Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The most famous email so far
#21
(11-29-2009, 02:59 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: So, I think there is clear evidence that the CRU clique has corrupted the peer review and publication systems for scientific papers that dispute their claims.

From what I've been reading, I could not agree with you more.

FWIW - MARK STEYN (Syndicated columnist) agrees as well:

Mark Steyn: Cooking the books on climate

Quote: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" wondered Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen? But the beauty of the climate-change tree-ring circus is that you never need to ask "Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?" Mann peer-reviewed Jones, and Jones peer-reviewed Mann, and anyone who questioned their theories got exiled to the unwarmed wastes of Siberia. The "consensus" warm-mongers could have declared it only counts as "peer-reviewed" if it's published in Peer-Reviewed Studies published by Mann & Jones Publishing Inc.

We read about it, you (RSC), along with many of your true peers, experienced it.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!


Reply
#22
(11-29-2009, 02:59 AM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: Secondly, they use an attribution study to ‘prove’ what can only be disproved by attribution.

In an attribution study the system is assumed to be behaving in response to suggested mechanism(s) that is modelled, and the behaviour of the model is compared to the empirical data. If the model cannot emulate the empirical data then there is reason to suppose that the suggested mechanism is not the cause (or at least not the sole cause) of the changes recorded in the empirical data.

It is important to note that attribution studies can only be used to reject hypothesis that a mechanism is a cause for an observed effect. Ability to attribute a suggested cause to an effect is not evidence that the suggested cause is the real cause in part or in whole. (To understand this, consider the game of Cludo. At the start of the game it is possible to attribute the ‘murder’ to all the suspects. As each piece of evidence is obtained then one of the suspects can be rejected because he/she can no longer be attributed with the murder).

But the CRU/IPCC attribution studies claim that the ability to attribute AGW as a cause of climate change is evidence that AGW caused the change (because they only consider one suspect for the cause although there could be many suspects both known and unknown).

Then, in addition to those two pieces of pure pseudo-science – as the paper I attempted to publish demonstrates – the attribution studies use estimates of climate changes that are known to be wrong! And – as I explain above – it proved impossible to publish the paper.

So, I think there is clear evidence that the CRU clique has corrupted the peer review and publication systems for scientific papers that dispute their claims.

All the best

Richard

All interesting stuff and especially the above.

Do you object to being quoted on other message boards Richard? This is the sort of information that should be more well known.
Reply
#23
HarpoSpoke:

Quote whatever I say as is your want: I would not say it if I did not want it to be heard.

But please, please, please do not misquote me.

Richard
Reply
#24
Quote:However, the compilers of the MGT data sets frequently alter their published data of past MGT (sometimes they have altered the data in each of several successive months). Hence, my paper on these matters was submitted for publication but always contained incorrect MGT data because the MGT data kept changing. The MGT data always changed between submission of the paper and completion of the peer review process. Thus, the frequent changes to MGT data sets prevented publication of our paper.

ROFLMAO!

They can not make up their minds at what temperature it is,after all if it is changed repeatedly then it is not "reliable" data.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Reply
#25
(11-29-2009, 02:33 PM)Richard S Courtney. Wrote: HarpoSpoke:

Quote whatever I say as is your want: I would not say it if I did not want it to be heard.

But please, please, please do not misquote me.

Richard

So I can't quote you as saying, "I dress up in a bunny suit and throw mud pies at traffic lights in the middle of the night"?

Well...ok...but I was going to have a good time with that one. Tongue
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Media coverage of email leak HarpoSpoke 10 7,888 12-05-2009, 07:08 AM
Last Post: HarpoSpoke
  Denying Email Deletion Sunsettommy 2 2,398 11-24-2009, 11:21 PM
Last Post: Mike Davis



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)