Posted on 11/20/2003 12:38:29 PM PST by Dan Evans
(The infamous "Hockey Stick", a supposed record of global temperature implying that temperatures are at an all-time high, was championed by global warming alarmists until recently. The doubtful data drew the attention of two scientists, McIntyre & McKitrick. M&M recently performed an audit of the research and revealed very suspicious manipulations in the data file proffered by the Hockey Stick's primary author Michael Mann. The exchange between the two groups has resembled an encounter between the Orkin Man and a cornered rat. -- Dan Evans)
John Daly of "Still Waiting for Greenhouse" explains how evidence now appears to be vanishing:
The Case of the Disappearing Files (15 Nov 03)
Since the publication of the recent study by McIntyre & McKitrick (M & M) (Energy & Environment, 14,751-771,2003 ), in which they found extensive statistical processing errors in Michael Mann's `Hockey Stick' theory, there have been some strange happenings.
M & M found embarrassing statistical errors in Mann et al's original work and now Mann claims that some of these errors were not part of the original `Hockey Stick' at all, but were accidentally included in an Excel spreadsheet which they sent to M & M, and that M&M should have looked at the data on Mann’s FTP site instead. This suggests the errors were recent and did not contaminate the original `Hockey Stick'.
However, M & M have stated in various forums that they asked for FTP data, not for a separate Excel spreadsheet and, in fact, Mann’s web page listed in his original paper of 1998 (MBH98) does not link to the FTP data at the University of Virginia. After Mann disclosed the Virginia FTP location, M&M found the identical file at Mann’s FTP site as was sent to them, plus the same data in a `MATLAB' version, both files dated August 2002.
However, just days after the publication of the M & M paper, these key files were deleted from Mann's University of Virginia FTP server sometime between October 29 and November 8, 2003. Why were they deleted? Why were they deleted just after the release of the M & M paper?
Whatever the reason for the deletions, it was all too late. Here are the original files -
pcproxy.mat pcproxy.txt
More file deletions were to follow. Some data used in the M & M study was originally located at Mann's old FTP site at the University of Massachusetts. Mann’s webpage on MBH98 links to this FTP site. Shortly after M & M made an initial reply to Mann's claims on an internet `blog' site, on November 13, 2003 (a reply which said that they had new results to report about the Virginia FTP site), the entire Massachusetts FTP folder on MBH98 was also deleted before M&M were able to copy it.
The deletion of the University of Massachusetts FTP site is surely the strangest event yet. The mere deletion of these files which had been on public view for over a year and probably as far back as 2000, implies an attempt at concealment. We can only wonder at what they contained.
The Hockey Stick was uncritically and enthusiastically embraced by the IPCC, the National Assessment Team and the whole greenhouse industry, even though it overturned previous scientific knowledge about the climate of the last millennium. As such, its' conclusions should have been subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny and replication. It
wasn't. Instead, it took two outsiders to do the audit that the industry itself should have done. In finding so many faults and errors in the Hockey Stick, the whole sorry episode reflects badly on the competence and the motives of the `peer reviewers', the IPCC, and the US$4 billion research industry it leads.
-PJ
Why? Easy - follow the money, to wit: motives of the `peer reviewers', the IPCC, and the US$4 billion research industry it leads..
If there were no global warming "crisis" in need of study, then there would be no motivation for extravegant funding. So, parasites in academia exist in a symbiotic relationship with totalitarians: the academec parasites provide a rationale, the totalitarians disseminate the myths, whip up the easily deluded (actualy, that's not fair. These people use pretty sophisticated methods. It's not called "average" intelligence because only dummies possess it), who in turn give the academic parasites more funding to produce more bogus research.
I wonder if the academics who do this appreciate what selfish little bugs they really are. At least the totalitarians will come out to fight eventually.
Call Algore...he can write a new book claiming how he debunked the global warming stuff and that we're reall entering a new ice age.
Don't laugh -- these people have no shame. They've got their bets covered every which way they can:
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Call Algore...he can write a new book claiming how he debunked the global warming stuff and that we're really entering a new ice age.
New York Times beat him to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/11ICE.html?ex=1069477200&en=2a30848fb0275496&ei=5070
Did you see this post from yesterday? "I Planned to Attend, But I Now Cannot..."
-PJ
Not at all. The controversy and "fact-checking" by M & M shows that the process of science is working exactly as expected. Peer review is NOT the same thing as the scientific review process.
But to the powers at be at the IPCC, there is no controversy. M&M will be attacked and destroyed by any possible means.
The scientists may be attacked, and their careers damaged, but the SCIENCE will prevail. The "powers that be" obviously have learned very little since Galileo--it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.