BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MJB" data-source="post: 3177219" data-attributes="member: 88928">Ed, Thank you for your attachments. I've read them through and need to weigh them in the context of the subject.I'm guessing you were in an optics division of NASA? If so, well done! However, I'll see your NASA expertise and raise you the following.For those coming to this thread, make up your own mind about The Heartland Institute listing, almost trumpeting, John S Theon as an expert. Furthermore, Gavin Schmidt rebutted at the time Theon's claim of being Michael Mann's supervisor:"Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen’s ‘boss’ (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His “some scientists” quote is simply a smear – which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the ‘debate’, but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations."Gavin A. Schmidt currently is a climatologist, climate modeler and Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. He has worked on the variability of the ocean circulation and climate, using general circulation models.Principia Scientific International is registered as a company situated in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England, having moved from Fargo, North Dakota. PSI is described on its website as being part of PSI Acumen Ltd — a private company registered in the UK with two named directors. No accounts have been filed for the company.They are so far removed from any semblance of scientific publishing that they state that all papers they publish are peer-reviewed by their own staff! One thing in their favour is that they had a dust-up with Christopher Monckton, but that's pretty inevitable for anyone who has spent any length of time with him!Finally, citing 'Wattsupwiththat', a blog with more than a dubious track record (which is easy to find) in support of any argument in a subject that demands peer-reviewed published research, doesn't add to the credibility of anyone citing it, particularly a scientist. There are many scientific journals, both hard-copy and on-line, not in the high-ranking groups, that publish dissenting interpretations that may or may not be sufficient to alter the main scientific views, but suggesting that a world-wide cabal of scientists secretly prevents publication through systematic and fraudulent manipulation of the peer-review process is ludicrous. That's not to say that individuals carrying out peer-review across the vast swathe of scientific disciplines don't at some time succumb to unethical practices, but it's other scientists current in those fields who detect this, rarely outsiders.MJB</blockquote>

Verification