SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FJB who wrote (2655)6/9/2011 1:48:23 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 4326
 
Wrong again.

SHE and her fellow lefties will smirk with superiority and tell you they are the intelligent ones.



To: FJB who wrote (2655)6/10/2011 12:28:39 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 4326
 
Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?
..................................................
by Chip Knappenberger June 9, 2011
masterresource.org

[Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to us by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view. In this case, Lindzen's submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was subjected to unusual procedures and eventually rejected (in a rare move), only to be accepted for publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

I, too, have firsthand knowledge about receiving special treatment. Ross McKitrick has documented similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a self-generating consensus slows the forward progress of scientific knowledge—a situation well-described by Thomas Kuhn is his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. –Chip Knappenberger]

“If one reads [our new] paper, one sees that it is hardly likely to represent the last word on the matter. One is working with data that is far from what one might wish for. Moreover, the complexity of the situation tends to defeat simple analyses. Nonetheless, certain things are clear: models are at great variance with observations, the simple regressions between outgoing radiation and surface temperature will severely misrepresent climate sensitivity, and the observations suggest negative rather than positive feedbacks.”
- Richard S. Lindzen

From Dr. Lindzen…

The following is the reproduction of the email exchanges involved in the contribution of our paper (Lindzen and Choi, “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications”) to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The editor of the PNAS follows the procedure of having his assistant, May Piotrowski, communicate his letters as pdf attachments.

These attachments are part of the present package. Attachment1.pdf is simply a statement of PNAS procedure. Note that members of the NAS are permitted to communicate up to 4 papers per year. The members are responsible for obtaining two reviews of their own papers and to report the reviews and their responses to the reviews. Note, as well, that rejection of such contributions by the Board of PNAS is a rare event, involving approximately 2% of all contributions.

The rejection of the present paper required some extraordinary violations of accepted practice. We feel that making such procedures public will help clarify the peculiar road blocks that have been created in order to prevent adequate discussion of fundamental issues. It is hoped, moreover, that the material presented here can offer the interested public some insight into what is involved in the somewhat mysterious though widely (if inappropriately) respected process of peer review.

This situation is compounded, in the present example, by the absurdly lax standards applied to papers supportive of climate alarm. In the present example, there existed an earlier paper (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) [we covered that paper here -CK], that had been subjected to extensive criticism. The fact that no opportunity was provided to us to respond to such criticism was, itself, unusual and disturbing. The paper we had submitted to the PNAS was essentially our response which included the use of additional data and the improvement and correction of our methodology.
Several weeks after we submitted our contribution (included as PNASsubmission.pdf) we received the following email.

To: rlindzen@mit.edu
Subject: PNAS: 2010-15738 (On the observational determination of cl…)
Cc: ekavanagh@nas.edu
From: mpiotrowski@nas.edu
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQCq+Kk=

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=”_———-=_129546032497941?
X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.027 (F2.74; T1.28; A2.05; B3.07; Q3.07)
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:05:24 -0500
Message-Id: <44129546032491@ejpweb15>

Full Email Recipient List:
TO: rlindzen@mit.edu
CC: ekavanagh@nas.edu

Dear Dr. Lindzen,

I am contacting you regarding your contributed paper. Attached is a letter from Randy Schekman.

Sincerely,
May Piotrowski
Editorial Manager
PNAS

Attach1.pdf
Attach2.pdf

Attachment1.pdf is, as already noted, simply a statement of the policy of PNAS. The actual letter concerning our submission is Attachment2.pdf. This attachment begins with what we regard as a libelous description of our choice of reviewers. Will Happer, though a physicist, was in charge of research at DOE including pioneering climate research. Moreover, he has, in fact, published professionally on atmospheric turbulence. He is also a member of the NAS. M.-D. Chou and I have not collaborated in over 5 years, and Chou had absolutely nothing to do with the present manuscript. There then followed a list of other reviewers that we felt were all inappropriate.

Our response was the following. Attached was a letter to Schekman.

Dear Ms. Piotrowski,

I would like to contact Dr. Scheckman directly. His characterization of Drs. Happer and Chou is hardly accurate. My last collaboration with Dr. Chou was over 7 years ago, and he has had no connection with the present research. Dr. Happer, although not a climate scientist (as, for example, is also the case with Anderson), is deeply involved in general spectroscopic issues. Four of the suggested reviewers are well known proponents of global warming alarm, and I don’t think it likely that they would provide a fair assessment. An alternative reviewer with a long and neutral record in this field is Albert Arking (of Johns Hopkins) who would be far more suitable. Of those mentioned by Scheckman, Ramanathan is the most likely to be fair.

Best wishes,

Dick Lindzen

The actual letter, Lindzen-Schekman.pdf, is attached.

The following was the response.

From: “Piotrowski, May B.”
To: “‘Richard S. Lindzen’”
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:11:24 -0500
Subject: RE: PNAS: 2010-15738 (On the observational determination of cl…)

Dear Dr. Lindzen,

Thank you for your email, which has been forwarded to Randy Schekman.

Best,
May Piotrowski

There then followed another email from May.

From: “Piotrowski, May B.”
To: “‘Richard S. Lindzen’”
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:07:57 -0500
Subject: RE: PNAS: 2010-15738 (On the observational determination of cl…)

Dear Dr. Lindzen,

Randy has read your letter. We will seek the advice of one of the experts you approved.

Best,
May

I then received the following somewhat cryptic response from May.

From: “Piotrowski, May B.”
To: “‘Richard S. Lindzen’”
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:24:22 -0500
Subject: RE: PNAS: 2010-15738 (On the observational determination of cl…)

Dear Dr. Lindzen,

We secured the services of one of the experts you approved, but that person suggested we also consult Drs. Bruce Wielicki or Dennis Hartmann to help evaluate the radiation budget data upon which he relies. Please let us know if you have specific concerns with us consulting either of these two experts.

Thanks very much for your time.

Best,
May

As best as I could determine, none of my suggested reviewers would have made such a recommendation. I can only speculate that Schekman considered Ramanathan as one of my suggested reviewers; I have not checked with Ramanathan. In any event, my response was the following.

Actually, yes. Both are outspoken public advocates of alarm, and Wielicki has gone so far as to retract results once they were shown to contradict alarm.

Dick

I followed this with the following recommendation.

Dear May,

Dr. Patrick Minnis, one of Wielicki’s collaborators at Langley, is agnostic on the issue, and would be a much better choice.

Best,

Dick

Apparently, Minnis was indeed asked to review the manuscript. We finally received a decision letter from Schekman (attached to the following email). There were 4 reviews. One was from Minnis. Another may have been by Ramanathan. The other two were from those recommended by the board.

To: rlindzen@mit.edu
Subject: PNAS: 2010-15738 (On the observational determination of cl…)
Cc: ekavanagh@nas.edu
From: mpiotrowski@nas.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:05:24 -0500
Message-Id: <44129546032491@ejpweb15>

Dear Dr. Lindzen,

I am contacting you regarding your contributed paper. Attached is a letter from Randy Schekman.

Sincerely,
May Piotrowski
Editorial Manager
PNAS

Attach3.pdf

The attachment was a polite rejection of our paper. Included were the complete reviews. Although some of the points in the reviews were, in fact, addressed in our paper, we thought it advisable to respond to the reviews in detail, and to revise our paper in order to clarify matters. It was, however, clear, that the revised paper would no longer satisfy the space constraints of PNAS – especially since the reviewers made clear that important material should not be relegated to ‘supplementary material’.

Although Schekman’s rejection could be interpreted as mildly encouraging, our experience has been that any attempt to resubmit a revised paper simply leads to further delay culminating in re-rejection. Our final letter to Schekman (Letter_to_Schekman.pdf) is attached. As already noted, we chose to respond in detail to each review, and these responses are attached (Response.pdf). The revised paper (as well as the original version submitted to the PNAS: Lindzen-Choi-PNASSubmission.pdf) is also attached (Lindzen-Choi-APJAS.pdf). The final version is accepted (following review) by the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

If one reads the paper, one sees that it is hardly likely to represent the last word on the matter. One is working with data that is far from what one might wish for. Moreover, the complexity of the situation tends to defeat simple analyses. Nonetheless, certain things are clear: models are at great variance with observations, the simple regressions between outgoing radiation and surface temperature will severely misrepresent climate sensitivity, and the observations suggest negative rather than positive feedbacks.
13 comments

1 Harry Dale Huffman { 06.09.11 at 7:59 am } The peer-review situation in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg, as the corruption exists in every field, and is traditional, from the very beginning of modern science (e.g., the Church’s treatment of Galileo), even from the beginning of history (Aristotle was a master of rhetoric, or argumentation, rather than science — and he held back physics until Galileo). Imagine how tough it is for an untenured research associate, or independent scientist, without Lindzen’s position.
.2 Andrew { 06.09.11 at 11:03 am } The dismissal of Chou as a potential reviewer is particularly striking, I think, as if the same standard were to be applied more broadly, the number of eligible reviewers of any paper would dwindle dramatically. Many of the climategate emails suggest that alarmist individuals were reviewing their colleagues and former (sometimes current!) collaborators’ papers on a regular basis.
.3 Gator { 06.09.11 at 11:37 am } This is what I find most disturbing…

“If the analysis done by the authors prove to be correct, major scientific and even political implications can be foreseen.”

Why is politics even a consideration?

I thought we were after truths.

To Hell with politics.
.4 tadchem { 06.09.11 at 1:59 pm } Any mechanism that invokes a positive feedback must NECESSARILY result in a system doomed to self-destruction.
Imagine balancing a basketball on the saddle of a galloping horse. It simply cannot remain there. The Laws of Thermodynamics will require it to deviate from a “perfect” balance, and once deviated, to rapidly amplify its deviation. Our planet has had a habitable atmosphere for many millions of years. This could only happen if *ALL* feedback mechanisms at work used negative feedbacks.
.5 CodeTech { 06.09.11 at 2:20 pm } tadchem has it right.
The very concept that a planetary atmosphere is so incredibly delicate and sensitive to concentrations of trace gases is ludicrous. It requires a fundamental lack of scientific awareness and logic.
This is the reason the entire “debate that isn’t a debate” is political. It has little to do with Science. This is ONLY about politics, Gator. The Science doesn’t even remotely work for any of the alarmist claims.
.6 Andrew { 06.09.11 at 3:13 pm } tadchem-the statement you are making is precisely analogous to saying that “a sum of infinitely many non ser numbers of the same sign must be infitite” which is false.

Imagine that you have a feedback which would be positive, that increased an initial change by half of it’s magnitude. First, start with a unit change, the feedback adds half of that: 1.5. But the feedback now has an additional .5 units of change to react to, so it now adds half of that, .25 units of change, which must be responded to with a further .125 units of change, and so on. This is the sum of all integer powers of one half, which equals precisely two. That represents a system with a positive feedback which is nevertheless stable. Instability only arises in the feedback factor is equal to or greater than one. Having said that, while it is possible for their to be a stable, postive feedback system, it being possible doesn’t make it true. Lindzen and Choi show it almost certainly is not in the case of the climate of the Earth.
.7 Joseph A Olson { 06.09.11 at 3:35 pm } Anyone who thinks the treatment that Dr Lindzen recieved is isolated or anecdotal should read “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by A W Montford. This details the repeated mistreatment of Steve McIntyre at the hands of the IPCC-peer syndicate. It also explains the rampant ‘misconduct’ of the entire Hockey Stick team. That said, what has been presented as a two sided, but muted debate, is a FALSE DICHOTOMY between Warmists and Luke Warmists. Both of these sides are wrong, and unfortunately, Dr Lindzen is a Luke.

For the true science of climate visit fauxscienceslayer.com and read “OMG…Maximum Carbon Dioxide Will Warm Earth 20 Milliseconds”. Yes the true extend to ‘global warming’ is only 20/1000 of a second. Same temperature, just slight CO2 impact delay.
.8 R.S.Brown { 06.09.11 at 4:03 pm } An early warning tip-off that the situation was spinning away on a political tangent was the PNAS’s original suggestion that the appropriate universe for additional reviewers should consist of a tub full of Climategators.

Congratulations on publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
.9 Robert Blair { 06.09.11 at 5:20 pm } Andrew,
So you really do believe in Zeno’s Paradox?

I guess you would be happy to stand in front of a firing squad, as the bullet can never reach you …
.10 Robert Blair { 06.09.11 at 5:23 pm } In my 30 years in IT I have never seen a physical or software system that (a) contained a positive feedback, and (b) remained stable. Electronic, Electrical and Mechanical engineers will tell you the same thing.

Why is different for Climate “Engineers” ?
.11 Andrew { 06.09.11 at 7:23 pm } I just said almost the exact opposite of Zeno’s Paradox! In fact, the fact that an infinite series can have finite sum is why Zeno was wrong! That has got to me the most bizarre criticism I’ve ever gotten.

With regard to your anecdotal, as opposed to my mathematical argument: The formalism by which feedback is defined is different between those disciplines and climate. I don’t know why this is, but all it means is that what you would probably call a weak negative feedback is called a positive feedback in the formalism used in climate. It’s a little unnerving that pointing out politely why this criticism is wrong results in rather impolite and insubstantial rebuttal.
.12 Robert Blair { 06.09.11 at 10:59 pm } Andrew,
Formalism? Are you saying that terms like ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ have different meanings for climate scientists?

Perhaps there is a possible source of confusion there …

… I appreciate what you say about me quoting “the exact opposite” of what you said. Tell me about that positive and negative thing again …
.13 Andrew { 06.09.11 at 11:09 pm } I am saying that the definition of feedback used in the mathematics of describing climate behavior is different from that used in those other fields. Your snark aside, this means that what corresponds to “positive feedback” as you understand it is a feedback factor in excess of 1 as understood in climate work. This does not in any way cause an inversion of meaning it causes a shift in meaning. Thus the confusion. I also like how you imply that you were right that I was endorsing Zeno’s paradox, when I was in fact contradicting it in a rather obvious way.
..



To: FJB who wrote (2655)6/12/2011 8:15:25 PM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations  Respond to of 4326
 
The Washington Post thinks it's "harassment" to request Michael Mann's files from the University of Virginia (their Memorial Day editorial washingtonpost.com
but it's cool with requesting and obtaining and asking for citizen-journalists to go through 24,000 of the State of Alaska's emails involving Sarah Palin.



To: FJB who wrote (2655)6/12/2011 8:27:38 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4326
 
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

Telegraph UK By Andrew Gilligan 05 Dec 2009
telegraph.co.uk

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the "summit to save the world", which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

"We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention," she says. "But it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report."

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

At the takeaway pizza end of the spectrum, Copenhagen's clean pavements are starting to fill with slightly less well-scrubbed protesters from all over Europe. In the city's famous anarchist commune of Christiania this morning, among the hash dealers and heavily-graffitied walls, they started their two-week "Climate Bottom Meeting," complete with a "storytelling yurt" and a "funeral of the day" for various corrupt, "heatist" concepts such as "economic growth".

The Danish government is cunningly spending a million kroner (£120,000) to give the protesters KlimaForum, a "parallel conference" in the magnificent DGI-byen sports centre. The hope, officials admit, is that they will work off their youthful energies on the climbing wall, state-of-the-art swimming pools and bowling alley, Just in case, however, Denmark has taken delivery of its first-ever water-cannon – one of the newspapers is running a competition to suggest names for it – plus sweeping new police powers. The authorities have been proudly showing us their new temporary prison, 360 cages in a disused brewery, housing 4,000 detainees.

And this being Scandinavia, even the prostitutes are doing their bit for the planet. Outraged by a council postcard urging delegates to "be sustainable, don't buy sex," the local sex workers' union – they have unions here – has announced that all its 1,400 members will give free intercourse to anyone with a climate conference delegate's pass. The term "carbon dating" just took on an entirely new meaning.

At least the sex will be C02-neutral. According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.

Instead of swift and modest reductions in carbon – say, two per cent a year, starting next year – for which they could possibly be held accountable, the politicians will bandy around grandiose targets of 80-per-cent-plus by 2050, by which time few of the leaders at Copenhagen will even be alive, let alone still in office.

Even if they had agreed anything binding, past experience suggests that the participants would not, in fact, feel bound by it. Most countries – Britain excepted – are on course to break the modest pledges they made at the last major climate summit, in Kyoto.

And as the delegates meet, they do so under a shadow. For the first time, not just the methods but the entire purpose of the climate change agenda is being questioned. Leaked emails showing key scientists conspiring to fix data that undermined their case have boosted the sceptic lobby. Australia has voted down climate change laws. Last week's unusually strident attack by the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, on climate change "saboteurs" reflected real fear in government that momentum is slipping away from the cause.

In Copenhagen there was a humbler note among some delegates. "If we fail, one reason could be our overconfidence," said Simron Jit Singh, of the Institute of Social Ecology. "Because we are here, talking in a group of people who probably agree with each other, we can be blinded to the challenges of the other side. We feel that we are the good guys, the selfless saviours, and they are the bad guys."

As Mr Singh suggests, the interesting question is perhaps not whether the climate changers have got the science right – they probably have – but whether they have got the pitch right. Some campaigners' apocalyptic predictions and religious righteousness – funeral ceremonies for economic growth and the like – can be alienating, and may help explain why the wider public does not seem to share the urgency felt by those in Copenhagen this week.

In a rather perceptive recent comment, Mr Miliband said it was vital to give people a positive vision of a low-carbon future. "If Martin Luther King had come along and said 'I have a nightmare,' people would not have followed him," he said.

Over the next two weeks, that positive vision may come not from the overheated rhetoric in the conference centre, but from Copenhagen itself. Limos apart, it is a city filled entirely with bicycles, stuffed with retrofitted, energy-efficient old buildings, and seems to embody the civilised pleasures of low-carbon living without any of the puritanism so beloved of British greens.

And inside the hall, not everything is looking bad. Even the sudden rush for limos may be a good sign. It means that more top people are coming, which means they scent something could be going right here.

The US, which rejected Kyoto, is on board now, albeit too tentatively for most delegates. President Obama's decision to stay later in Copenhagen may signal some sort of agreement between America and China: a necessity for any real global action, and something that could be presented as a "victory" for the talks.

The hot air this week will be massive, the whole proceedings eminently mockable, but it would be far too early to write off this conference as a failure.



To: FJB who wrote (2655)6/16/2011 9:51:41 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 4326
 
More regulations: EPA's fantasy solution to unemployment
..........................................................
06/15/11
washingtonexaminer.com

American Electric Power Chairman Michael Morris announced last week that his company would be forced to close five coal-fired power plants, spend an additional $8 billion refitting other plants, and lose 6,000 megawatts of its coal-generated capacity if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency follows through with its latest proposed regulation of coal power plants. That's just fine with President Obama and Lisa Jackson, whom he appointed as EPA administrator. Their goal is to put people like Morris and utilities like AEP out of the coal-fired generation business.
Since the White House's signature environmental policy, cap and trade, died in the Democrat-dominated 111th Congress in 2010, Obama has sought to use the Clean Air Act to do by bureaucratic decree what he could not achieve through the legislative process: force Americans to stop using fossil fuels to generate the energy that our society must have to function on a daily basis. The EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule for power plants will take giant steps toward doing exactly that.

Despite the fact the mercury pollution levels have been decreasing worldwide for two decades, the EPA's proposed rule would force power companies to install costly new mercury-scrubbing equipment on existing coal-power plants. The EPA says this will reduce mercury emissions from coal plants by 91 percent. But the EPA's own Regulatory Impact Analysis also concedes that the new regulation will lead to "new lower levels of consumption as a result of higher market prices." That is bureaucratese for saying Americans will have a lower standard of living because they will have to pay more for energy.

This is exactly what Obama promised his energy policies would do. In January 2008 he told the San Francisco Chronicle, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. ... Coal power plants, natural gas, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." Sure enough, the Chicago Tribune reports that Illinois consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years if the proposed EPA rule is implemented.

Not to worry, according to the EPA, which claims the proposed regulation will create 30,000 new jobs: "Regulated firms hire workers to operate and maintain pollution controls. Once the equipment is installed, regulated firms hire workers to operate and maintain the pollution control equipment." But if more regulation creates jobs, why has unemployment during Obama's tenure in the White House stubbornly remained above 9 percent? In the real world, the only thing red tape produces is additional pages in the Federal Register. If Obama wants to know why unemployment is still so high, he should start by questioning his EPA's assumption that more regulations lead to more jobs.
.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com