cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, "Arthur Robinson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "barry.napier" <email@example.com>
date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600
from: "Wayne P. Kraus" <KrausWPatXYZxyzcast.net>
to: "Vincent Gray" <vinmary.grayatXYZxyzadise.net.nz>, "Steve McIntyre" <stephen.mcintyreatXYZxyzronto.ca>
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.
Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf"