Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
With Dr. Michael Mann out on the hustings selling his innocence, as I discussed a few days ago, I was pleased when I came across this clear explanation of some major issues in the so-called inquiry by Penn State into the Mann’s actions. I urge everyone to read it, and follow up on the citations therein. There are numerous other problems with the inquiry, but that hit the high points.
Figure 1. The effect of Michael Mann, as seen by Chris Bok. But I digress.
Here was the mind-boggling part to me. To my astonishment, other than Michael Mann, the people running the investigation of Michael Mann reported interviewing exactly TWO PEOPLE besides Mann himself. I was, as the lovely English expression has it, “Gob-smacked”.
Remember that Dr. Mann recently said:
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.
I knew it was bad, but interviewing two people now constitutes a “thorough investigation” of alleged serious scientific malfeasance? The investigators didn’t even understand that the famous “Mike’s Nature trick“was a clever way of hiding adverse data, a big scientific no-no. They didn’t interview anyone who actually understood the issues.
Two interviews and close the books? That is a pathetic joke. Penn State was my father’s alma mater, Class of ’26, I’m glad he didn’t live to see how far they have fallen. Penn State should demand that its name be taken off the document.
However, because this is a story involving Dr. Mann, you know there’s gotta be more to it than that they just interviewed two people, there’s bound to be a further twist to the story.
Here’s the inside joke. The two people interviewed were Gerry North of the “North Report” and Donald Kennedy, the editor of Science Magazine.
Gerry North I can kinda understand, because he chaired an earlier (and also widely criticized) enquiry into Dr. Mann’s hijinks. So he was a friend of Manns, and he’d covered up for Mann before, keeping his committee from even looking for scientific malfeasance, much less finding any. So I can understand them interviewing North, makes perfect sense.
But why did they pick Donald Kennedy, Editor of Science Magazine, as the other person to interview? I have no idea. By a curious coincidence, however, there’s a back-story here. Donald Kennedy was the first scientific figure I ever emailed to try to get something done.
I regret that I didn’t understand the importance of saving these documents at the time. In any event, my email to Kennedy has not survived my numerous computer changes and crashes since then, or it’s there and I can’t find it. But I recall it well, it was my first appeal.
In it I pointed out that science depends on the data being archived to allow for replication. I noted the efforts by Michael Mann to conceal the data used in his infamous “HockeyStick” paper. So I appealed to Kennedy to actually use the policies and power of his journal, Science Magazine, and ask Mann to archive the data used in his studies.
See, at that time, I was kinda naive … ya think?
I got blown off totally. Not even the courtesy of a reply. Which I later found out was no surprise. Kennedy, as editor of Science Magazine, has often allowed the publication of pro-AGW articles without requiring that they archive their data.
However, you don’t have to take my word for the abuse that Kennedy has done to the scientific process. He is noted for saying on PBS:
… the journal has to trust its reviewers; it has to trust the source. It can’t go in and demand the data books.
Look, with all due respect, Kennedy may be the editor of Science Magazine, but that is absolutely untrue, and Kennedy knows it. Most journals have policies that require, not recommend but require, that data used in published papers must be archived by the time of publication. Kennedy simply has not wanted Science to uniformly enforce that policy.
The crazy part is, there’s no wriggle room. Science Magazine’s instructions for authors say:
Data and materials availability All data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science. After publication, all reasonable requests for materials must be fulfilled. Any restrictions on the availability of data or materials, including fees and original data obtained from other sources (Materials Transfer Agreements), must be disclosed to the editors upon submission. Fossils or other rare specimens must be deposited in a public museum or repository and available for research.
That’s totally clear. Data must be archived. So when Kennedy says Science Magazine “can’t go in and demand the data books”, he’s just blowing in your ear and tickling your tummy. Not only can they do so, it is their stated policy to do so.
Kennedy is also the man who refused to publish Benny Peiser’s devastating response to Naomi Oreske’s laughable claim of a “scientific consensus” based on her simplistic analysis of climate papers. Typical for the man. Steve McIntyre has an interesting look at Kennedy here.
In any case, there you have it, folks. The “thorough investigation” into Michael Mann talked to three people including Mann. One, Gerry North, had covered up for Mann before, as cited above. The other, Kennedy, had refused to ask him for his data, despite magazine policies requiring just that. Both Steve McIntyre and I wrote to Kennedy asking him to enforce his own magazine’s policies. He refused.
And after all of that, are you ready for the icing on the cake, the final twist in the tale? As you would expect, Dr. Michael Mann was one of the three people interviewed in the “thorough investigation”. Mann agreed to the publication of the Report of the “thorough investigation”. The Report Guidelines state:
A written report shall be prepared that states what evidence was reviewed, a copy of all interview transcripts and/or summaries, and includes the conclusions of the inquiry.
But oops … there’s no transcipt of what Mann said. Not only do we not have his answers, we don’t even know what questions he was asked. That is pathetic bumbling, take the investigators out and fire them, I want my money back.
…
And Michael Mann has the ineffable effrontery to declare himself “exonerated” by that grade-school quality report? Dr. Mann, you have not been “exonerated”. You have not even been investigated, and you are pulling all of the political levers you can reach, and making all the public appeals you can squeeze in, to ensure that you are never investigated. Like I said, I understand your actions, they make sense to me. In certain other lights, I have more skeletons than available closet space myself, so I understand why you are on the campaign trail.
I just want people to understand you for what you are, and to see what you are trying to do, which is evade investigation of your actions. It has nothing to do with “anti-science” on either side of the political aisle. It has nothing to do with politics. It’s all about you avoiding responsibility for what you have done.
I call again for an independent scientific inquiry into Dr. Mann’s activities. Yes, I know that may be fantasy. And I know that many people think the legal route, a la Cuccinelli, remains the only hope. But I’m opposed to that. I’ve been thinking about why I oppose it, and here’s why I don’t like Cuccinelli’s approach.
I grew up on a cattle ranch, some miles away from a small Western US town. In our world, there were certain unwritten Rules. Oh, yeah, we had the Ten Commandments, but these were the real rules, the iron of the social order. Breaking them meant that people would cut you dead socially, not invite you, not talk to you … and in a tiny town that cut deep. The four Rules were:
You could cheat at business, people did. Folks didn’t like it, but it didn’t put you outside the pale. You could cheat on your husband or wife, folks figured man is born a sinner, people didn’t like it but understood the human urge. You could cheat in a horse deal, that was almost respected in a strange way if it was outrageous enough and the purchaser was what we called a city slicker. But a man who would cheat at cards was a social outcast ever after.
You could steal, particularly from the Government, and still get talked to. People didn’t like a thief, but a man could be a good man and not always scrupulously return what he’d borrowed, as we used to say. But if you stole one head of livestock, you were a damned low-down rustler, and you might as well just move out of town.
Cowboys punched each other sometimes, that was so common it was called a “dustup”. But you couldn’t hit a woman. Likely leftover from the 1800s when there were few women on cattle ranches. Probably some men beat their wives, but if so, it was never admitted, and it was seen as a grave moral failing to hit a woman. Paradox, but go figure.
And finally, you couldn’t call the Sheriff to settle your differences. When my dad found out someone from a neighboring ranch was bonking my mom whenever the constellations chanced to align, he and the guy met in the middle of the only street in town, in front of the combination store/bar/post office/gas station, and they definitely had a “dustup” … but nobody ever heard of a “restraining order”, and nobody ever, ever called the Sheriff. Except maybe to arrest a rustler. If he wasn’t caught in the act …
I have (mostly) held to those rules without much change for a lifetime, which is why I hate to call the Sheriff on Michael Mann. I’d prefer that the scientific community would be in charge, rather than lawyers and Attorneys General and their ilk. I wish Penn State hadn’t folded like a frat party card table holding too many kegs. I have been saying for years that I wish someone with some weight in the climate science community would take up the slack, and call out the egregious malfeasance, including the malfeasance of Penn State’s “thorough investigation”.
Naive … ya think?
Anyhow, mostly I wish Michael Mann would summon the nerve to stand up and produce the evidence. Instead, he’s all about poor me, he’s exonerated, those mean politicians are picking on him, it’s an attack on science, we misunderstand him … bad news, Dr. Mann. It’s not science that people want to investigate. It’s you.
Anyhow, here’s a protip for whoever is involved with Mann’s ongoing PR campaign — an innocent man welcomes and even invites an investigation. He knows he is innocent and has nothing to hide. Pre-emptively fighting against the investigations makes it look like you have a guilty conscience …
I reiterate the offer that Dr. Mann can publish his defense and evidence and present his ideas here on Watts Up With That.
Willis,
Nice post. Thanks.
My thoughts on other possibilities related to the PSU’s marshmallow Mann report:
aaaaa – Maybe Kennedy was picked to be interviewed because he wasn’t listed in the index of Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’.
bbbbb – Maybe Kennedy was the only fellow camp traveler of Mann’s who (at this point in the widely publicized exposé of Mann’s anti-science activities) agreed to be interviewed; or maybe all of Mann’s buddies consulted their lawyers who said “don’t be associated in public with Mann”. Maybe the other ex-buddies of Mann were mysteriously on sick/family leave or making sure their calendars where full elsewhere on the interview day
cccccc – Perhaps PSU actually isn’t intelligent enough to see the big picture here, other than the obviously big picture involving gov’t funded climate research grants. Perhaps it isn’t a case of PSU following the money, instead maybe the case of PSU grabbing the money.
ddddd – This is a really comical possibility, maybe PSU is actually hoping that the Sate of Pennsylvania’s equivalent to Virginia’s Cuccinelli will intervene and save PSU face wrt to their problematical darling Mann. Then PSU maybe thinking they can act like an academic freedom hero AND they get rid of Mann (phew, finally).
eeeee – other possibilities abound.
John
I thought PSU in their report rather cut the ground from under Mann by stating that he had brought millions of dollars in grants to the university.
So Mann is all about money and his scientific standing is of no consequence whatsoever.
grypo
Your claims are as tall as your fevered imaginings about Willis’ claims. Why don’t you spend time trying to parse what Willis’ is actually saying instead of climbing on your high horse, right at the beginning?
You say that Willis’ quoting of Kennedy is “incredibly misleading”.
It is not.
In fact, it is fairly well on the dot, in the context of the current discussion
Kennedy says:
In fact, it *is* the journal editor’s job is to “go into the lab” and ask for their lab notes, if the need arises. Usually, these things are done in a civil manner – by way of a letter. That these sort of checks are not done routinely is no excuse when major errors transpire, and this is precisely what Kennedy himself admits. Indeed in the interview, in trying to defend himself and his journal, Kennedy is exaggerating and misdirecting responsibility the journal or the editor has in such matters onto the reviewers.
In the Hwang fraud case, the reviewers implicitly trusted the authors, and the journal trusted the reviewers, in turn, because the conclusions were fantastic and useful. It is precisely the sort of situation when going over the raw data and notebooks would have actually helped.
The very fact that Kennedy believes that scientific enterprise, as percieved by the glamor journals, is largely dependant on ‘trust’ – is the very ‘proof’ that you are asking for.
gryposaurus
October 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
That was a great post.
I recommend that all posters who agree with Eschenbach read the original report that you linked to. It is pretty clear that people with a variety of viewpoints were interviewed for the report, the emails were analysed and no misconduct was found.
Mann’s harrassment is clearly politically motivated. This began with the Wegman report, which was a politically motivated smear job, which was written by unqualified people, some of them students, with no background in climate science, is largely plagiarized.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/10/wegman-plagiarism-investigation-/1
“GMU spokesman Daniel Walsch confirms that the university, located in Fairfax, Va., is now investigating allegations that the Wegman report was partly plagiarized and contains fabrications. Last month, a 250-page report on the Deep Climate website written by computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif., raised some of these concerns. Mashey says his analysis shows that 35 of the 91 pages in the 2006 Wegman report are plagiarized (with some of the text taken from a book, Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary, by Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts) and contain erroneous citations of data, as well.”
The charges of inaccessible data are clearly bogus. The NOAA web site has a compendium of online Paleo Climate data available to any researcher.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/whatsnew.html
It should be emphasized that the original hockey stick graph has basically been validated by a large number of papers, using different sets of paleo climate data, and different statistical methods since the publication of Mann’s ground breaking paper in 1999.
In fact the criticism of the non centered principal components analysis (PCA) method has been shown to be incorrect. The results from centered Principal Components Analysis (PCA), which is supposed to be the correct way to do it, look the same, except that more principal components are needed, 5 to reproduce the raw data, rather than the 2 components which are needed when the noncentered PCA.
It is clear that Mann’s critics were ignorant, and didn’t understand how to use PCA.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/
Furthermore, Eschenbach has shown that he doesn’t really understand climate data by making false claims of dishonesty against NOAA for the processing of data from Australia.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php
Shub Niggurath says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:40 am
“grypo
Your claims are as tall as your fevered imaginings about Willis’ claims. Why don’t you spend time trying to parse what Willis’ is actually saying instead of climbing on your high horse, right at the beginning?
You say that Willis’ quoting of Kennedy is “incredibly misleading”.
It is not.
In fact, it is fairly well on the dot, in the context of the current discussion
Kennedy says:
“What we can’t do is ask our peer reviewers to go into the laboratories of the submitting authors and demand their lab notebooks….”
In fact, it *is* the journal editor’s job is to “go into the lab” and ask for their lab notes, if the need arises. Usually, these things are done in a civil manner – by way of a letter. That these sort of checks are not done routinely is no excuse when major errors transpire, and this is precisely what Kennedy himself admits. Indeed in the interview, in trying to defend himself and his journal, Kennedy is exaggerating and misdirecting responsibility the journal or the editor has in such matters onto the reviewers.
In the Hwang fraud case, the reviewers implicitly trusted the authors, and the journal trusted the reviewers, in turn, because the conclusions were fantastic and useful. It is precisely the sort of situation when going over the raw data and notebooks would have actually helped.
The very fact that Kennedy believes that scientific enterprise, as percieved by the glamor journals, is largely dependant on ‘trust’ – is the very ‘proof’ that you are asking for.”
I think this analysis of what is proper vetting prior to publication in a scientific journal is way off the mark, and is impractical. Peer review is not perfect. Mistakes and frauds are published. Actual fraud is quite rare, and is eventually found out by the scientific community after publication. Society cannot prevent all crime.
It is impractical to require that every publication be checked by having the reviewer or editor go over the calculations made by the authors. In some cases, one would require inspecting the lab, and going over the experiments to be sure that data is not falsified.
Society doesn’t work when we are forced to assume that everyone is a criminal and investigate everyone accordingly.
What is also incorrect is the assumption that there was actually something seriously wrong with Mann et. al’s “Hockey Stick” paper. If fact it has been validated in the open literature repeatedly, using different sorts of data and different analysis techniques, and is a scientifically robust finding. This is a fact that you don’t seem willing to acknowledge.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Willis/gryposaurus,
I’m just confused. While Willis’ source does quote the two interviews, gryposaurus’ link to the report definitley indicates more than two interviews.
Don’t get me wrong, I still think the investigation reeks of whitewash, but why can’t I reconcile the sources?
Willis,
When it comes down to it, I don’t like the “Cuccinelli approach” either. However, at this point I will take whatever I can get in terms of exposing the half-truths and politicization. I suppose the Federal Agents who couldn’t nail Capone for murder weren’t too happy to see the accountants win their battle either, but they could at least be happy that he did finally get, erm, “incarcerated”… Here’s hoping the Mann’s and Hansens get punishment that more befits the crime.
—————
gryposaurus,
Indeed, the original PSU report was avidly consumed instantaneously by many. Indeed we did all read whatever commentaries on it we judged appropriate. Therefore, not surprising, the disagreement with you. Disagreement is good. It sharpens the view and focuses on key areas. Thanks for coming here to argue. It is an argumentative place. Viva la argument!
Regarding your statement about the political motivations of those being critical of Mann ( & team), you make arguing with you too easy. If you can properly attribute all critical thought and actions against Mann as political, it makes it just as easy for others to properly attribute all of Mann’s & his supporters’ actions/thoughts as politically motivated to achieve his/their own ends.
Therefore, it becomes a political argument. You lose the point, because that establishes a point made by many independent thinkers that Mann is not a scientist in this regards, just a political advocate.
So, back to Mann’s science . . . . to where it all started. If we concentrate on that, the dismissal of his hockey stick remains . . . . it hasn’t survived . . .
But Mann could survive if he embraces openness; with data, methodologies and code for his work. If you are a friend/supporter of his then do the humane thing . . . encourage him say he was wrong to block access and have him be the new champion of openness. Then we will be the hero of the inevitable ongoing reformation/renaissance of climate science from it pitiable current state.
John
everytime someone claims Mann is a scientist I have to chuckle … to be considered a scientist one needs no degree or certification, this is not about his certifications …
no matter what your background NOT following the scientific method should earn you the label non-scientist …
much of our understanding of the world and nature was done by non credentialed men and women in the 18th, 19th and 20th century …
Nice article Willis and I can sympathise with your sentiments. However, the actions of Mann and his cohorts extend far beyond the narrow confines of the scientific community and of taxpayers in the United States. Millions of us around the world wish to see this scientific contretemps brought to its rightful conclusion. My money is on Cuccinelli – may his tribe increase.
Djozar:
> more than two interviews … but why can’t I reconcile the sources?
grypo’s reference points to a committee list. Where does it say they were all officially interviewed?
Willis got his information from McIntyre at CA, apparently only two interviews were mentioned in the report.
So, if other interviews were officially conducted, where is the official record of them?
There is no real conflict between the lists of witnesses as stated by Willis Eschenbach, and Gryposaurus. There were different witness lists for different phases of the “investigation.”
As is commonly known, the Penn State “inquiry” was done in two phases with respect to the four issues identified on page 3 of the report cited by Grypo. The initial review resulted in the inquiry committee dropping the first three, most serious, charges against Mann dealing with manipulating/suppressing data, deletion of emails and use of confidential information. The report from this first phase, dated February 3, 2010, was the report originally discussed and linked to on Climate Audit. (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf)
According to this report, only Mann himself was actually interviewed by the inquiry committee in this first phase. The committee chair did convey to the committee the results of a “conversation” he had with Dr. Gerald North, and relayed to the other members the “sentiment and view” of Kennedy. But these appear to be off the record conversations with the chairman alone, with no transcripts or lists of questions or answers. These would hardly count as investigative interviews in any real world sense.
The second phase of the inquiry continued solely into the fourth allegation regarding deviation from accepted academic practices. It was during this phase that the witnesses identified by Grypo were “interviewed,” according to the final report, dated June 4, 2010. (http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf)
Those witnesses (except Mann) were each primarily asked four general questions regarding research practices in their fields. The closest to a real question regarding Mann’s alleged conduct was asked of the dean of Mann’s department: “whether, in his judgment, Dr. Mann’s work was very aggressive, very conservative, or somewhere in the middle in how it potrayed global warming.” His answer: “Dr. Easterling responded by stating that Dr. Mann’s early work showed a more dramatic upturn in warming, but that his more recent work has led to the conclusion that the change has been slightly less dramatic.” A non-answer answer.
So technically there were four additional “witnesses,” but only after the substantive charges had been disposed of, and not one of them was asked a single question regarding any of the actual misconduct alleged against Mann.
The final report does note Prof. Lindzen’s amazement at the above process: “When told that the first three allegations against Dr. Mann were dismissed at
the inquiry stage of the RA-lO process, Dr. Lindzen’s response was: ‘It’s thoroughly
amazing. I mean these are issues that he explicitly stated in the emails. I’m wondering
what’s going on?'” He was then “interviewed” without being asked a single question about Mann.
If this committee had been investigating the Lincoln assassination, they would have interviewed John Wilkes Booth, asked Jefferson Davis his opinion of Booth, and asked Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play.
John Day and GaryM,
Thanks! Finally I can follow the trail a little easier.
gryposaurus says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
…
You should really learn how to read. While the report claimed to have interviewed those people, there is no record that they did so, and no transcript of the interviews. Perhaps you think we should just proceed as if they actually exonerated Mann, based on claimed but non-reported interviews. I don’t.
Please update your post to reflect this, which of course, would mean a complete rewrite.
gryposaurus says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
Huh? Zorita says that it was not politically possible for North to say that Mann was wrong. In other words, Zorita say North shaded the report to favor Mann for political reasons. How on earth does that mean that North was not a supporter of Mann? He grudgingly made as few negative comments about Mann as possible, and only when he could not deny the science.
In addition, North wrote up his committee rules to specifically exclude the question of whether Mann was guilty of scientific malfeasance … yeah, that’s the right guy to ask about Mann’s innocence, you can tell he’s really concerned about bad science and bad scientists …
I truly don’t understand why you are going so far out of your way to defend shoddy science and lying, cheating scientists like Mann, who claimed that to ask him for scientific data was “intimidation”. But that’s your choice, and there’s lots of things I don’t understand. I lived through and was personally involved in much of the history we are discussing, and have done the homework. You appear to have done neither. You really should read up on the subject, as your lack of knowledge is embarrassing you.
gryposaurus says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:49 am
As the Wegman Report’s close examination of your “over and over” proxy studies clearly showed, those are not independent studies, just a rehash using the same flawed proxies that Mann used. Unsurprisingly, the studies found things similar to the Hockeystick, and the authors depended on the stupidity of the populace to not notice that two or ten studies using the same flawed proxies do not support or prove anything.
And unfortunately, you are proving them 100% correct in their low estimate of the populace’s intelligence …
Do your homework. At this point you could be the poster boy for talking about subjects where, as the poet says
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”
eadler
You are right. It is impractical for every paper and their calculations to be gone over.
But when someone does want to go over them, data must be made available and it is primarily the journal’s responsibility to make it available.
In the Science cloning case with Kennedy, high-profile results – usually the kind that would make professional society journal editors and reviewers require careful attention and verification – triggered the exact opposite reaction.
His excuses to CYA in the resulting fiasco need not become any sort of a guide for how journals, editors and reviewers operate. Yes, such things happen, but that is no guide to the norm.
Why are talking about “data falsification”? Is that in any way the issue being discussed here?
This is just more conspiracy nonsense. Are you going to go so far as to say that Penn State just made up all those interviews and answers to the questions that are in that report? Have you gone so far down the road that you can’t see how ridiculous that is? Don’t you think some of those participants might actually say something? Are they in on it too? So rather than rewrite your post or address questions from readers (I am not the only one asking) , you’d rather just pile on conspiracies, even more ridiculous than your previous ones, adding on that Penn state may write fraudulent reports. And the interesting element is that neither the North interview or Kennedy interview had transcripts either, and were barely a factor as the initial investigation that was mainly focused on emails . But those guys are easy to attack, right? Wow.
I don’t think you are quite clear of what I am talking about. You have not furnished a shred of evidence to show that your web of conspiracy and character assassinations have any merit. Just because someone says something that you don’t like, or defends someone you don’t like, it does not equal the scientific cover up accusation you so easily toss around. All I am asking is that you show what real evidence you have of these people and institutions covering up fraud, by lying, misdirecting investigations, deleting evidence, purposefully losing evidence, etc. When I say “proof” I mean real evidence, not innuendo or some conspiracy. The reason I showed you the McI and Zorita quotes just to make sure you realized that even critics of MBH 98 know that North also criticized Mann’s use of PC in MBH 98. Your consistent whining and mud slinging over how much these people have put their careers on the line by lying just to “back” Mann at every turn, with nefarious intent, is just baseless. I’m having a disagreement and I am looking for real answers from you. That’s all. If you can’t provide them, just say so. With someone, like yourself, who demands the truth from everyone else with such accusatory vigor, is there a reason why the readers here should take your word at face value without asking for real proof? Don’t you have the same high expectations of providing evidence of your own work?
Well, since all but one of these studies happened after the Wegman report, I’d suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.
Let’s see what Wegman said about other proxies besides the MBH 98. This is testimony taken from the Hearing:
Just a guess really, not real “close” inspection.
Here’s the statement of task for the North Report. What’s missing exactly?
Then maybe you can detail how this involvement allows you to make baseless accusations and attack credibility and finally provide the proof I am asking for.
I didn’t realize calling someone stupid was ok for guest posters on this blog.
But those evil scientists will never get one past you, right??? cuz u so smot and i so dum.
Pssssssfffttttt!!!
Oh man, you owe me a new keyboard AND monitor. And, a new cat too, since mine is now stuck to the wall, I think I just gave him a heart attack 🙂
Excellent post GaryM!
Just shootin’ in the dark here, but you wouldn’t happen to be jakers by any chance? Just sayin’.
Lordy, grypo, all that nervous energy ….
Do you realize that you have no answers for questions you’ve been asked?
I wonder why Donald Kennedy is refusing to request the information that his journal requires? Donald Kennedy is giving Science magazine a bad name by not doing what the magazines requires. One thing I’ll keep in mind about Science magazine in the future is that even though they say they have all the data archived, they might actually not.