[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Richard P Leavitt, posting as RichL, sent this laughable example of
wishful thinking:

Tell you what though, if any of the
aforementioned individuals winds up in jail (referring now to the East
Anglia crew and/or Mann), I will grant you victory.

I'm not interested in victory, sonny -- I never lose this sort of
argument so "victory" becomes devalued-- but in truth.

I shall not, however, hold my breath. There are many well-known cases
of scientific fraud in which *evidence* of fraudulent intent was much
more clear-cut than in the present situation, and even then none of the
participants wound up in jail.

None of those cases involved worldwide policy costing trillions and a
lot of lives (money spent on combating spurious "global warming"
wasn't spend on international aid).

None of those cases involved a big chunk of 30 billion dollars in
grants. Every time Jones or Mann or Wang or any of that crowd of
crooks cited one of their own crooked papers, or a paper by someone
who they knew had invented data (they all knew Wang invented data),
they were committing a serious fraud on the government.

None of those cases involved conspiring to destroy and destroying data
and other materials subject to Freedom of Information legislation.
There are more deliberate criminal offences here.

If the prospectus for a share issue of a company was as deliberately
crooked as any of Mann or Jones or Briffa's graphs, the promoters
would soon be jailed. No if, but or maybes about it. If any
businessman obtained government grants on the basis of fraudulent
figures, he would be jailed, no ifs, buts or maybes about it.

There is no reason not to jail these arrogant criminals just because
they're scientists. That's the sort of special pleading that let them
get away with their scam for so long.

The evidence of these crimes stands in their grant applications and
their confessions in the e-mails from the University of East Anglia,
now called Climategate.

I think any prosecutor would have an open and shut case to put away at
least the 43 in the inner ring of the paleoclimate clique identified
by Dr Wegman under oath before the United States Senate.

I should hope that long before that their universities will fire them
for acts unbecoming scientists, and the National Academy in the US and
its equivalents elsewhere will publicly ask them to resign.

Andre Jute
A criminal is a criminal no matter the colour of his shirt or the
height of his ivory tower. Put them on the chain gang and see how long
they last.

[datakoll]

WASTING ELECTRONS !

6 months in isolation

[Tom Sherman °_°]

datakoll wrote:
WASTING ELECTRONS !

6 months in isolation

gene, as usual, is correct.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

[Mike Pritchard]

Andre Jute wrote:

[snipped]

Just because people keep repeating a story, it doesn't make it the
truth--even when you do your best to drown out the opposition.

From AFP, another view of the matter:

US business interests suspected in ‘fabricated’ climate scandal

By Agence France-Presse
Sunday, December 13th, 2009 -- 12:02 pm

Business interests and US partisan politics are behind the furor over leaked
emails that have whipped up a controversy at the Copenhagen climate talks,
Canadian experts say.

The global talks to hammer out a deal on curbing greenhouse gas emissions are
being derailed by public attention on the so-called "Climategate," scientist
Andrew Weaver and author James Hoggan told AFP.

Intercepted from scientists at Britain's University of East Anglia, a top
center for climate research, the emails have been seized upon by skeptics as
evidence that experts twisted data in order to dramatize global warming.

Some of the thousands of messages expressed frustration at the scientists'
inability to explain what they described as a temporary slowdown in warming.

The controversy "gives voice to dissenters at the table in Copenhagen, like
Saudi Arabia and Russia," said Hoggan, author of "Climate Cover-up" about
big-business funding of opponents of environmental causes.

But more importantly, he said, the success of the treaty being hammered out
in Copenhagen in talks until December 18 will depend on the United States,
where political opposition to climate change is "driven by an extremist
view."

"A lot of this is just about politics in the US, and this undermines
political will in the US," Hoggan told AFP.

The email messages containing words like "trick" between climate scientists,
were apparently stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of
East Anglia and recently released on the Internet.

They have triggered an investigation by the university and the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Canada's Globe and Mail daily newspaper said the emails "revealed a dangerous
bunker mentality among the scientists" and "a crisis of confidence in
global-warming science."

But Hoggan said close examination shows the email messages are not
"scandalous," and the real issue is the identities of whomever stole them and
is "attempting to create or fabricate this scandal."

"We are at a pivotal moment in human history in terms of reaching a
post-Kyoto agreement on regulating greenhouse gases," Weaver, a Canadian
scientist on the IPCC, told a press conference Thursday.

Weaver said two men tried to hack emails in computers at the Canadian Center
for Climate Modelling and Analysis in his building at the University of
Victoria -- but left when workers challenged them.

He also read out examples of dozens of hate emails and phone messages he said
he receives each day from people who do not believe human activity is
responsible for global warming.

"Each and every time an IPCC report is released... very similar things
happen," said Weaver. "If you don?t like the message you try to discredit the
messenger."

"There is a war on science," he added, alleging it was being led by
right-wing ideologues and business interests and their tactics "exploit a
lack of scientific literacy in the general public."

"An all-out attack on the validity of climate science has been undertaken by
industry groups," agreed Hoggan, whose book is based on four years of
research into the funding of climate deniers.

"Groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute and
the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow have been at the core of a
decade-long campaign to delay government action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions," Hoggan said in a press release.

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 14, 7:55*pm, Mike Pritchard wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
*[snipped]

Just because people keep repeating a story, it doesn't make it the
truth

The Climategate paleoclimatological criminals were known for these
crimes and deceits and lies long, long before the release of their
confessions last month in their e-mails. They were accused of these
crimes in 2003 by McIntyre and McKitrick and before the US Senate in
2006 by two panels of NAS (US National Academy of Science) panels
under respectively Drs Wegman and North.
Wegman's damning report is he http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...gmanReport.pdf
North's Panel was constituted by the NAS specifically to defend
Michael Mann. An executive summary of his report is he
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cg...6&type=pdfxsum

The NAS Panel expressed itself less forcefully than the Wegman Panel
but in every essential agreed with Wegman, finding that,

*** the principal components method by which Hockey Stick was achieved
was flawed
***RE 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

This is a comprehensive condemnation of a statistical report, stated
politely. (In plain English, Mann was either incompetent or
deliberately cooked up a politically desirable result.) Certainly, to
support a multi-trillion policy, for which purpose the Mann Hockey
Stick was put forward by IPCC, one would expect at least enthusiastic
support from a scientist's peers, especially from a panel which was
constituted specifically to support Mann against Wegman.

North and his panel were also called before the Senate
subcommittee, together with Wegman. The members of the NAS panel were
asked under oath if they wished to dispute the Wegman findings, and
this interesting dialogue ensued:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions [about the
Mann papers] or the methodology of Dr. Wegman's report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don't. We don't disagree with their
criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our
report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD [statistician to the NAS Panel]. Our committee reviewed
the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that
some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same
misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length
by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: The two reports were complementary, and to
the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite
consistent.

In short, the NAS committee -- set up to support Mann -- agreed item
by item with Wegman's devastating condemnation of the man and his
methods as totally incompetent. I quote only two paragraphs of
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.' Later Dr Wegman added that this was
"politically convenient".

The Wegman report executive summary concludes with 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.'

And Dr North and everone else on the NAS Panel agreed under oath to
every word of that and more.

North claimed, somewhat limply, that the fact that the statistics were
totally crooked didn't mean Mann didn't arrive at the right answer.
Remember, his Panel had been constituted specifically to support
Michael Mann's contention that Global Warming is a danger. And the
best they could officially say of the Mann papers were that they were
statistically incompetent but that their conclusions were nontheless
"plausible" in places. Wrong in method but "plausible"? And not even
all of it, just in parts, the rest bad, like the curate's egg? Holy
****! And on that they want to commit trillions? With such a low
standard of proof, anything at all can be made to appear plausible.

In any event, plausibility without correct method and conclusive proof
is a personal belief, nothing to do with science, which is all about
proof. Edward Wegman said so:

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

That was prophetic shorthand, as reports were already in the pipeline
that applying Mann's algorithm, which Wegman had condemned so roundly,
to random red noise also produced a Hockey Stick. Every time. If
random inputs can duplicate your "science", it is cargo cult science.
Speak into the tennis ball, Dr Mann.

Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science

The upshot is that the hockey stick is discredite.

The consequence is that Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age
remain, and while they stand Global Warming is a joke. That, of
course, is why the Global
Warmies, like Michael Mann, expend so much energy to lie these
historical phenomena out of existence.

****

Wegman also identified the corruption of the peer review process by
the Climategate scum, of whom he identified 43 by name as a "clique",
the intimidation they practiced on dissenters, described their
attitude as hostile to science, their statistics as incompetent, and
on and on and on, all of this in 2006.

Nah, there's nothing new in the Climategate Papers except the
confessions of the paleoclimatologists to their crimes. "The emails
between some the world's preeminent climate scientists--including
those who served as lead authors of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the alarmists' gold standard of climate
research-reveal evidence of lawbreaking, conspiracy to defame
scientists with whom they disagree, manipulation of data to produce
foreordained conclusions, and efforts to prevent climate skeptics from
publishing research, and much more." (Summary in quotes from
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...E-5EFA190016A8
to save me writing my own.)

****

The question isn't whether all these crimes were really committed, as
you claim, Mike, because the paleoclimatology criminals have confessed
to crimes we already had evidence of, but why the scientific
establishment didn't clean its own house in 2003 or again in 2006 when
Mann and his associates and their various hockey sticks were utterly
discredited. Instead the scientific establishment tried to cover up.
That's inexcusable. And science will pay the price in lost stature for
their greedy stupidity.

"... the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails
will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as
politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies." Daniel Henniger,
Wall Street Journal
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...29b4&Issue_id=

And it is very tiresome for you to pretend these scientific crimes
didn't happen when the crims have already confessed. It looks like you
haven't been paying attention, Mike, and consequently the seriousness
of the situation has escaped you.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Ouroboros Rex]

Andre Jute wrote:
Richard P Leavitt, posting as RichL, sent this laughable example of
wishful thinking:

Tell you what though, if any of the
aforementioned individuals winds up in jail (referring now to the
East Anglia crew and/or Mann), I will grant you victory.

I'm not interested in victory, sonny -- I never lose this sort of
argument so "victory" becomes devalued-- but in truth.

Good. Truth: zero scientific fraud found in Climategate.

[Bill Sornson[_2_]]

Ouroboros Rex wrote:

Truth: zero scientific fraud found in Climategate.

ROTFL Good one! ROTFL