One of the emails...
-
cc: "Phil Jones" , "Arthur Robinson" , "barry.napier" date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf to: "Vincent Gray" , "Steve McIntyre" Doctors Gray and McIntyre: I have exchanged notes with both of you in the past. I recently found the attached Wegman testimony from the web. It discusses the independent analysis and critique of the Mann, et al. hockey stick plot (MBH98). It seems to me this is the second independent study that proves Mann, et al. manipulated the data to create the hockey stick in their 1998 publication. I am convinced the work by McIntyre and McKittrick came to the same conclusion from a different direction. The Wegman study was requested by the US Congress after its committee questioned Bradley about releasing all his data and about the validity of his conclusions. I was always suspicious about the MBH98 assumption, without any proof, that their time series correlation proved anything about causation. It seems the cause of the hockey stick beginning in 1970 is purely an artifact of urban island heating of the instrumental data they selected to prepare their time series correlation. With this kind of peer review completed has the IPCC dropped its claim that the MBH98 report proves its theory of anthropogenic global warming? It seems to me that plot was the only piece of data IPCC had to remotely suggest a connection between CO2 and climate change. With the MBH98 data shown to be false, does this not end the global warming theory? It seems to me the only thing missing is finding journalists with the integrity to report all the facts rather than a subset of the facts favored by the global warming hysterics. Comments please? Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf"
============================== Nothing to say.
-
cc: "Phil Jones" , "Arthur Robinson" , "barry.napier" date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf to: "Vincent Gray" , "Steve McIntyre" Doctors Gray and McIntyre: I have exchanged notes with both of you in the past. I recently found the attached Wegman testimony from the web. It discusses the independent analysis and critique of the Mann, et al. hockey stick plot (MBH98). It seems to me this is the second independent study that proves Mann, et al. manipulated the data to create the hockey stick in their 1998 publication. I am convinced the work by McIntyre and McKittrick came to the same conclusion from a different direction. The Wegman study was requested by the US Congress after its committee questioned Bradley about releasing all his data and about the validity of his conclusions. I was always suspicious about the MBH98 assumption, without any proof, that their time series correlation proved anything about causation. It seems the cause of the hockey stick beginning in 1970 is purely an artifact of urban island heating of the instrumental data they selected to prepare their time series correlation. With this kind of peer review completed has the IPCC dropped its claim that the MBH98 report proves its theory of anthropogenic global warming? It seems to me that plot was the only piece of data IPCC had to remotely suggest a connection between CO2 and climate change. With the MBH98 data shown to be false, does this not end the global warming theory? It seems to me the only thing missing is finding journalists with the integrity to report all the facts rather than a subset of the facts favored by the global warming hysterics. Comments please? Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf"
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Nothing to say.
Then why post?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Nothing to say.
Then why post?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
cc: "Phil Jones" , "Arthur Robinson" , "barry.napier" date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf to: "Vincent Gray" , "Steve McIntyre" Doctors Gray and McIntyre: I have exchanged notes with both of you in the past. I recently found the attached Wegman testimony from the web. It discusses the independent analysis and critique of the Mann, et al. hockey stick plot (MBH98). It seems to me this is the second independent study that proves Mann, et al. manipulated the data to create the hockey stick in their 1998 publication. I am convinced the work by McIntyre and McKittrick came to the same conclusion from a different direction. The Wegman study was requested by the US Congress after its committee questioned Bradley about releasing all his data and about the validity of his conclusions. I was always suspicious about the MBH98 assumption, without any proof, that their time series correlation proved anything about causation. It seems the cause of the hockey stick beginning in 1970 is purely an artifact of urban island heating of the instrumental data they selected to prepare their time series correlation. With this kind of peer review completed has the IPCC dropped its claim that the MBH98 report proves its theory of anthropogenic global warming? It seems to me that plot was the only piece of data IPCC had to remotely suggest a connection between CO2 and climate change. With the MBH98 data shown to be false, does this not end the global warming theory? It seems to me the only thing missing is finding journalists with the integrity to report all the facts rather than a subset of the facts favored by the global warming hysterics. Comments please? Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf"
============================== Nothing to say.
Aren't there laws against reading other people's mail. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
-
Aren't there laws against reading other people's mail. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra] posting about Crystal Reports here is like discussing gay marriage on a catholic church’s website.[Nishant Sivakumar]
Aparently not if it is sent to more than one person. If so it automatically becomes public under the laws of what public is. (For example and orgy is illegal because it is held in public, there being more than two people involved.)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
cc: "Phil Jones" , "Arthur Robinson" , "barry.napier" date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf to: "Vincent Gray" , "Steve McIntyre" Doctors Gray and McIntyre: I have exchanged notes with both of you in the past. I recently found the attached Wegman testimony from the web. It discusses the independent analysis and critique of the Mann, et al. hockey stick plot (MBH98). It seems to me this is the second independent study that proves Mann, et al. manipulated the data to create the hockey stick in their 1998 publication. I am convinced the work by McIntyre and McKittrick came to the same conclusion from a different direction. The Wegman study was requested by the US Congress after its committee questioned Bradley about releasing all his data and about the validity of his conclusions. I was always suspicious about the MBH98 assumption, without any proof, that their time series correlation proved anything about causation. It seems the cause of the hockey stick beginning in 1970 is purely an artifact of urban island heating of the instrumental data they selected to prepare their time series correlation. With this kind of peer review completed has the IPCC dropped its claim that the MBH98 report proves its theory of anthropogenic global warming? It seems to me that plot was the only piece of data IPCC had to remotely suggest a connection between CO2 and climate change. With the MBH98 data shown to be false, does this not end the global warming theory? It seems to me the only thing missing is finding journalists with the integrity to report all the facts rather than a subset of the facts favored by the global warming hysterics. Comments please? Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf"
============================== Nothing to say.