So Dr. Shormann responded to my comment:
Why did you delete the comment which pointed out that you were lying about being a published researcher, when in fact all you did was fund a study?
Evidence – this website, about 2 hours ago: http://i.imgur.com/mWIG2Mm.jpg
Here’s what he had to say:
I would encourage you to read the paper yourself, rather than base your conclusions on what somebody else said. The paper was received by Aquatic Geochemistry 8/23/11, accepted on 12/29/11, and published in 2012. It says this right at the top of the paper, read it here:http://hypoxia.tamu.edu/files/2012_dimarco.pdf
As far as funding, I payed for some of the gas and food for my boat, TAMU paid for the rest. About half of the data from the August 2007 trip to the Brazos River plume was collected off my boat. My crew consisted of a TAMU oceanographer and several homeschool students, who went on to present their research at the Science and Engineering Fair of Houston.
Here’s more info on the funding sources, copied directly from the acknowledgements: “This research was supported by a Rapid Response Award by Texas Sea Grant College Program (No. 404538). Partial funding was through a grant to S. DiMarco (NOAA-CSCOR NA06NOS4780198), contribution number NGOMEX-132, and the TAMU Department of Oceanography.Support for the stable isotope analyses was provided by a grant from Texas’ Norman Hackerman Advanced Research Program (No. 010366-0053-2007).”
Mike, please explain where I was lying. Also, do you have a science degree?
Oh, how cute.
Mike, please explain where I was lying.
That’s easy: right about where he said “my most recent work was in 2012 (Texas Coastal Hypoxia Linked to Brazos River Discharge as Revealed by Oxygen Isotopes).” The paper does not represent any research he did, but rather the work of a team. “The data was collected off my boat” and “my crew collected the data” does not equal “I did the research outlined in this paper.”
Note to Dr. Shormann: if you don’t want to be seen as dishonest, the proper way to respond to someone’s incorrect claims is to actually respond to them, not delete their post and make it look like it never existed.
And what do my scientific qualifications have anything to do with him being deceptive? Talk about a red herring. I don’t need to be a scientist to know that his only contribution to that paper was facilitation, not research.