tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3047045937248120315..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: WINO's LamentEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-44605152379674608302011-06-29T02:31:12.286-04:002011-06-29T02:31:12.286-04:00"Happer knows more than him about climate on ..."Happer knows more than him about climate on one hand. "<br /><br />Is Happer still claiming that there is not warming but global cooling? When he made the 2009 statement "Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling" it was a lie. There's not any period starting more than two years before now that shows a negative trend to today, despite declining solar output.<br /><br />He's also on record claiming that "“At least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds." This is patently false - the top 1/4 of the atmosphere has less than 1/1000th of the water vapor at sea level(dew point vs adiabatic lapse rate), but 1/4 of the CO2(well mixed always gas).<br /><br />I use the words"false" and "lie" advisedly, crediting him with knowing the physics behind global warming but not telling the truth, as opposed to being ignorantly mistaken a la Monckton.Brian Dodgehttp://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4704#comment-184056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30801008535534695542011-06-23T15:38:51.848-04:002011-06-23T15:38:51.848-04:00Additional comments from the inimitable (for his b...Additional comments from the inimitable (for his bile) Stevie Mac:<br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/22/pnas-reviews-preferential-standards-for-kemp-mann-et-al/<br /><br />Gack...Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87459978183673240302011-06-16T21:20:42.191-04:002011-06-16T21:20:42.191-04:00I usually ignore the 'Anonymous' but http:...I usually ignore the 'Anonymous' but http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jul/14/monckton-john-abrahamHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79508546194829444932011-06-15T13:11:04.182-04:002011-06-15T13:11:04.182-04:00Electing members to the national academy is a non-...Electing members to the national academy is a non-zero filter. Also, considering the members are supposed to solicit reviews- if the reviews are negative, it is likely that the member will improve the paper or send elsewhere- minimally, some reviewers comments are likely accommodated prior to submission and that the review will be updated as the paper is. So the 2% rate is a little bit biased as it can't be seen to represent the initial round of review. The paper must reach the bar of having some sort of positive reviews.Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46025489513695226012011-06-15T01:27:10.811-04:002011-06-15T01:27:10.811-04:00Steve/Pinko: good point, PNAS stopped this bad pa...Steve/Pinko: good point, PNAS stopped this bad paper. A 2% rejection rate suggests that others get through though, esp if we make the assumption that Lindzen's not the only one to get wobbly on selection of independent reviewers.Brian Schmidthttp://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28946237237278528422011-06-13T20:19:57.889-04:002011-06-13T20:19:57.889-04:00"Happer knows more than him about climate on ..."Happer knows more than him about climate on one hand."<br /><br />I really wouldn't be so sure about that. Happer's one and only paper on climate - 'Petitioning for a revised statement on climate change'. When asked by Congress for his opinion on climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2, he responds with an "educated guess" of 1C.<br /><br />How did that ozone do, by the way? Looks like all those tax-deductible dollars are consistently backing the wrong horse.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27264812081708242422011-06-13T18:09:40.910-04:002011-06-13T18:09:40.910-04:00Now Eli, not being Lubos, would think it fine if B...Now Eli, not being Lubos, would think it fine if Bill Happer reviewed a bunch of string theory papers, which is the issue here.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87383821862603967572011-06-13T16:47:50.199-04:002011-06-13T16:47:50.199-04:00@Snapple
Wow nice reference. John Abraham is the ...@Snapple<br /><br />Wow nice reference. John Abraham is the equivalent to Lord Monckton on your side. Epic fail. Happer knows more than him about climate on one hand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54426794423985684522011-06-13T16:44:11.241-04:002011-06-13T16:44:11.241-04:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
Oh no, Happer is chairman o...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />Oh no, Happer is chairman of the George Marshall institute, what a conflict of interest. Gavin Schmidt runs an alarmist blog on the public dollar and has 0 objectivity but thats "A" okay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31972926711547521612011-06-13T16:20:44.831-04:002011-06-13T16:20:44.831-04:00cRRK, without treating the tropics in isolation al...cRRK, without treating the tropics in isolation all of Linden's stuff evaporates into pixie dust. You seemed to be arguing otherwise.<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21774645061579462032011-06-13T15:50:29.283-04:002011-06-13T15:50:29.283-04:00And here is the blockbuster quote
"Since whe...And here is the blockbuster quote<br /><br />"Since when is a negative feedback that reduces the response by 40% considered enormous, but a positive feedback that is purported to increase the response by 300% is considered plausible?"<br /><br />ho ho ho, coal in the stockings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63010719869759704412011-06-13T12:21:47.100-04:002011-06-13T12:21:47.100-04:00A useful reference:
http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au...A useful reference:<br />http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.htmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92025274923932676222011-06-13T12:09:59.689-04:002011-06-13T12:09:59.689-04:00If only Happer weren't Chairman of the Marshal...If only Happer weren't Chairman of the Marshall Institute, I'd think he didn't have a dog in the fight.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57146162420536315172011-06-13T08:23:13.560-04:002011-06-13T08:23:13.560-04:00Dr. Happer has zero credibility with me because he...Dr. Happer has zero credibility with me because he gave testimony in the Senate and didn't put in any footnotes. Later, his Senate Testimony was posted on denialists sites and footnotes had been added by the SPPI. Some of the footnotes cite Lord Monckton.<br /><br />Dr. Happer wasn't mad about someone else cooking up footnotes after the fact. His own site directed readers to this changed Senate Testimony.<br /><br />I have all the details here:<br />http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-did-drhapper-let-science-and-public.html<br /><br />I am not a scientist, but I'm not totally stupid.<br /><br />SnappleAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7662265636536200542011-06-13T06:50:57.698-04:002011-06-13T06:50:57.698-04:00Steve, I wanted to treat the globe, not the tropic...Steve, I wanted to treat the globe, not the tropics in isolation like Lindzen/Choi did (see the comments by 'Reviewer #1'). I suggested this rather diplomatically, or obliquely if you prefer. <br /><br />cRR Kampen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16935138944166766602011-06-13T01:08:42.336-04:002011-06-13T01:08:42.336-04:00"Note, as well, that rejection of such contri..."Note, as well, that rejection of such contributions by the Board of PNAS is a rare event, involving approximately 2% of all contributions."<br /><br />Anyone got an extra petard Lindzen could borrow? He's surely used his stash of them by now.ccpohttp://pri-de.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58016728663152165452011-06-13T00:27:06.099-04:002011-06-13T00:27:06.099-04:00Brian,
Steve is correct- the ability to contribu...Brian, <br /><br />Steve is correct- the ability to contribute is the last vestige of what was the great honor bestowed on National Academy Members. The thought would be that these scientists have earned some amount of leeway/honor system. To keep PNAS competitive, this has been wittled down to 4 Contributions a year (Communications no longer allowed, wherein members would pass along papers of their colleagues with their stamp of approval. In lieu of Communications, members may serve as pre-arranged editors, where all reviews are still handled through the editorial office and in the light of day). The fact than Lindzen has been rejected here shows how badly he tried to circumvent the honor system by pushing the spirit of the rules. <br /><br />Interesting <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008092" rel="nofollow">data</a> on the three previous types of submission to PNAS.<br /><br />PNAS had a big controversy in 2009 about <a href="http://acronymrequired.com/2009/10/publishing-special-thrust-privileges-some-papers.html" rel="nofollow">shady review from members</a>, so they have tightened even further.Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67983458113861444032011-06-12T23:56:19.965-04:002011-06-12T23:56:19.965-04:00Trojan paper, like it.
Failure rate of papers wri...Trojan paper, like it.<br /><br />Failure rate of papers written by 'skeptics' is much, much higher than Trojan condoms though...."skeptics" really need to tighten up the QC.<br /><br />Sad to see the truly desperate 'skeptics' trying to spin this in their favour....they are in denial me thinks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91549845092512434212011-06-12T20:18:28.233-04:002011-06-12T20:18:28.233-04:00But Brian, their procedures do seem to catch the p...But Brian, their procedures do seem to catch the problems. Characterizing evidence that the process works as evidence that it might not be working is almost, um, Lindzenesque. :)<br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36791209476243027272011-06-12T20:14:45.892-04:002011-06-12T20:14:45.892-04:00FYI, cRRK, there are very good reasons to believe ...FYI, cRRK, there are very good reasons to believe that although heat transport out of the tropics accelerates (only a "negative feedback" if one makes the mistake of treating the tropics in isolation, as you seem to want to do), the main negative feedback for the globe (other than the obvious Planck feedback) occurs via enhanced cloud formation in the mid-lats. Lindzen well knows this, but of course it's impossible to distort into something that will stop warming. But that aside, Lindzen's failure over something like 25 years to address the question of how the planet manages to warm or for that matter cool from it's present state (e.g. in the recent glacial cycles) with his supposed negative feedback in operation makes him a laughingstock of Brobdingnagian proportions. <br /><br />Steve BloomAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9171169590541330292011-06-12T17:13:49.041-04:002011-06-12T17:13:49.041-04:00Lindzen sez this of PNAS procedure:
"Note th...Lindzen sez this of PNAS procedure:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Sounds like PNAS needs to tighten procedures, and Lindzen's self-selection of yessirs seems like a problem with this fairly weak form of peer review. Falling in the 2% (if accurate) rejection pot just suggests how terrible his paper was.Brian Schmidthttp://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65076532700260210552011-06-12T15:04:02.241-04:002011-06-12T15:04:02.241-04:00Actually, I do believe climate sensibility over th...Actually, I do believe climate sensibility over the tropical seas is less, much less than it is globally. For a doubling of [CO2] it might be only a degree, maybe 1.5° C, while the global average would be more like 3° C or a little over. So Lindzen and Choi may have kind of a point. I hope they will write a follow-up study with findings on the tropical landmasses (omitted but comprising 22% of their area of study) and, of course, the rest of the globe north and south of 20° latitude.<br /><br />cRR Kampen (posted as Anonymous - my Google account will not be eaten)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5089314945894399572011-06-12T11:41:50.545-04:002011-06-12T11:41:50.545-04:00Judith Curry has jumped on the bandwagon as well, ...Judith Curry has jumped on the bandwagon as well, as you might expect.<br /><br />The funny thing is that the denialists moan and rant about how if getting someone you've published with to vet papers means all their favourite anti-scientists would never get anything published. Even Curry agrees. <br />But none of them put forwards specific examples of real climatologists getting their papers reviewed by their friends. You'd think they could dig up some examples to prove their point, but no, it's all unsubstantiated allegates and "as you know bob, they get their papers through on the nod".guthrienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60141131670412597142011-06-12T10:21:04.073-04:002011-06-12T10:21:04.073-04:00Anonymous- the reviewers need not be NAS members.Anonymous- the reviewers need not be NAS members.Pinko Punkohttp://blog.3bulls.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20666019723894998612011-06-12T09:54:27.831-04:002011-06-12T09:54:27.831-04:00As a lay person, I am bemused by Lindzen's per...As a lay person, I am bemused by Lindzen's persistence in down-playing the risks of CO2 emissions and warming.<br /><br />Lindzen seems so at odds with the preponderance of evidence from other sources regarding sensitivity and his last effort was so susceptible to jiggery-pokery that I find it hard to take anything he has to say as anything but a another ploy to rejoin the not very funny comedians at the Heartland.<br /><br />scaredy mouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com