Kurt @ VR-FX wrote:\\ Trouble? I never said a word about homo-Celsius :-)
> Uh oh - there goes Pete trying to stir up some trouble! Well - let's see > if I can move this over to [OT] Realm before this REALLY Start to get > Heated up around here (oh yeah - pun intended!)... >> Is the "just weather" still freezing in oz? >> >>> 'vindication' has had its meaning changed. Despite clear and obvious >>> malpractice, six enquiries cleared them of misconduct. In previous years, >>> 'vindication' implied you were correct, now it means that you support the >>> orthodoxy. The same applies to Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, created >>> using a nonsense theory and processed by a statistically invalid (almost >>> fraudulent) methodolody. Multiple enquiries have cleared him despite the >>> fact that if this level of 'research ' and statistical modelling had been >>> used in any other discipline, he would not have even gotten his PhD never >>> mind be elevated in the way he has been. IN what other discipline of science >>> can you produce a model whereby ANY DATA will always produce a hockeystick >>> graph and then be lauded as a world expert? IN what other area of science >>> can direct observation of the last 60 years totally disagree with your >>> model's predictions and yet you are always accepted as right? >>> >>> Today we dare to challenge Einstein's theory of relativity over >>> faster-than-light neutrinos and we call it 'scientific advance'. But when we >>> criticise Mann, it is denierism. >>> >>> The real reason I am a sceptic is because of people like Mann and the people >>> that cleared him and the others at CRU. A credible enquiry could have even >>> supported the message while criticising the messengers. But when it says >>> that they did no wrong THAT is when you realise what a giant con this all >>> is. Real Science doesn't need this crap. Real scientists like Einstein were >>> PROVEN right by experimentation not by orthodoxy. In fact, it was the >>> criticism of others that proved him correct. Now, you are not allowed to >>> criticise. >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/new-speculation-on-who-leake >>> d-climate-change-e-mails.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22 >>> >>> Article gives history of attack on integrity of global-warming scientists >>> and their vindication. Now a new wave of emails have brought in the >>> international police to find the culprits. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
