US National Academy of Science CONDEMNS Global Warming Lies
On Nov 24, 6:12*am, " >
> On Nov 23, 6:56*pm, Andre Jute > wrote:
> > The Senate Committee under Senator Barton investigating this scandal
> > appoint Edward Wegman, the most distinguished statistician in the US,
> > probably in the world, to form a panel to advise it on Mann's
> > credility and work. Wegman found Mann's credibility to be zero and his
> > work to be a sham, for reasons we shall address below.
> I don't know if there is a "most distinguished statistician"
> award. *Edward Wegman, while prominent, does not really
> appear to be far and away the most distinguished.
> The wikipedia entry for Wegmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wegman
> says Wegman was critical of Mann's approach, particularly
> the use of PCA; Wegman was not tasked to address
> the reality of global warming; Wegman accepts the
> instrumented recorded data as showing a rise since
> 1850 (it's only the paloclimate record that is under review here).
> It also says "At the hearing, Dr. Wegman indicated that the report
> had only been peer-reviewed by those he selected. "
Perhaps you and Wikipedia want to read the original documments and not
depend on press reports.
> which may or may not be significant, but is indicative
> of not really trying hard enough to insure a balanced
If you had read the originals, you wouldn't be making silly comments
like this above. The balance of the reports lay in their multiplicity.
The National Academy of Science appointed a Panel under Dr Gerald
North to defend Mann before the Senate. As we shall see in a moment,
the NAS Panel under oath agreed in every detail with the Wegman
condemnation of Mann.
> Realclimate says whether or not you use PCA doesn't make
> much difference:
"realclimate" is the site of Michael E Mann, the fraudulent
"scientist" who concocted the hockey stick. Only in climate "science"
is it standard practice to cite the accused criminal as the only
Where do you get the gall from to expect us to swallow this crap,
Both Wegman and North condemned Mann's methods as at best incompetent.
And your lie simply doesn't wash: Wegman condemned both Mann's method
and Mann's results as, respectively, incompetent and misleading, and
Here is Wegman on Mann's PCA:
Wegman's comprehensive indictment of Mann:
'The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are
centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole
time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will
cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being
selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this
decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.'
In plain English, just like McIntyre and McKittrick charged, Mann
cooked the data so that the resulting graph would look like the
desired hockey stick...
Later Dr Wegman added that this was "politically convenient".
And here is Wegman on Mann's results, clearly amounting to a 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.'
How much more devastating can one scientist's judgement on another
scientist's work be than such total condemnation of method and
And the North Panel, specifically constituted to defend Mann against
Barton and Wegman (what sort of scientist needs an official delegation
to defend him against democratic and scientific scrutiny?), under oath
agreed with every word Wegman said, and wrote much the same in their
own report, which you clearly haven't read, dear ignorant Ben Weiner.
The National Academy of Science Panel, also known as the North Panel,
*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
***Mann's RE [reduction of error] tests are insufficient for
statistical significance (i.e. the Hockey Stick has zero meaning)
***Mann's Hockey Stick depends on bristlecone proxies which are known
to be unreliable
***Such strip bark forms should be “avoided” in reconstruction
You must have got your information from the television rather than the
official reports. You really should try going to the source data
sometime, Weiner; maybe it's not too late for you to learn how a
Out of patience with this arrogant clown
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|US National Academy of Science CONDEMNS Global Warming Lies||Andre Jute[_2_]||Tech||44||November 28th 09 05:00 PM|
|News in the world of Global Warming||Andre Jute[_2_]||Vacuum Tubes||23||November 26th 09 09:13 PM|
|News in the world of Global Warming||Andre Jute[_2_]||Vacuum Tubes||27||November 26th 09 01:53 PM|
|News in the world of Global Warming||Andre Jute[_2_]||Vacuum Tubes||0||November 22nd 09 07:42 AM|
|For Mickey.. a guide to Global Warming||Michael McKelvy||Audio Opinions||7||October 20th 04 09:13 PM|