently and illegally as these
Climategate "scientists" would go to jail for a good long time. And
Rich Leavitt would be in the vanguard of those screeching for the
judge to throw away the key. You're hypocrite, Leavitt.

Andre Jute
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea
that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine
and the like would fit the bill.” -- Club of Rome, The First Global
Revolution

[[email protected]]

On Dec 14, 5:38*pm, RichL wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of the
people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's analysis)
who interact strongly. *There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

I was going to let this go, but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:
---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and
human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to other
researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of
all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.
----------

There ya go, folks. *Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians, and
more interdisciplinary emphasis.

Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

No "fraud"
No "corruption"

There is no beating Jute in a debate. He can go longer, insult you
more, killfile you, send endless messages forever. Everyone here knows
that he is a loony. Once he decided that he was going to killfile
those who didn't agree with him and he pretty much killfiled everyone
in the newsgroup. But, he kept replying to everyone he killfiled and
claimed that he had an assistant who would read and sorted the posts
for him. He sent a weekly post reminding everyone of the people that
he had killfiled. His inability to have any semblance or a discussion
is made obvious by the fact that he starts every claim insulting his
opposition. However, when you point to his ignorance he claims that
you are insulting him.

You seem like an intelligent person. You are better off dropping this
and not losing any sleep. Most reasonable people here are very likely
on your side. Those who may disagree with you about global warming
still know that Jute is missing a few nuts.

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:38 am, RichL wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of
the people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years
ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

Sure, if you're sure that's what you want. I'll let you help, so you
can see how it is done:

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

This is the sort of sentence one throws in for sociologists and other
poorly educated folk like Leavitt; basically you write, "The research
has proven conclusively that people know the people they know," and
the idiots go, "Aah!"

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's
analysis) who interact strongly. There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

Well, you searched in vain, sonny. I happen to know that Wegman, like
every other real scientist, expects peer reviewers and the publication
process to be indepedent. If they all know each other, if they're all
in the interacting clique, the process is not independent and the
outcome is corrupt, as we have seen in Climategate. (Whoever gave you
a PH.D. if you cannot make such simple connections, hmm, Richard P
Leavitt?)

I was going to let this go,

You should have, because I'm about to stomp you again, no doubt at the
cost of you whining in a dozen or more posts about how unfair it is to
have your lies and misrepresentations exposed.

but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:

Post away, sonny.

---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies
and human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

This is corruption again. If this were an SEC report on stock market
dealings, the lack of verification and the lack of arms-length dealing
that Wegman refers to would be enough to send someone, more likely
several parties, to jail for corruption. If you aren't smart enough to
understand that Wegman's polite language describes the fraudulent
insider trading of science, you shouldn't be carrying on this
discussion, Leavitt.

Poor Andre. Perhaps English is a second language and I should give him
a break?

The report doesn't say there's a *lack* of verification and a *lack* of
arms-length dealing. He says the scrutiny should be *more intense*.

Your sort of obsessed with this "jail" thing, aren't you?

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to
other researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

This recommendation arises from Mann withholding data and trying to
hide data, a corrupt practice under the code of ethics of the NAS.

So you claim. As I still have the pdf version of the report open, I can
do a quick search:

"withhold": Total instances found - 0
"hide": Total instances found - 0
"corrupt": Once again, 0, just like last time.

OK, let's try "conceal". Hmmm. 0.
Bury? 0.

Try it yourself, Performance Artist.
For someone who preaches against fraud, you ought to read your own
words.

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part
of all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

This arises from the finding by the Wegman Panel that Mann is
statistically incompetent. Wegman suspected that he was crooked but
didn't want to say so. Read with the Climategate self-incriminations,
we now know Mann wasn't incompetent, he was highly competent in
finding, corrupting and presenting crooked data.

One searches in vain for either the word 'competent' or 'incompetent' in
the Wegman report.

Could he have used help with statistics? Perhaps. As I said, I thought
*all* the recommendations in the Wegman report were worthwhile.

You're projecting your own bias onto what you read, Performance Artist.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.

This refers to the fact that neither the Wegman nor the North Panel
believed Mann's hockey stick. In fact, they believed firmly in the
Mediaval Warm Period and said so.

What on earth does your comment have to do with a recommendation
encouraging a more interdisciplinary approach?


----------

There ya go, folks. Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians,
and more interdisciplinary emphasis.

The question is why these recommendations were necessary. And they
were necessary because the Climategate Clique had perverted the
process of science, and science itself, in paleoclimatology, and then
further corrupted the IPCC process to political purposes.

Really.

Let's look at the report again.

On p. 64, the report's answers to questions posed by the House Committee
on Science:

Q: What is the current scientific consensus on the temperature record
of the last 1,000 to 2,000 years?

A: There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record
that temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a
fact. How accurate the reconstructions over the past millennium are is
a matter of debate and we do not believe there is a consensus on this
issue.

"Strong evidence", Performance Artist. From a report that you claim
discredits global warming research.

Further down, on p. 65:

Q: How central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record
to the overall scientific consensus on global climate change (as
reflected in previous reports from the Academy)?

A. In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 [the infamous
Mann papers] are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate
change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates
an increase in temperature. Whether this is unprecedented in the last
millennium seems less clear and to what extent the natural planetary
processes can mitigate the excess green-house gas release is unknown.
What is more important in our view is real insight into and
understanding of the processes of global warming.

So, Performance Artist, the Mann results are essentially irrelevant?
The house of cards doesn't collapse if you ignore those results? Hmm,
you led us to believe otherwise.


Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with this total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by
his
analysis.'

See above. Toss it out, the big picture doesn't change.

No "fraud"

It is true that Wegman's report merely describes Mann as incompetent
and his conclusion unwarranted by his analysis. Wegman upheld
McIntyre's criticisms' of Mann. To arrive at fraud, one merely adds
the Climategate confessions of Mann and his clique.

Huge leap there, especially considering the grounds upon which Wegman
actually critiques Mann's work.

Again no 'incompetent' is found anywhere in the report. Rather, Wegman
criticizes Mann's use of statistics and lack of *independent* peer
review.

Both of these factors can be found in many areas of science. They are
not peculiar to this field, and their mere existence doesn't debunk a
damned thing, dear boy.

Any "fraud" is a presumption based on a leap of faith on your part that
far exceeds anything the "warmies" are guilty of.

No "corruption"

See above. Wegman found and describes corruption in the peer review
process and the publishing process and the IPCC process.

Your definition of corruption must be much broader than either mine or
Wegman's. No mention of corruption exists in the report.

If global warmies are so used to corruption that they cannot see
that it is corrupt for bum buddies to be "peer reviewers" of each
other's papers, that is not my problem.

If you actually worked in the sciences, maybe you'd better appreciate
how common it is. It's not right, but it is common, and demonstrating
that it exists in a limited number of papers that Wegman admits do not
alter the big picture does not amount to demonstrating that the entire
enterprise is "corrupt".

Finally, it is worth hammering home the point that anyone in business
who behaved as corruptly, fraudulently and illegally as these
Climategate "scientists" would go to jail for a good long time. And
Rich Leavitt would be in the vanguard of those screeching for the
judge to throw away the key. You're hypocrite, Leavitt.

And you're either a gullible fool or a charlatan, Performance Artist.

[RichL]

wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:38 pm, RichL wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of
the people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years
ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's
analysis) who interact strongly. There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

I was going to let this go, but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:
---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies
and human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to
other researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part
of all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.
----------

There ya go, folks. Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians,
and more interdisciplinary emphasis.

Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

No "fraud"
No "corruption"

There is no beating Jute in a debate. He can go longer, insult you
more, killfile you, send endless messages forever. Everyone here knows
that he is a loony. Once he decided that he was going to killfile
those who didn't agree with him and he pretty much killfiled everyone
in the newsgroup. But, he kept replying to everyone he killfiled and
claimed that he had an assistant who would read and sorted the posts
for him. He sent a weekly post reminding everyone of the people that
he had killfiled. His inability to have any semblance or a discussion
is made obvious by the fact that he starts every claim insulting his
opposition. However, when you point to his ignorance he claims that
you are insulting him.

You seem like an intelligent person. You are better off dropping this
and not losing any sleep. Most reasonable people here are very likely
on your side. Those who may disagree with you about global warming
still know that Jute is missing a few nuts.

Yeah, I realize that. I'm really violating my own rule about getting
into arguments with people in a *crossposted* thread, because I don't
know the personalities involved very well.

I'm also amused by the other denialist (I'm not sure if he's in the same
group) who's attempting to teach me quantum mechanics, even though I've
been using it professionally for going on 40 years now, on a nearly
daily basis.

Nevertheless, I shall bow out.

You have my sympathies!

[Michael Press]

In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:18Â*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
Â*Andre Jute wrote:





On Dec 13, 10:38Â*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,

Â*"RichL" wrote:
Ben C wrote:

What I've yet to see is any of the people who defend the theory try to
show what remains of it when the influence of the Climategate clique
is subtracted.

That's certainly a legitimate question, but in my view it's one that's
far from being answered. Â*To me, those who oppose climate-warming
research seem to be making a huge leap to a highly premature conclusion
by assuming (that is, if they're not being disingenuous) that somehow
the whole of the research effort rests on (as yet unconfirmed) frauds
perpetrated by a few.

I'd counsel patience by all at this point.

I am done with patience. The shenanigans have gone on long enough.
The theory of man made runaway global warming
has solid evidence against it; evidence that
was systematically ignored and suppressed. Now
the evidence is out. No more patience.

--
Michael Press

You've been patient amazingly long, Michael. My own patience ran out
in 1996, even before Michael Mann's lying hockey stick appeared. It
was already clear then that the politics was driving the science, not
the science the policy.

Anyway, there is no need for patience, as the confessed climate crooks
were in charge of the "science" on which everything else in manmade
global warming rests like an upside down pyramid. If you remove the
hockey stick, manmade global warming collapses like the fraud it is.

Andre Jute
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted twice as long as the Third Reich

Third Reich was 1933-1945 by my accounting.

The IPCC was founded in 1988 so it is now 21 years old, near enough
2z12 = 24. But, lest I be accused of doing arithmetic like a
paleoclimatologist who is also an IPCC lead writer, I'll modify my sig
to:

The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

Has it been that long? I did not bestir myself to look it up.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article . com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com, Spender
wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to refine
their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of QM to
Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information about
both the position and the momentum of objects at every moment in
time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power of
all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one *cannot*
predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier tube,
to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons being emitted
by an ensemble of atoms. In a situation where you have spontaneous
emission, the arrival rates are completely randomly distributed. If
there is stimulated emission, as in a laser, there is some *correlation*
between the various arrival rates of photons because stimulated emission
results in the atoms being "locked" to one another in some sense. In
any event, doing the experiment makes sense and has meaning, in fact
many have actually done the experiment on various physical systems.

In practice, it doesn't matter
so much in lasers because there are so many photons that
fluctuations in light intensity are (usually) negligible. Yet they
are there.

The fluctuations are caused by the lasing atoms being sunk
in a heat bath.

Utterly wrong. The fluctuations are caused by the statistical
distribution in time of photons being emitted from a physical system as
a result of the intrinsic nature of QM.

Output from a laser would be perfectly coherent
if the laser were not in a 300 K heat bath, or warmer.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
snip
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be
a dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately obfuscate
data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the scientific peer
review system?


I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will
take time for the full story to come out.

Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs
where you would conclude that certain named individuals
who are engaged in climate research destroyed data, hid
data, and attempted to subvert the peer review system.

--
Michael Press

[Dan O]

On Dec 14, 6:28 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

tldr

Hey Andre, you know that thing you do that makes people not like
you? You're doing it again.

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-15, Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
This arises from the finding by the Wegman Panel that Mann is
statistically incompetent. Wegman suspected that he was crooked but
didn't want to say so. Read with the Climategate self-incriminations,
we now know Mann wasn't incompetent, he was highly competent in
finding, corrupting and presenting crooked data.

I suspect crookedness because the "CENSORED" folder mentioned in the
hockey-stick paper by M&M implies that Mann knew exactly what he was
doing by including the bristlecone pines.

There is a clue in the emails how that folder ended up by accident in
the hands of M&M. Mann writes, in 2005:

Thanks Phil, Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're
going to be very careful in the future what gets put there.
Scott really screwed up big time when he established that
directory so that Tim could access the data.

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-15, RichL wrote:
wrote:
[...]
Yeah, I realize that. I'm really violating my own rule about getting
into arguments with people in a *crossposted* thread, because I don't
know the personalities involved very well.

I'm also amused by the other denialist (I'm not sure if he's in the same
group) who's attempting to teach me quantum mechanics, even though I've
been using it professionally for going on 40 years now, on a nearly
daily basis.

I'm not the one trying to teach you QM, and I'm sure you understand it
better than I do, but having used it professionally for 40 years doesn't
mean you _really_ understand it! Familiarity breeds contempt.

[Ben C]

On 2009-12-15, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,
Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

Has it been that long? I did not bestir myself to look it up.

See http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf, especially
the graph titled "History Lesson 1988" on page 7.

[noauth]

Tim McNamara wrote:

Yo, anonymous coward,

flush

Well now there's a sterling example of a wingnutter with a cause,
having absolutely no avenue of escape after its latest "save the
wales" boobishness has imploded in on itself, diving head long into
the wingnutter's go-to last resort tact of spewing insults and
attacking the way the information they find so painful makes its
way into their field of vision.

Listen kid... it's really not my problem that your parents were
negligent when it came to teaching you to think clearly and
critically. Blame them if you feel you've been hoodwinked by the
swindler-handlers, not the people who are investing the time and
effort into educating your sheeple self.

And by the by, if you're going to embarrass yourself with the
online version of a 2 year old yelling "POOPIE HEAD!" after its
parents take away a favorite toy when they're caught peeing in the
toy box, you should at the very least put some effort into it. The
"get a job" thing has been worn thread bare and beyond. Ya need to
do something original kiddo. Show a little creativity if your
lineage allows it. Otherwise you're just going to look like a
wingnutter with an IQ hovering somewhere around "paper clip".

You're welcome.

[RichL]

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to
refine their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of
QM to Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information
about both the position and the momentum of objects at every
moment in time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power
of all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one
*cannot* predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier
tube, to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons
being emitted by an ensemble of atoms. In a situation where you
have spontaneous emission, the arrival rates are completely randomly
distributed. If there is stimulated emission, as in a laser, there
is some *correlation* between the various arrival rates of photons
because stimulated emission results in the atoms being "locked" to
one another in some sense. In any event, doing the experiment makes
sense and has meaning, in fact many have actually done the
experiment on various physical systems.

In practice, it doesn't matter
so much in lasers because there are so many photons that
fluctuations in light intensity are (usually) negligible. Yet they
are there.

The fluctuations are caused by the lasing atoms being sunk
in a heat bath.

Utterly wrong. The fluctuations are caused by the statistical
distribution in time of photons being emitted from a physical system
as a result of the intrinsic nature of QM.

Output from a laser would be perfectly coherent
if the laser were not in a 300 K heat bath, or warmer.

Do you have any idea what "perfectly coherent" means?

Are you aware that the quantized electromagnetic field is characterized
by, among other things, vacuum fluctuations that are an intrinsic
property associated with quantum electrodynamics?

Are you aware of photon shot noise? And the fact that the temporal
distributions of emitted photons follows a Poisson distribution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise

"The intensity of a source will yield the average number of photons
collected, but knowing the average number of photons which will be
collected will not give the actual number collected. The actual number
collected will be more than, equal to, or less than the average, and
their distribution about that average will be a Poisson distribution."

For a simple example of this, consider a Geiger counter (which can
detect gamma rays, which are photons), and a flux of gamma rays that is
sufficiently weak that individual gamma detection events are resolvable
in time. You don't sense photons being sensed at regular intervals; the
intervals between arrival times of sequential photons is randomly
distributed.

Even with a fully coherent source, there is a statistical distribution
of photon arrival rates. This has nothing to do with temperature, as
you can lower the temperature of the laser arbitrarily and you still get
that same statistical distribution. This has been fully validated
experimentally.

You seem to know the lingo of QM but your knowledge is superficial and
rudimentary in comparison with that of actual physicists who have been
working in the field for nearly 40 years.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Oh those wacky Brits:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh those wacky Brits:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Meanwhile, some things never change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Yo, Leavitt, all I wanted was to expose the global warming fanatic
behind your "I'd counsel patience" pretense. You've done me proud,
boy.

For the rest, if Wegman "exonerated" me like you claim he exonerated
Michael Mann, and if North "defended" me like he defended Mann, my
lawyers would putting the arm on them before close of business.

More, if outside consultants to the SEC wrote a report of conduct in
business like Wegman and North wrote about Mann's conduct in science,
his hockey stick, and the clique and peer review process that produced
it, criminal charges for conspiracy to defraud and for the corruption
of insider trading would certainly follow. If you can't see that,
you're further gone in your global warming monomania than once seemed
possible.

Enjoy your madness before the bubble bursts.

Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer

On Dec 15, 3:33 am, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 15, 12:38 am, RichL wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Hell, some of that was clear in 2003 when Steve McIntyre and Ross
McKitric story of trying to get the data and algorithms from Mann
first hit the headlines, and the rest of it was confirmed in 2006 by
the Wegman Report to the Senate, when Wegman also named the 43 of
the people involved as a corrupt "clique". That's nearly four years
ago.

Perhaps you can explain to the folks who haven't read the report what
Wegman defines as a "clique".

Sure, if you're sure that's what you want. I'll let you help, so you
can see how it is done:

From Wegman's report, p. 40 (scroll to the bottom):

"A clique is a fully connected subgraph, meaning everyone in the
clique interacts with every one else in the clique."

This is the sort of sentence one throws in for sociologists and other
poorly educated folk like Leavitt; basically you write, "The research
has proven conclusively that people know the people they know," and
the idiots go, "Aah!"

The "cliques", as he describes them, are simply groups of people
("clusters" within a "social network", according to Wegman's
analysis) who interact strongly. There is no inherent corruption.

One searches in vain for an association of "corruption" with the
clique concept outlined by Wegman.

Well, you searched in vain, sonny. I happen to know that Wegman, like
every other real scientist, expects peer reviewers and the publication
process to be indepedent. If they all know each other, if they're all
in the interacting clique, the process is not independent and the
outcome is corrupt, as we have seen in Climategate. (Whoever gave you
a PH.D. if you cannot make such simple connections, hmm, Richard P
Leavitt?)

I was going to let this go,

You should have, because I'm about to stomp you again, no doubt at the
cost of you whining in a dozen or more posts about how unfair it is to
have your lies and misrepresentations exposed.

but I'll post here the recommendations
from the Wegman report so all of you can see the massive *disconnect*
between Andre's claims and the actual report content:

Post away, sonny.

---------
Recommendations

Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies
and human
lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of
scrutiny and
review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related
documents like the IPCC
report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the
same people as
those that constructed the academic papers.

This is corruption again. If this were an SEC report on stock market
dealings, the lack of verification and the lack of arms-length dealing
that Wegman refers to would be enough to send someone, more likely
several parties, to jail for corruption. If you aren't smart enough to
understand that Wegman's polite language describes the fraudulent
insider trading of science, you shouldn't be carrying on this
discussion, Leavitt.

Poor Andre. Perhaps English is a second language and I should give him
a break?

The report doesn't say there's a *lack* of verification and a *lack* of
arms-length dealing. He says the scrutiny should be *more intense*.

Your sort of obsessed with this "jail" thing, aren't you?





Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies
should develop
a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us
writing this report have
been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been
that they do not in
general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what
must be disclosed.
Federally funded work including code should be made available to
other researchers upon
reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no
commercial value. Some
consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive
use of their data for
one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under
federal support should be
made publicly available. (As federal agencies such as NASA do
routinely.)

This recommendation arises from Mann withholding data and trying to
hide data, a corrupt practice under the code of ethics of the NAS.

So you claim. As I still have the pdf version of the report open, I can
do a quick search:

"withhold": Total instances found - 0
"hide": Total instances found - 0
"corrupt": Once again, 0, just like last time.

OK, let's try "conceal". Hmmm. 0.
Bury? 0.

Try it yourself, Performance Artist.
For someone who preaches against fraud, you ought to read your own
words.





Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be
approved for human
use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is
expected. Indeed, it is
standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-
approval process. We
judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when
substantial amounts of
monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy
decisions to be made
based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by
statisticians should be
standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part
of all grant
applications and funded accordingly.

This arises from the finding by the Wegman Panel that Mann is
statistically incompetent. Wegman suspected that he was crooked but
didn't want to say so. Read with the Climategate self-incriminations,
we now know Mann wasn't incompetent, he was highly competent in
finding, corrupting and presenting crooked data.

One searches in vain for either the word 'competent' or 'incompetent' in
the Wegman report.

Could he have used help with statistics? Perhaps. As I said, I thought
*all* the recommendations in the Wegman report were worthwhile.

You're projecting your own bias onto what you read, Performance Artist.

Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of
research
related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate
change. Funding
should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused
discipline research.

This refers to the fact that neither the Wegman nor the North Panel
believed Mann's hockey stick. In fact, they believed firmly in the
Mediaval Warm Period and said so.

What on earth does your comment have to do with a recommendation
encouraging a more interdisciplinary approach?



----------

There ya go, folks. Perfectly reasonable recommendations: increased
peer review, greater disclosure, closer scrutiny by statisticians,
and more interdisciplinary emphasis.

The question is why these recommendations were necessary. And they
were necessary because the Climategate Clique had perverted the
process of science, and science itself, in paleoclimatology, and then
further corrupted the IPCC process to political purposes.

Really.

Let's look at the report again.

On p. 64, the report's answers to questions posed by the House Committee
on Science:

Q: What is the current scientific consensus on the temperature record
of the last 1,000 to 2,000 years?

A: There is strong evidence from the instrumented temperature record
that temperatures are rising since 1850 and that global warming is a
fact. How accurate the reconstructions over the past millennium are is
a matter of debate and we do not believe there is a consensus on this
issue.

"Strong evidence", Performance Artist. From a report that you claim
discredits global warming research.

Further down, on p. 65:

Q: How central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record
to the overall scientific consensus on global climate change (as
reflected in previous reports from the Academy)?

A. In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 [the infamous
Mann papers] are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate
change. The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates
an increase in temperature. Whether this is unprecedented in the last
millennium seems less clear and to what extent the natural planetary
processes can mitigate the excess green-house gas release is unknown.
What is more important in our view is real insight into and
understanding of the processes of global warming.

So, Performance Artist, the Mann results are essentially irrelevant?
The house of cards doesn't collapse if you ignore those results? Hmm,
you led us to believe otherwise.



Any connection Andre's hyperventilation with the actual contents of
the report is extremely tenuous at best.

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with this total,
contemptuous dismissal of Mann's Hockey Stick:
'Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that
1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by
his
analysis.'

See above. Toss it out, the big picture doesn't change.

No "fraud"

It is true that Wegman's report merely describes Mann as incompetent
and his conclusion unwarranted by his analysis. Wegman upheld
McIntyre's criticisms' of Mann. To arrive at fraud, one merely adds
the Climategate confessions of Mann and his clique.

Huge leap there, especially considering the grounds upon which Wegman
actually critiques Mann's work.

Again no 'incompetent' is found anywhere in the report. Rather, Wegman
criticizes Mann's use of statistics and lack of *independent* peer
review.

Both of these factors can be found in many areas of science. They are
not peculiar to this field, and their mere existence doesn't debunk a
damned thing, dear boy.

Any "fraud" is a presumption based on a ...

read more »

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 3:39*am, "RichL" wrote:
wrote:

You seem like an intelligent person. You are better off dropping this
and not losing any sleep.

Yeah, I realize that. *I'm really violating my own rule about getting
into arguments with people in a *crossposted* thread, because I don't
know the personalities involved very well.

I'm also amused by the other denialist (I'm not sure if he's in the same
group) who's attempting to teach me quantum mechanics, even though I've
been using it professionally for going on 40 years now, on a nearly
daily basis.

Nevertheless, I shall bow out.

Run, rabbit, run.

Andre Jute
Four global warmies down and it's only Tuesday... At this rate I'll
solve the population "crisis" before Christmas.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 7:12*am, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:28 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

tldr

Hey Andre, *you know that thing you do that makes people not like
you? *You're doing it again.

I've explained this to you before, Danno. I'm a professional
intellectual. It comes with the territory that I speak hard truths
without first considering with whom they will make me unpopular. In
any event, who'd want to be popular with a bunch of jerkoffs so
impressionable they still believe in global warming? Those guys (with
the exception of Chalo) don't know anything I want to know, cannot
enrich my life in any conceivable way, don't even have any
entertainment value. They're surplus breathers, no loss. As for you,
ask yourself why your opinion should matter **** to me. If you find
out anything worth reporting, send a pigeon.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:

Run, rabbit, run.

Feel free to declare victory, if that's what floats your boat,
Performance Artist.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 8:25*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-15, Andre Jute wrote:
[...]

This arises from the finding by the Wegman Panel that Mann is
statistically incompetent. Wegman suspected that he was crooked but
didn't want to say so. Read with the Climategate self-incriminations,
we now know Mann wasn't incompetent, he was highly competent in
finding, corrupting and presenting crooked data.

I suspect crookedness because the "CENSORED" folder mentioned in the
hockey-stick paper by M&M implies that Mann knew exactly what he was
doing by including the bristlecone pines.

There is a clue in the emails how that folder ended up by accident in
the hands of M&M. Mann writes, in 2005:

* * Thanks Phil, Yes, we've learned out lesson about FTP. We're
* * going to be very careful in the future what gets put there.
* * Scott really screwed up big time when he established that
* * directory so that Tim could access the data.

I know about that, from following the McIntyre saga from the
beginning. But to be fair to Wegman and even North, one has to take
the chronology and the practice of scientific disciplinary
investigations into account. In the chronology, they didn't then have
the Climategate evidence, whatever Wegman in particular might have
suspected or even known was happening; in private Wegman apparently
let on even then that he knew everything was not kosher, and a bit
later even in public, speaking to other statisticians, he said some
scathing things about Mann and the perverse practices of the entire
climatology field. But in writing, Science even when it disciplines
its own doesn't normally use the sort of positive language I, to give
only one instance, would use; even condemnations by the Inquisition of
heretical scientists about to be torched actually read like semi-
polite bureaucratese. (The threat of torture was "showing the
instruments" -- sounds like my dentist!) And you should further take
into account the context of the Wegman Report: it was prepared by
order of the US Senate and thus a rather august, dignified document;
North's report was equally supposed to represent the official NAS view
on Mann, and thus another flag-rank document and couched in
appropriately grave language. That these considerations give
tendentious idiots like Asher and Leavitt a gap to misrepresent the
Wegman and North findings (both reports consigned Mann to perdition)
is regrettable but par for the course.

Andre Jute
Fair to a fault

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 9:02*am, Ben C wrote:
On 2009-12-15, Michael Press wrote:

In article
,
*Andre Jute wrote:
[...]
The IPCC -- longest hand job in the history of mass hysteria -- has
now lasted almost twice as long as the Third Reich

Has it been that long? I did not bestir myself to look it up.

Seehttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf, especially
the graph titled "History Lesson 1988" on page 7.

James Hansen is one of the most expensive comedians the world has ever
known. He cost not just trillions in money but lives that will before
this this global warming madness finishes be counted in tens of
millions if we're lucky, and in billions if we're not. -- Andre Jute

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 12:39*pm, noauth wrote:
Tim McNamara wrote:
Yo, anonymous coward,

flush

Well now there's a sterling example of a wingnutter with a cause,
having absolutely no avenue of escape after its latest "save the
wales" boobishness has imploded in on itself, diving head long into
the wingnutter's go-to last resort tact of spewing insults and
attacking the way the information they find so painful makes its
way into their field of vision.

Listen kid... it's really not my problem that your parents were
negligent when it came to teaching you to think clearly and
critically. Blame them if you feel you've been hoodwinked by the
swindler-handlers, not the people who are investing the time and
effort into educating your sheeple self.

And by the by, if you're going to embarrass yourself with the
online version of a 2 year old yelling "POOPIE HEAD!" after its
parents take away a favorite toy when they're caught peeing in the
toy box, you should at the very least put some effort into it. The
"get a job" thing has been worn thread bare and beyond. Ya need to
do something original kiddo. Show a little creativity if your
lineage allows it. Otherwise you're just going to look like a
wingnutter with an IQ hovering somewhere around "paper clip".

You're welcome.

Little Timmie McNamara is some kind of a social worker; he claims to
be a psychologist but I am a psychologist and can't believe anyone
would be so incompetent as to license such a clown to practice even on
criminals. He is so insecure, he brags about not reading my posts,
though that doesn't stop him commenting on them. Isn't it just perfect
that such a fool believes in global warming? -- AJ

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 5:20*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Oh those wacky Brits:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

This is far more serious than it seems at first glance. Between the
Express and the Daily Mail, they decide who the next British
government will be. If I were a British warmie, I'd be very, very
frightened. Soon you'll see more British Conservative shadow cabinet
ministers distancing themselves from global warming, if not
necessarily the leader, who'll keep mouthing a politically correct
line for a while yet. But this is the end of any possibility of a
bipartisan approach on global warming in Britain.

Finito.

Andre Jute
who once made a nice living out of knowing which media have the juice

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 5:25*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh those wacky Brits:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

Meanwhile, some things never change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc

Reminds one of the goons of Mafia dons breaking the microphones of
crime reporters on the courthouse steps. But then, as I've been
explaining, Fat Al Gore is a criminal just like any Mafia don, only on
an unimaginably bigger scale.

Andre Jute
Choosing the right viewpoint

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 15, 10:07*pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Run, rabbit, run.

Feel free to declare victory, if that's what floats your boat,
Performance Artist.

Victory? Nah, one doesn't declare victory when one steps on a slug.
One wipes the shoe and moves on. In a week I won't remember your name.

Andre Jute
Moving on to the next enemy of society

[RichL]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:07 pm, "RichL" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Run, rabbit, run.

Feel free to declare victory, if that's what floats your boat,
Performance Artist.

Victory? Nah, one doesn't declare victory when one steps on a slug.
One wipes the shoe and moves on. In a week I won't remember your name.

I've already gotten under your skin sufficiently, as evidenced by
multiple posts in which you've mentioned me but that were not addressed
to me.

Meanwhile, you might enjoy this. It made me think of you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY867gz_4o0

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Run, rabbit, run.

Feel free to declare victory, if that's what floats your boat,
Performance Artist.

Why did you delete you saying, "I shall bow out" from your post? Practicing
to be a climate scientist? LOL

[RichL]

Bill Sornson wrote:

Why did you delete you saying, "I shall bow out" from your post?
Practicing to be a climate scientist? LOL

Ah, the derisive LOL. Pecker tracks of the right-wing nutter.

The answer is, because I was responding to Performance Artist's
immediately preceding comment. Just like in this post.

Not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote (note all context once again removed):

Why did you delete you saying, "I shall bow out" from your post?
Practicing to be a climate scientist? LOL

Ah, the derisive LOL. Pecker tracks of the right-wing nutter.

The answer is, because I was responding to Performance Artist's
immediately preceding comment. Just like in this post.

Not exactly the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

You're simply dishonest.

Anyone can read the subthread and see that you wrote, "...I shall bow out."

Jute replied, "Run, Rabbit, Run."

You then quoted ONLY the run comment to deride him for "claiming victory" as
if it was some stand-alone proclamation.

You fit right in with the lying, hypocritical global warming alarmists.
It's not even subtle.

BS (called when seen)

[Michael Press]

In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
"RichL" wrote:

Michael Press wrote:
In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:45:04 -0800, Michael Press
wrote:

In article
. com,
Spender wrote:

Yes, and it is quite humorous since he just couldn't bring
himself to accept the implications. Einstein's inability to
accept the implications of quantum mechanics had it's use
though. It forced others - most notably Niels Bohr - to
refine their own theories in an attempt to prove aspects of
QM to Einstein.

Einstein lost the argument with Bohr. He did not have facts
we have now, nor did Bohr. Einstein was a better physicist
than Bohr and his argument is ultimately better than Bohr's.

Einstein's argument is essentially determinism. He lost on that
count.

Did you read the quote on statistics?
It is important to distinguish between
statistical uncertainty and a physical
theory that throws up its hands and says
"Physical systems do not evolve according
to determinate laws."

You only throw up your hands if you insist on a "classical"
mindset. You're determined to learn more about physical systems
than the actual information that is available.

Riddle me this?
Does the Schödinger equation have well defined solutions?

Of course it does. The solutions just don't contain the same
information as solutions to classical equations of motions do.

Yes, solutions to Schrödinger's equation
contain more information than classical solutions.
Energy principle applies.
Newton's third law applies.
Newton's second law applies.

I do not see what information the classical equations
contain that is not contained in Schrödinger's equation.

Solutions to classical equations of motion contain information
about both the position and the momentum of objects at every
moment in time, which is impossible within the QM framework.

Have we observed physical systems that evolve exactly
as the Schödinger equation predicts?

Durn betcha. In the millions by now. Christ, in my day job I
design semiconductor devices (mid-infrared semiconductor lasers)
using the Schrodinger equation, essentially. If it didn't work,
I'd be unemployed.

Then we have a deterministic description of
how physical systems evolve.

No, it's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

Solutions to the Schrödinger equation are perfectly determined.

Yes they are, but that's not "deterministic" in the classical sense.

In lasers for example the timing of emission of light photons is a
totally statistical process. One can predict the *average* power
of all the photons emitted in a given time interval, but one
*cannot* predict precisely when a photon will be emitted.

You can only measure the time light is emitted by
building a measuring device. The measuring device
is composed of atoms. The atoms in the measuring
device are part of the system. You cannot measure
an atom in isolation.

In principle, yes to all the above. But...

To even speak of when an
atom emits a photon is an exercise in imagination.

You can use a photon counting apparatus, such as a photomultiplier
tube, to determine the distribution of arrival rates of photons
being emitted by an ensemble of atoms.

The photomultiplier tube is composed of atoms.
Many of those atoms are deliberately put in a
state where they are tuned to resonate with the
atom being observed. You pay lip service to the
notion that observation changes the observable
than ignore it.

Your use of *general* statements of limited applicability doesn't
invalidate what I said.

First off, learn how a photomultiplier tube works. For instance, most
commercial PM tubes have a broadband spectral response; specifically,
atoms within it are *not* deliberately put in a state where they are
tuned to resonate with atoms being observed. The photoelectric effect,
which forms the basis of operation of a PMT, excites an electron from a
bound state within a *solid* (with continuous energy bands) into the
continuum.

http://www.chem.uic.edu/tak/chem5240.../notes8_09.pdf

(scroll down to Figs. 7 through 9)

By tuned I mean that the potential energy of the electron
gas is raised so high that very little kinetic energy
added to an electron will allow it to leave the metal.

--
Michael Press

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 16, 10:10*pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. *And there needs to be a
dialogue.
What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?
I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. *It will take time
for the full story to come out.
Just say so. *You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

*http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool....

Jobst Brandt

Are you trying to run interference for the global warmies, Jobst, or
have you genuinely lost the plot? What has your referenced article
about global cooling to do with the slimy, anti-scientific activities
of the Climategate scumbags, which is what Les and Michael are
discussing?

Andre Jute
Thousands want to know

[Michael Press]

In article ,
Jobst Brandt wrote:

Michael Press wrote:

Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be a
dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?

I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take time
for the full story to come out.

Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

First make your point, then I will read the myth.
Also you might answer the question I asked.

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:10 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be a
dialogue.
What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?
I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take time
for the full story to come out.
Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool...

Jobst Brandt

Are you trying to run interference for the global warmies, Jobst, or
have you genuinely lost the plot? What has your referenced article
about global cooling to do with the slimy, anti-scientific activities
of the Climategate scumbags, which is what Les and Michael are
discussing?

Andre Jute
Thousands want to know

This could be the exception, but I can't recall a single time when Jobst was
asked a pointed question after posting a "hit link" and even had the
courtesy to /acknowledge/ it much less actually answer.

Let's see if history holds...

BS

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 16, 11:38*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Dec 16, 10:10 pm, Jobst Brandt wrote:
Michael Press wrote:
Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. And there needs to be a
dialogue.
What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?
I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. It will take time
for the full story to come out.
Just say so. You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool....

Jobst Brandt

Are you trying to run interference for the global warmies, Jobst, or
have you genuinely lost the plot? What has your referenced article
about global cooling to do with the slimy, anti-scientific activities
of the Climategate scumbags, which is what Les and Michael are
discussing?

Andre Jute
Thousands want to know

This could be the exception, but I can't recall a single time when Jobst was
asked a pointed question after posting a "hit link" and even had the
courtesy to /acknowledge/ it much less actually answer.

Let's see if history holds...

BS

What interests me is whether Brandt posts irrelevants links
deliberately as a spoiler or whether he does it involuntarily because
he is gaga.

Andre Jute
Not everything in materials is dreamt of in Timoshenko

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 16, 11:19*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article ,
*Jobst Brandt wrote:





Michael Press wrote:

Don't go all foam at the mouth here - it's time to be coldly,
dispassionately rational about all this. *And there needs to be a
dialogue.

What dialogue do you anticipate with those who deliberately
obfuscate data, withhold data, erase data, and corrupt the
scientific peer review system?

I'm not convinced any of that actually happened. *It will take time
for the full story to come out.

Just say so. *You cannot anticipate any state of affairs where you
would conclude that certain named individuals who are engaged in
climate research destroyed data, hid data, and attempted to subvert
the peer review system.

*http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...he-global-cool...

First make your point, then I will read the myth.

I've been there. I've read the link. I were you, I wouldn't bother. It
is one of those "realclimate" pages which tries to refute some piece
of "skepticism" and does it so clumsily and so gracelessly, one
instinctively wants the contrary to be true. If Jobst is convinced by
anything found on so biased and transparent a source of misinformation
and special pleading as "realclimate", he plummets in my estimation.

Also you might answer the question I asked.

You should be so lucky!

Andre Jute
The Earth has a lot of practice looking after itself. It still will
long after Man is gone.