To: LindyBill who wrote (12744 ) 5/20/2007 8:28:34 PM From: neolib Read Replies (2) | Respond to So are you now admitting that on four points, your "reputable" source was in fact clueless, if not actually dishonest?I notice that you stayed far away from the FACT that Mann won't give anyone else access to his data. Any real scientist would. But then others could do an examination of his theory. And he knows the data won't back him up. Otherwise, why not release? He only wants examination from others who agree with him at the start. And won't look too closely at his data. One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.[19] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publically available [20]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [21] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[22] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements. [23] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre. Congress also requested that third party science panels review the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick. The Wegman Panel [25] and the National Academy of Sciences [26] both published reports. McIntyre and McKitrick claim their findings have been largely confirmed by these reviews. [27] Nature reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph." [28] and Mann said that Wegman "uncritically parrots claims by [M&M]." [29] en.wikipedia.org
