When researchers won't release their raw data, they are covering up fraud

It's a breach of scientific ethics to start with so you should immediately discount the claimed findings.  Refusal to release data is common among warmists and when Michael Mann's hockeystick data was inadvertently released we saw why. We saw that he was "hiding the decline" in C20 tree ring records.  Below is another instance outside Warmism where researchers fought tooth and nail to hide their data.  When forced to release it, the result was as expected.

The journal article was "Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial" -- by over a dozen authors  -- all of whom should have been fired by now.  I like my little joke, don't I?


Alem Matthees is sick. He is “housebound” — with an extremely frustrating disease: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).

Lots of people were complaining of similar symptoms — getting sick after an infection and never quite getting better; and being unable to exercise or do activities without enormous physical repercussions.

It is estimated that 0.4 per cent of people are affected with ME/CFS, with the average age of onset being 33, and women affected more often than men. Some later recover, but others don’t. Many people get sick after a sudden virus — as if they got the flu and never got better. Despite the large numbers of patients with similar problems, medical science couldn’t find much in the blood tests to explain it, nor offer much in the way of treatments.

The field of psychology had answers though. Answers aplenty. What is more, it had data to back them up. Or so it seemed.

The psychologists, based at the Queen Mary University of London, had done a major study into treatments for ME/CFS, which was published in 2011. Alem wanted to see the data from the study and filed a request to see it under the UK Freedom of Information Act.

Their study (called the PACE trial), was full of data that showed a lot of ME/CFS patients could be improved by exercise and counselling (cognitive behavioural therapy) was released in a prestigious medical journal called The Lancet.

Around 22 per cent of patients were counted as “recovered”.

The study made a big splash, and contributed to the perception ME/CFS was all in patients’ heads. All around the world, doctors recommended to sick patients that they exercise more.

But the authors were proving rather tight-fisted when it came to their data. They said no to Alem.

They said no to US psychology Professor James Coyne. They received more than 30 requests to see the data under the Freedom of Information Act and still the data was not public.

Rumours were circulating that the trial was not as it seemed, but without the full data, nobody could say for certain the size of the problem.

Eventually the UK Information Tribunal had enough. It told the PACE trial authors they had to release the data. The authors appealed the decision. They claimed confidentiality of the subjects of the study, although, as the tribunal would point out, the data was all anonymous.

By 2016, the professors of Queen Mary University London were running out of excuses. They had spent a quarter of a million pounds trying to prevent their data being released.

And finally in August 2016, it was ruled they must release their data.

When the psychologists finally released the data, what it showed was shocking.

During the study, they had changed the thresholds for what counted as recovery. Patients who were still sick got counted as recovered.

David Tuller, a lecturer in Public Health at the University of California Berkeley, calls the study “not science.”

Another psychology academic Carolyn Wilshire said: “Claims were made regarding the benefits of these therapies that went well beyond what can be justified by the data.”

She worked on a new analysis of the PACE trial data that showed how many people would have been counted as recovered if the academics had not changed the thresholds for recovery. It was between 3 and 7 per cent, instead of 22 per cent.

“Incorrectly claiming that a significant number of CFS patients can actually recover from a treatment can cause real harm,” she said. The treatments the PACE trial found in favour of are risky.

While a small amount of exercise can be good for some ME/CFS patients, for others, any amount risks making their health worse.

You might hope a dodgy study like that is a one-off. But the field of psychology has been plagued recently with revelations that many of its findings are, in fact, not findings it all.

They are calling it the Crisis of Replication. Studies are going down like bowling pins. The one about power posing. The one about female-named hurricanes killing more people. The one about willpower being limited. All now busted.

This crisis has spread from psychology to the rest of science. It is sparking unprecedented soul-searching in the research community.

One of the world’s top medical journals published an editorial suggesting as much as half of all published research could be wrong.

The causes of the crisis of replication are many, but the solutions are well-understood. First among them is being open with your data.

SOURCE




Delingpole has a crow

Meet Dr Phil Williamson: climate ‘scientist’; Breitbart-hater; sorely in need of a family size tube of Anusol to soothe the pain after his second failed attempt to close down free speech by trying to use press regulation laws to silence your humble correspondent.

Williamson – who is attached to the University of East Anglia, home of the Climategate emails – got very upset about some articles I’d written for Breitbart and the Spectator pouring scorn on his junk-scientific field, Ocean Acidification.

In my view Ocean Acidification is little more than a money-making scam for grant-troughing scientists who couldn’t find anything more productive to do with their semi-worthless environmental science degrees. The evidence that Ocean Acidification represents any kind of threat is threadbare – and getting flimsier by the day.

But if, like Williamson, you are being paid large sums of money to conduct a research programme into Ocean Acidification, you’ll obviously want to defend your mink-lined, gold-plated carriage on the climate change gravy train. So first he wrote a long, earnest defence of his income stream in Marine Biologist.

Then, when no one cared, he made a formal complaint about one of my articles to the UK press regulatory body IPSO. And to judge by the punchy tone of this piece he published in Nature before Christmas, he fully expected to win.

Tragically, though, he just lost.

After a long deliberation, IPSO has released its verdict and found that I had no case to answer. Williamson’s complaint was not upheld.

I’m trying hard to be modest here; I’m trying not to gloat. But I’m afraid the facts of the case just won’t allow me.

IPSO’s verdict represents a crushing defeat for the cause of climate alarmism. Seriously, it could hardly be worse for the eco-loons. Just relish the misery in the comments below this report in the Guardian.

Here are some of the comments:

It’s just a passing comment, but Dingopile is an arsehole that knows less than bugger all about climate change! [Do you see what he did with my name there? Comedy genius!]

Nothing written by Delingpole is proper science. The man has a degree in English literature.

So it’s okay to publish outright falsehoods meant to mislead the public, as long as you are of the right?

Delingpole is like a 4 year old child who purposefully defecates in his pants for attention.

Delingpole is not a scientist, certainly not an oceanographer, so why print his ramblings on things he knows nothing about?

James Delingpole is a total arse. He has sunk below the level of Michael Gove or Nigel Farage. He does not deserve this publicity by Damian Carrington. He thrives on the oxygen, and he must not be given any oxygen at all.

Note how very personal it all is. And that’s because, as the last commenter rightly noticed, the Guardian’s Environment editor, the Hon. Damian Carrington, (Winchester and Balliol), decided to make it personal.

His headline read:

James Delingpole article calling ocean acidification ‘alarmism’ cleared by the press watchdog

The article was full of snarky little asides, like:

Delingpole, who writes for controversial rightwing news site Breitbart, was censured by the Australian Press Council in 2012 after he quoted an anonymous source who compared the windfarm industry to a paedophile ring. He has dubbed greens “eco-nazis” and in another article he ended a long list of people and groups supporting action on climate change by writing: “Truly there just aren’t enough bullets!”

[I would like to make it clear if I haven’t already that I apologise profusely to any paedophiles who may have been offended at being linked to the wind turbine industry]

This is because in the eyes of the climate alarmist establishment I am one of the most dangerous people on earth. And I say this not to brag. It is merely an observable fact that there are certain figures – in the field of climate science they include people like Willie Soon, Pat Michaels and Tim Ball; in journalism they include me, Christopher Booker, David Rose and, perhaps notably, Mark Steyn; in politics they include Lord Lawson, Aussie Senator Malcolm Roberts and now Donald Trump –  who drive the Greenies apopleptic with rage. And because the Greenies see us as significant and influential, they seek at every turn to claim our scalps.

Which, of course, was the whole point of this complaint by Phil Williamson to the press regulator IPSO.

Had Williamson been successful it would have been a major blow to the cause of scientific rationalism, honest scepticism and freedom of speech. It would have been cited and crowed about ad nauseam by the usual suspects in the mainstream media – from the BBC to the New York Times – and in the house journals of the alarmist science establishment, such as Nature and Scientific American.

We know that this was the plan because of how closely the case was being followed by the Guardian‘s environment editor Damian Carrington. The first I heard of the IPSO ruling was when Carrington sent an email to my editor at the Spectator Fraser Nelson asking for a comment on the verdict. (The reason Williamson brought his case against the article I wrote in the Spectator, by the way, and not against any of the ones I’d written in Breitbart is because Breitbart doesn’t subscribe to the press regulator IPSO, so he would have been whistling into the wind). You might think this odd: why would a journalist with absolutely no connection with the case get to hear the result before either the journalist named in the complaint or the publication responsible for running the offending article? The answer, one can only presume, is that Carrington was in close touch with the complainant, Phil Williamson – and was waiting to strike the moment the good news came that the Delingpole monster had been slain by Britain’s press regulator.

The knock-on effects, had IPSO found against my article, would have been dire: the publications for which I write (both the Spectator and Breitbart) would have been made to look like sloppy purveyors of what the left loves to call these days “fake news”; my credibility as a reporter on climate science and the environment would have been diminished (not in the eyes of my regular readers, perhaps, but definitely in the eyes of all those undecideds who can’t make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I’m talking bollocks); and, perhaps worst of all, the junk science concept of Ocean Acidification would have been given a reprieve it simply doesn’t deserve.

In case I haven’t made my position sufficiently clear on Ocean Acidification – always a danger with me: I’m forever holding back for fear that someone somewhere might be offended – this seems a good moment to restate it:

Ocean Acidification is a scam – the second biggest one in science right now. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or even unlikely that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may be causing parts of our ocean to become marginally less alkaline. What I’m definitely saying is that it doesn’t matter a toss, to whit:

Ocean acidification – the evidence increasingly suggests – is a trivial, misleadingly named, and not remotely worrying phenomenon which has been hyped up beyond all measure for political, ideological and financial reasons.

It’s much more a political invention than a scientific one. I call it the climate alarmists’ Siegfried Line because that’s what it really is: it’s their fallback position for when man-made climate change theory finally collapses and they need to find some other half-arsed excuse for justifying their global war on the beneficial trace gas carbon dioxide.

I’m by no means the only person to have pointed this out. Matt Ridley (who unlike me has a scientific background) has written about it here, here and here.

Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, has written a paper debunking it.

As has Craig Idso.

So, much as the climate alarmists might pretend otherwise, my scepticism about Ocean Acidification isn’t some weird, lonely, contrarian position I’ve adopted just because I can’t help being an idiot or because I’m instinctively anti-science or because I’m not familiar with the material or because I’m funded by sinister vested interests which want the Ocean Acidification industry to fail or because – if you believe professional greenie Mark Lynas – I’m a “liar” and part of the “alt-right”.

Nope. I’m against Ocean Acidification theory because I’ve done loads and loads of background reading both about the way this marginal phenomenon has been overhyped  and about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem worth addressing. And the conclusion I’ve reached is that it’s both a money-making scam for some of the many second-rate scientists the grotesquely overbought climate alarmism sector seems to attract and also a slily dangerous propaganda campaign on behalf of all those anti-free-market greenies who are forever in search of another cod-scientific excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us in their endless war against economic growth.

Needless to say, the Ocean Acidification experts with their snouts in the Ocean Acidification don’t like hearing this point of view, which is why they are so livid about the IPSO decision.

The complainant, Phil Williamson, has written a stroppy piece for the Conversation (a website in which mostly left-wing academics are given space to vent about their pet gripes), denouncing IPSO with a piece titled “Science loses out to uninformed opinion on climate change – yet again.”

But this misrepresents IPSO’s decision.

It’s not “Science” – as Williamson grandly terms it – that was under attack in my various articles on Ocean Acidification. I’m not questioning the achingly trivial points that Williamson and his pals may or may not have alighted upon in the course of their navel-gazing research. What I’m questioning is whether it’s right that taxpayers should have to stump up for this research – and whether its findings are in any way significant or useful.

This, as IPSO rightly decided in its ruling, is a matter of opinion.

At Watts Up With That, Eric Worrall puts his finger on the fatal flaw of Williamson’s case:

In my opinion this entire sorry episode goes straight to the heart of the difference between the way alarmists like Williamson see the world, and the way normal people view the world.

Alarmists seem to want their models, theories and opinions to be accepted as established fact. But the reality is their shaky theories are full of poorly supported conjecture and extrapolation.

Indeed. And it’s by no means the first time Williamson and his crew have tried it on. In 2011 they made a very similar complaint – to what was then known as the Press Complaints Commission – about a piece I’d written on the Climategate scandal.

They objected especially to my description of Phil Jones, the then-head (recently retired) of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia as “disgraced, FOI-breaching, email-deleting, scientific-method abusing”.

What rather scuppered this particular complaint was when I provided the Press Complaints Commission with more than enough evidence to back up the claim.

But the thing that needs to be understood about these complaints is that they are not really designed to sift right from wrong, truth from untruth. Rather, as Mark Steyn says, the process is the punishment. That is, if you’re a publicly funded scientist on a generous grant with plenty of time on your hands in your cosy academic sinecure, then it’s no problem at all to while away a few days preparing your vexatious complaint to IPSO or the Press Complaints Commission.

But if you’re the hapless journalist who has to prepare your defence, it’s a different story: you’re very busy, time is money, and the whole process is so grindingly tedious you’d almost rather lose then have to go through each pettifogging criticism, crossing every T and dotting every I. (That’s why I would have probably lost had it not been for the efforts of the brilliant and indefatigable Ben Pile who has much more of an appetite for kicking irritating, querulous, nitpicking academics into touch by beating them at their own game).

Thank goodness I did win, though – not so much for my own sake but for the far more important causes of freedom of speech, honest and open scientific enquiry and responsible use of taxpayers’ money.

Oh, and also, for the sheer joy of causing some really dreadful, low-grade people endless amounts of teeth-gnashing misery.

Williamson, consider yourself pwned. Now, back into your box, where you belong, you lank-haired pillock.

SOURCE





EPA Undermines the Fight Against Zika Virus

Other than anarcho-libertarians, most agree that government has a role to play in preventing and suppressing epidemics, a classic public-health problem. Viral or bacterial infections are not passed from animal to person, or person to person, by voluntary exchange. Instead, proximity to another’s infection can lead to an individual’s becoming infected, notwithstanding any market interaction.

So, even the most freedom-oriented individuals accept government spending and restrictions on individual choice when the threat of epidemic increases. In 2014, the arrival at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport of a man carrying the Ebola virus caused some lawmakers to seek a ban on air travel from countries where Ebola had broken out.

Indeed, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention maintain twenty quarantine stations at ports of entry, where public-health officials have the power to detain arriving passengers suspected of carrying communicable diseases.

Fortunately, we do not have to worry too much about these risks today. People in the United States no longer worry about contracting malaria or polio when walking near or swimming in still water. So, it is remarkable that the American people are not outraged that the U.S. government has let mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus enter Florida, where they continue to infect people. This has happened while the federal government’s energy has focused on controlling people’s private health choices, such as forcing Catholic nuns to pay for artificial contraceptives.

Worse, the Wall Street Journal reports the fight against Zika is reaching a “dead end,” because there is little financial incentive to develop new insecticides and increasing government regulation is driving out incumbent suppliers:

German chemical conglomerate BASF SE no longer markets in the U.S. a chemical called temephos, which kills mosquito larvae by disrupting their nervous systems. The company and U.S. insecticide makers that were buying temephos let its U.S. registration lapse at the end of 2015 after the EPA requested new studies on its effects, including its potential to interfere with endocrine production in people.

“The cost of the studies was five to 10 times the yearly [U.S.] sales,” said Egon Weinmüller, head of BASF’s public health insecticide business. “We couldn’t find a way that makes it feasible for those costs.” BASF still sells temephos in other countries, he said.

(Jacob Bunge and Betsy McKay, “Fight Against Zika Nears ‘Dead End’,” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2017.)

The government’s behavior is surely increasing the risk of a Zika breakout in the United States. Rather than driving out current suppliers and inhibiting development of new insecticides, the government should be encouraging innovation. This may be an area where it is appropriate for the government to fund prizes for new insecticides that will eliminate the threat. Or, if we do not want to invest taxpayer dollars, at least get the burdensome environmental over-regulation out of the way so investments by private actors such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (cited in the WSJ article), have a chance to succeed.

The government just has shift its focus from “priorities” like rules governing the use of bathrooms by trans-gendered persons to real public-health issues.

SOURCE





Southern Baptist leaders defend Trump’s pick to lead EPA

Four dozen Southern Baptist leaders voiced support for President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, under scrutiny for his views on climate change, in an open letter Dec. 16.

The current and 12 past Southern Baptist Convention presidents, 14 current and former agency heads and executive directors of 17 SBC-affiliated Baptist state conventions said Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt “is well qualified” to run the EPA and “deserves the full support of the United States Senate in his confirmation.”

The Southern Baptist leaders said they believe Pruitt, a deacon at First Baptist Church in Broken Arrow, Okla., and a trustee at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., has been misrepresented as denying “settled science” for questioning the evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.

Pruitt co-wrote a National Review article in May arguing the policy debate over global warming “is far from settled.”

“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” said Pruitt, a close ally of the energy industry who has filed a lawsuit against the agency he is about to lead. “That debate should be encouraged — in classrooms, public forums and the halls of Congress.”

Politico reported Dec. 14 that Senate Democrats would seek to block Pruitt’s nomination by turning the vote into “a referendum on whether Republicans believe humans are causing global warming.”

Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who led the EPA under President George W. Bush from 2001 until 2003, said she doesn’t recall ever seeing “an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the agency and the science behind what the agency does.”

“He obviously doesn’t care much for the agency or any of the regulations it has promulgated,” Whitman said in a Dec. 12 article in Grist. “He doesn’t believe in climate change. He wants to roll back the Clean Power Plan.”

The Southern Baptist officials, who include the presidents of all six SBC seminaries, said “every realm of human activity comes with the responsibility to be good stewards of all that is entrusted to us” and welcomed “the progress made in respecting creation, advancing a proper environmentalism and affirming this stewardship.”

“At the same time, we reject any ideology that sees human beings as a blight upon the planet and would harm human flourishing by restricting or preventing the rightful use and enjoyment of creation,” they said.

“We do not deny the existence of climate change nor the urgency of this concern,” the letter said. “We affirm an ongoing debate on the proper balance between the unleashing of human enterprise and the protection of creation.”

They said that instead of denying science Pruitt “has actually called for a continuing debate,” something that is “in the very best tradition of science.”

A complete list of signatories can be seen on the full letter as published by Baptist Press.

One of the signatories, Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler, said recent opposition to Pruitt from the secular left points to “the folly of scientism.”

“At this point I need to make very clear that Mr. Pruitt is a friend and he is a member of the board of trustees of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” Mohler said in his daily podcast Dec. 13.

Mohler described the debate over Pruitt’s nomination as “a battle of worldviews” between Christianity and what “can only be rightly described as scientism.”

“This is a worldview that doesn’t merely admire science, it is a worldview that reduces every question of meaning to that which can be ascertained by the science of the hour,” Mohler said.

The Southern Baptist Convention went on record in 2007 with a resolution citing “conflicting scientific research” concerning human-induced global warming and calling on national leaders “to only support cost-effective measures to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and to reject government-mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

Some of the signers of the letter defending Pruitt added their names to “A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change” in 2008 dissenting from the denomination’s “too timid” approach on climate change spearheaded by Jonathan Merritt, at the time a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and now a faith and culture blogger for Religion News Service.

“Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed,” the 2008 statement said. “We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light.”

Other Southern Baptist leaders inked an open letter in 2006 endorsing a document offering “extensive evidence and argument against the extent, the significance, and perhaps the existence of the much-touted scientific consensus on catastrophic human-induced global warming” produced by the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public policy group formed in 2005 to discourage evangelical leaders from supporting legislation aimed at curbing climate change.

SOURCE






The Anti-Pipeline Anti-Environmentalists

Another day, another pipeline protest by "keep it in the ground" activists.

On Dec. 8, a dozen people swarmed a construction site near the Hudson River in an attempt to halt construction of Spectra Energy's AIM pipeline, which is designed to carry natural gas from New Jersey to Massachusetts. The protesters, who call themselves the HudsonStand12, were arrested and charged with criminal trespass and resisting arrest by authorities in Cortlandt, New York.

Those arrests come on the heels of the monthslong protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline project in North Dakota, which, of course, followed the brouhaha over the Keystone XL pipeline.

Climate activists are now hoping to block oil and gas pipeline projects across the country due to their claim that we must keep all hydrocarbons in the ground to avert catastrophic climate change. Those same activists repeatedly claim we don't need fossil fuels because we can rely solely on wind and solar energy.

But while they obsess over our carbon footprint, climate activists don't give a fig about the land-use footprint of renewables. Indeed, the dirty truth about "clean" energy is that it requires shocking amounts of land. In a recent report for the Manhattan Institute, I show that using wind and solar energy to reduce domestic carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050 (80 by 50) will require covering about 287,700 square miles of territory — an area about the size of Texas and West Virginia combined.

I calculated the land-use requirements by examining three decarbonization scenarios that have been published over the past few years including the wind, water, and solar scenario that has been endorsed by the leaders of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and 350.org. Averaging those three scenarios shows that achieving 80 by 50 with renewables alone will require about 1,958 gigawatts of wind energy capacity and about 2,441 gigawatts of solar capacity.

I then used data from the Department of Energy and published media stories to calculate wind energy's capacity density, that is, its overall footprint. The result: wind energy's footprint is 3 watts per square meter, or 1 gigawatt per 131.3 square miles. I relied on published data for three large California solar-photovoltaic projects to calculate solar's capacity density. The result: solar's footprint is 36.3 watts per square meter or 1 gigawatt per 10.6 square miles.

These land-use figures are relevant because of the growing rural backlash against renewable-energy projects. For instance, while national media focused on protesters who gathered near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to oppose Dakota Access, they ignored the recent rejection of a huge wind project located about 170 miles west of there.

On Nov. 15, Billings County officials rejected the application for a 383-megawatt wind energy project that was to cover some 25,000 acres. Chief among their concerns was the project's visual impact, including the fact that some of the turbines would have been visible from inside Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

In New York, three upstate counties — Erie, Orleans, and Niagara — as well as the towns of Yates and Somerset, are all fighting a proposed 200-megawatt project called Lighthouse Wind. In Vermont, about 160 towns and cities have signed the Rutland Resolution which calls for more local control over the siting of renewable-energy projects.

Renewables are also hammering wildlife. Not only are wind turbines killing significant numbers of eagles and other birds, a recent study by scientists from the US Geological Survey have found that wind turbines are now the planet's largest killer of bats.

For decades, a central tenet of environmentalism has been small footprints in everything from agriculture to urban planning. But now, in the name of climate change, environmentalism has been turned on its head. Rather than advocate for people, landscapes and wildlife, our biggest environmental groups are cheering for renewable energy schemes that disregard all three.

In short, keeping it "in the ground" requires decimating much of what's above ground. That's a lousy trade.

SOURCE

***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************