On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:57:33 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
news
wrote:

It was Elaine Ingham and she was one of the authors of the paper that
handn't been published. snip

well, thanks for naming the researcher you are referring to.

That means we can more precisely relate to your accusations:

a) "She claimed association with Oregon State University."

That's perhaps innuendo. If meant to be read with the implication that
she claimed that deceitfully. Elaine Ingham has a long standing
association with the Oregon State University.

b) "She referenced a paper that didn't exist."

That's a false claim. In the evidence given by Elaine Ingham to the NZ
Royal Commission in 2001 she referred to a paper that existed, and had
been published two years before her appearance. She referenced the
paper in Applied Soil Ecology 11 (1999) p. 67-78. Unfortunately, in
the written evidence to the commission the reference to the paper
appeared as Applied Soil Ecology 3 (1999) 394-399.

c) "When it was later published"

That's innuendo based on false claim. See b) above. The paper was
published two years before she referenced it.

d) "it claimed 1 in 100 certainty with 90 trials"

That's false. The paper did not claim any such thing.

e) "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded with out
being included an marked in the paper."

That's baseless. There's no indication in the paper that data was
discarded on the basis of them not agreeing with the findings of the
paper.

f) "The paper would get an undergrad a D or F were I come from."

That's highly dubious. The paper was published in Applied Soil
Ecology, a peer reviewed journal. Additionally peer reviewed by the US
EPA, and approved for publication as an EPA document.

g) "The lady takes a great deal of liberty with the truth."

But, curiously Gordon -- in your efforts to back that up you
produced evidence only to indicate that YOU take a great deal
of liberty with the truth :-)

Seriously, I think you owe Elaine Ingham an apology.

Elaine has no connation with Oregon State University other than a courtesy
card giving her library privileges and one professor allows her to use his
equipment,

Whatever, if you look through her carrier, there is obviously enough
there for her to claim association with Oregon State University.

her paper was not published until after the fact,

So, which objective fact is you disputing: That her paper was
published in 1999? Or, that her appearance before the NZ Royal
Commission, when she referred to the paper, was in 2001?

what the EPA
calls peer review does not meet the standards of any other peer reviewed
journal

That's not very relevant. Your claim is that the paper is not peer
reviewed, despite the fact that it was published in Applied Soil
Ecology, a peer reviewed journal.

and the results claimed by statistics used in the paper were not
supported by the data in the paper according to 3 professors that teach
statistics.

That appears to be just another dubious claim on top of the rest
you've made, but we can talk about that later.

For now, you've made the serious accusation, that data
that didn't agree with the findings was discarded.
------ what do you base that on _?_ -----