Anybunny Want to Send a Message to the APS

One of the principles of a publishing embargo is that if somebunny else breaks it, then there is no longer an embargo.  About a week ago the APS sent emails to members (yes, Eli is a member) asking them for comments on the 2015 draft statement on the Earth's Climate Change, with an admonition not to forward the link on to others.

In the comments here John Garland noted

I see the draft APS statement is out for comment by members. Has anyone posted it outside the APS servers? I'd be curious what they came up with at the draft stage given the history cited here some months ago.

(links added) and Eli responded

John, no doubt somebunny will, but Eli feels a bit constrained because he has been peripherally involved criticizing the APS for their naive incompetence, so he will wait. Suffice it to say that it is sufficiently plain vanilla which was inevitable given the birth pangs.

Now Eli was not first to the bookies betting on who it would be, Willard Tony, one of the Brits of Denial, nonono, it was Judith Curry, and not really her, but she took her permission  from one of the Reddit discussions, so here it is

On Climate Change:Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries. 

On Climate Science:As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain to our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science. 

On Climate Action:The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.

Some time ago, Eli noted that a stronger statement than the 2007 APS statement was needed, but the APS is a victim of its own kludged process (more about that later, see links above)

A stronger, more direct statement is clearly needed as the evidence for climate change is even stronger today then it was two years ago.  Compare the draft statement with the 2007 one.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. 

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. 

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

(emphasis added) It appears that the APS draft statement is actually weaker than the 2007 statement, while the evidence of our changing the climate in an awful direction has grown stronger.  Indeed, the APS could have done better asking the squeegee guys on the street to lend a hand.

Part III:The Rise and Fall of the Project Ezioni

In Part II, Project Ezioni, Extreme and Moderate Responses to Exercise of Individual Rights was funded for one year by the Tobacco Institute (TI) using the National Chamber Foundation (NCF) as a pass through.  By December 1990 the studies were well underway and Prof. Etzioni was writing familiarly to Suzanne Stuntz at the Tobacco Institute looking for dirt to put in his case studies and not finding any

. . .  hence am writing to you for any information, leads, clippings and other data you can share with me that would indicate undue pressures against smokers. We are particularly interested in reports, we have been unable so far to substantiate, that freedom of expression was violated. We heard that a conference of scholars on the subject was cancelled but cannot trace it. Also, information about reactions to ads drawing on the constitution would be of interest and any other data you may wish to point us to.

Things were not going according to plan.  This was not exactly what the Tobacco Institute wanted to hear, but they really did not have much either, so about a month later Etzioni writes again to Stuntz, offering the Tobacco Institute the opportunity of placing an article in a new communitarian quarterly The Responsive Community, Rights and Responsibilities

I am writing to you today in my capacity as the editor of a new quarterly that is aimed at intellectuals and opinion leaders, not academicians. I would like to publish an article in favor of the rights of Philip Morris to "use" the Bill of Rights the way they did. Such an article may cover matters such as commercial speech, the plurring between public service announcements and others, etc. Of course we need a serious trdatment (maybe a lawyer could write it?) and not a propagandist article. (You may find some additional use in reprints once it is published.) 

Read carefully this is an amazing example of implausibility.  We need a serious treatment, maybe one of your lawyers could write it, but no special pleading, and, of course Philip Morris can "use" the Bill of Rights to do what?  etc,  Although some possible writers were identified by the TI, nothing appears to have come of this.

In March of 1991, Ron Utt of the NCF provides a progress report to Susan Stuntz of the TI following a meeting with Prof. Etzioni.  Utt reports that

 Initial findings on smoking suggest that there are hostile reactions to smoking that must be addressed, but that individuals in general are not completely comfortable with these reactions. Profesor Etzioni believes that this finding suggests that a well-crafted response will not fall on deaf ears. 

End of September 1991, Prof. Etzioni submits his Phase II proposal, remember, the one with the six wise guys. There are notes that the TI will provide guidance on who the panelists will be and intends to use the panel discussions which would be taped for publicity

Project Etzioni hits the fan on October 7 in a review meeting with the NCF, TI and Etzioni along with other worthies. Karen Doyne from Fleishman Hillard, the public relations giant puts her finger on why the whole exercise was a waste of money

My chief concern -- and I think it was Jim Savarese's as well -- is that the communitarian philosophy doesn't seem compatible with smokers' rights . . . . 

The liberals/radicals who built the modern anti-smoking movement have the r roots in '60s individualism, and initially tried to position the battle in terms of individual rights : the non-smoker versus the smoker, with non-smoker rights being paramount . They are learning they can't win on that battleground, as evidenced by the opposition of the ACLU and other traditional individual-rights allies . So, they are constantly redefining the debate, as evidenced by the rise of social cost as an anti-smoking weapon ; but even social cost smacks of individual rights by pitting "your habit versus my tax dollars." Communitarianism could elevate the debate to a higher level, clearly shifting the debate from "smoker vs . nonsmoker" to "smoker vs . society ." Not a bad approach.  

As we discussed the wild cards in the Etzioni project -- and they-are big ones -- are the review panel and the nature of the consensus that emerges from it .  

First, it is hard to anticipate a consensus that is broadly supportive of smokers' rights . Ultimately, the tobacco industry could benefit if the panel argues for some reasonable degree of moderation in society's response to controversial individual choices -- but the industry's official view of "moderation" may not be sufficiently broad to make involvement in the project worthwhile. 

Second, what.will be the factors in determining the legitimacy of individual choices versus societal rights? Two such fact,ffrs likely would be whether the activity poses a health hazard (to the individual or to others), and whether the activity has any positive benefit to society to outweigh its perceived negative effects . In both these cases (particularly given the prevalence of anti-smoking "science"), smokers' rights would be at a distinct disadvantage . Kay made a good point about this during the meeting . 

 In conclusion, let me say I'm not really as negative about this project as I sound . Over the long term, I think this type of examination will be beneficial to many controversial industries ; it's the first step in putting the brakes on encroaching nannyism by moving the debate beyond the emotional and by asking ourselves, "How far is too far?" and "Why?" But I fear the immediate benefits would not be real enough to make it a TI priority .  

Carol Hrycaj from the TI had additional concerns, chief among which was that Etzioni said that he was not going to deliver case studies but raw data (Eli asks what did he do with the money).  Hrycaj was not happy about this, especially in view of Etzioni's insisting that Phase I was useless without Phase II.

The exercise would attempt to "draw a line on the stigmatism of smokers," thereby "reframing the debate not through measurement but recognizing that different sides have rights."  

Etzioni argued that in its present state, the entire project would be useless without Phase II. He also said that using Phase I alone would make a second phase of the project impossible.  

Based on Etzionifs remarks, it appears that the anticipated Phase I product will differ substantially from the agreed upon deliverable. While promotion opportunities may be identified with a collection of case studies, a set of raw data would not lend itself easily to such activity. 

 Phase II represents a sizable investment of Institute resources. I recommend we review the results of Phase I before making any determination on funding the next phase of the CPR project. This is critical in light of Etzioni1s recent article on the subject, M,A Moral Reawakening Without Puritanism" (The Responsive Community Fall 1991).

The clear implication is that Etzioni was not going to give the TI what it wanted unless he got what he wanted, Phase II funding.  The entire project crashed to the ground with the submission of Ezioni's final report to Ron Utt in December 1991.  Utt reports to Susan Stuntz

Having reviewed Professor Etzioni's 623 page submission, it is my opinion that he fulfilled the requirements of the grant agreement in a timely fashion and at a level of quality commensurate with his high standing within the academic community. The report is comprehensive, well-written and well-organized, and provides a wealth of detail on the extreme and moderate responses to the exercise of individual rights in four controversial areas. 

Having said all this, nothing that he has submitted has dispelled my (and I suspect your) skepticism regarding the value of such an exercise for the industries involved. Indeed, it is my opinion, notwithstanding the quality of the product, that the publication of these findings will do more harm than good to those industries. Abstracting from Otto von Bismark's observation that the public, for its own good, should remain ignorant about the making of sausage and legislation, Professor Etzioni's paper, in describing in detail the issues surrounding the extreme and moderate responses, raises issues that, on balance, reflect negatively on the business activities involved. For example, my sense is that the public will tolerate animal testing as long as they have only vague notions about what goes on. Once these notions become graphic details, their innate squeamishness will likely predominate and leave them potentially more sympathetic to those who protest such activities, including those who take extreme measures. Likewise, the section on tobacco, in its lengthy litany of potential harm to users, will likely generate sympathy for those committed to eliminating or greatly proscribing its use. That, at least is my judgement from the impressions created by a careful reading of the report. 

In addition, I'm not at all convinced that the report has yielded any information and conclusions that could be of particular value to the affected industries if disseminated on a limited basis. For the most part, it provides nothing more than a summary of what they already know. 

This, of course, is no criticism of Professor Etzioni's work because he has submitted exactly what he promised, and from the beginning was insistent that we recognize that the key component of the study was phase II and that the Phase I report was something we forced upon him so that we would have an opportunity to make an interim judgement about whether the project should be done in its entirety. 

In this regard, it is my opinion that our doubts about Phase II have been deepened by the results of Phase I. If Phase I, which was accomplished under the close control of Professor Etzioni, yielded so much unfavorable facts and impressions, then Phase II, which will have few if any such direct controls, could yield an even more compelling case against the industries. Thus, our initial skepticism has been confirmed, as was the wisdom of breaking the project into two phases so as to allow for money-saving a go/no go decision.

As far as Eli can see, none of the results were ever published and the final report, well who knows in what file drawer it lies.  In the end, it appears (and this is speculation) that Prof. Etzioni, seeing that he was not going to get his Phase II proposal funded, poisoned the well by providing a monograph and case studies formulated in a way to be useless to the Tobacco Institute and the National Chamber Foundation.  Remember that he told Carol Hrycaj that only raw data would be provided.  Eli can speculate that someone pointed out to Erzioni that if he did so he would not get the final payment. On the other hand, because the National Chamber Foundation controlled the copyright, Etzioni was not free to publish.  It was a stalemate.  A waste of time and money on all sides.

CODA:  Still the tobacco industry did learn something from this.  In 1997, Philip Morris hired Prof. Etzioni as a consultant and speaker for $10,000

. . . , we would like your opinions on the smoking issues. As you said in our conversation, the secondhand smoke issue created a new dynamic. But where and how can a new social contract be created where the rights of non-smokers to non-exposure are balanced with the smokers' right to exercise his "right to smoke" somewhere other than in total isolation? Under an extremist view, walking past smokers on the street is a hazard to me — under what circumstances can a social contract make all the rights and responsibilities work on an issue like this?  

The September 26, 1997 letter had a vanilla confidentiality agreement, but somebunny perhaps put a note under the door so the following contract had an interesting clause

If at any time you are contacted by a third party, including the media, concerning your activities on behalf of Philip Morris, you will make no comment, immediately notify Philip Morris of the third party contact, and when requested by Philip Morris will refer the third party to Philip Morris, Vice President, Corporate Affairs. Your obligations in connection with any and all third party contacts will survive the termination of this Agreement. 

Franzen attacks Audubon's attempt to do something about climate, withholds info that he's on the board of competing organization

There have been repeated attempts to find a "Third Way" between doing something about climate change versus not doing much. They haven't worked. Now in comes Jonathan Franzen with another rambling take that isn't denialist but insists that people not deal with climate change except to the extent it involves things he personally cares about, like tropical habitat protection. He also disses National Audubon, repeatedly.

As Dave Roberts says, it's really bad, intellectually empty, and factually wrong (tho it does have some interesting stories about people not named Jonathan Franzen who are doing some helpful things for the planet). Roberts' description of people having a Climate Thing hangup is potentially helpful, but I think it may more be that many people just have a Thing. For Franzen it's helping birds immediately, for some technophiles it's pushing nuclear power, for Naomi Klein it's fighting capitalism* - and either climate change must serve that Thing or climate change must be secondary to that Thing. He's got a round hole and that better be a round peg coming its way, or he'll muddle to a reason why it should be round.

Joe Romm has the corrections to Franzen, and he also calls out the issue that hasn't had enough emphasis:

Yarnold was especially annoyed with the New Yorker for running this extended attack on Audubon supposedly neglecting bird conservation in favor of climate change without bothering to mention that Franzen sits on the fund-raising Board of Directors for the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), which Yarnold calls “a group that views itself as a competitor to Audubon.”

According to its website, “ABC is the only U.S.-based group with a major focus on bird habitat conservation throughout the entire Americas.” I know you probably thought the National Audubon Society — with its motto “Protecting Birds and Their Habitats” — did that, too. Such is avian eco-politics today.

In making his case that the National Audubon Society has lost its way, Franzen does explain that “I gave my support to the focused work of the American Bird Conservancy and local Audubon societies.”

Here is where things get very hypocritical — because there’s something much worse than the New Yorker not mentioning Franzen is on the board of ABC. Franzen never mentions that the conservation-focused bird group he is on the Board of … wait for it … also has a major effort to combat climate change! Indeed, ABC’s webpage devoted to “Threats to Birds – Global Warming” explains that “ABC has conducted research in conjunction with partners to ascertain what the ongoing and potential future threats are to birds from rising global temperatures, and has published reports detailing the concerns that have been revealed.”

Definitely read the whole thing. While this isn't a financial conflict of interest, I think it should have been disclosed. I'm also curious if Franzen has connections to the various projects he praises in the piece.

I'll add just one Franzen paragraph for the refuse pile:

But climate change is seductive to organizations that want to be taken seriously. Besides being a ready-made meme, it’s usefully imponderable: while peer-reviewed scientific estimates put the annual American death toll of birds from collisions and from outdoor cats at more than three billion, no individual bird death can be definitively attributed to climate change (since local and short-term weather patterns have nonlinear causes). Although you could demonstrably save the lives of the birds now colliding with your windows or being killed by your cats, reducing your carbon footprint even to zero saves nothing. Declaring climate change bad for birds is therefore the opposite of controversial. To demand a ban on lead ammunition (lead poisoning is the foremost cause of California condor deaths) would alienate hunters. To take an aggressive stand against the overharvesting of horseshoe crabs (the real reason that the red knot, a shorebird, had to be put on the list of threatened U.S. species this winter) might embarrass the Obama Administration, whose director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, in announcing the listing, laid the blame for the red knot’s decline primarily on “climate change,” a politically more palatable culprit. Climate change is everyone’s fault—in other words, no one’s. We can all feel good about deploring it.

Well, that makes no sense. The difficulty attaching identifiable harm to climate change in light of random weather that might have had the same effect anyway makes climate change even harder to use, not easier to use. It isn't impossible to attach that harm by the way, and Franzen also makes the typical mistake of saying that if you can't identify with certainty any specific incident as caused by your GHG emissions, then harm generally cannot be attributed to your emissions.

And as for FWS and the red knot, just read what FWS has to say:

The rufa subspecies of the red knot now will receive protection as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, the Service announced today. “Unfortunately, this hearty shorebird is no match for the effects of widespread emerging challenges like climate change and coastal development, coupled with the historic impacts of horseshoe crab overharvesting, which have sharply reduced its population in recent decades,” said Service Director Dan Ashe.

The article shouldn't have been published.


*Might be unfair to Klein - I've read a lot about her most recent arguments but haven't read the book. Seems though that it's just what I read from her before.

Part II: The Etzioni Project Finds a Home

In Part I, the bunnies met the protagonists, the Tobacco Institute, Amiai Etzioni, a noted sociologist on the hunt for funding, and at the end the National Chamber Foundation, a non-profit affiliate of the US Chamber of Commerce.  As we left them in late April 1990, the Tobacco Institute had agreed to fund Etzioni's proposal using the National Chamber Foundation as a beard.

In May  the Tobacco Institute Information Center started to pull documents for the Etzioni project

Articles on animal rights, record obscenities actions, and censorship are pulled daily for the Etzioni Project . Jamie Moeller and Jerry Johnson from O&M have sent materials over on these and related topics 

And Etzioni put together a proposal which was submitted in June to the National Chamber Foundation.  The impression Eli gathered from the LTDL documents is that Etzioni was the one who found the beard, but there is no direct proof of this in the LTDL.

The proposal did not come from the George Washington University where Etzioni was University Professor, but from the Center for Policy Research.  The unwary might think that the Center for Policy Research was a GWU research center.  But no, it was entirely Etzioni's creature which he founded in 1968 and in 1990 it was "headquartered where Etzioni lived  in the Watergate West.  One can get some idea about it from the 2005 990.

The budget had been reduced to $445,378.15, with Etzioni's take decreasing from $150,000 to $107,806 and some other minor changes with office expenses, and 18.5% overhead.  Probably covered the rent for a few months at the Watergate

Broadly speaking the preliminary proposal to the Tobacco Institute and the June proposal to the National Chamber Foundation are the same.  The June proposal has a bit of an advertisement

Etzioni conducted a study for the National Chamber Foundation, in 1984 on "Self-Dicipline, Schools and the Business Community," a study for which there are still numerous citations and reguestes for reprints.

But also some interesting wordsmithing that Willie Soon could have used

The project will be conducted, as all others by the Center for Policy Research, as a completely autonomous undertaking. There will not be direction from any outside sources on any matters concerning the content of the deliberations, findings, reports and other matters. The work will be conducted as typical procedures for grants, and not for contract work. Products will be available after one year (cases) and panel reports and tapes, after two years. 

Remember, that no bunny was in doubt about where the money was coming from and why and who it was going to.  Eli will return and show why this paragraph was not what it seemed at the end of this post.

The Tobacco Institute (TI) was not willing to buy a study in a poke and insisted on dividing the project into two parts.  Susan Stuntz of the TI and Ron Utt of the National Chamber Foundation (NCF), got together and decided to divide the 450K$ budget and work into two parts as Utt explained to Prof. Etzioni in a letter July 26, 1990

Since we last met, Susan Stuntz and I have discussed your proposal, "Extreme and Moderate Responses to Exercise of Individual Rights", and have explored several alternative ways of proceeding that would provide us with products that we believe will best fit the long-term interests of the Tobacco Institute, the National Chamber Foundation and the constituencies that they represent. We also discussed ways in which the overall study could be divided into increments that would allow all participants to evaluate progress to date and make determinations on the approaches to be taken in subsequent stages based on that progress.  

The first part would consist of case studies and the deliverable would be the case studies and a monograph.  After completion of the first part in one year, the TI would consider funding the second part, the wise guy evaluation of the case studies.

Etzioni knew that Susan Stuntz represented the Tobacco Institute in what they called the "Etzioni Project".  He was under no illusion as can be seen in his attempt to push back

There is another matter that needs to be clarified. The study will be conducted in the best tradition of academic research, not contract work, It will serve the long term interests of truth; the investigators will find whatever the evidence will point to. The reason we turned to the Foundation, rather than receive a grant from the Tobacco institute, is that we want to avoid even the appearance of working for anyone's special interests.

Except that Etzioni knew damn well that the MONEY was coming from the Tobacco Institute so this can be regarded only as an attempt to hide the actual source of the support by passing it through the NCF.

I have worked before for the Foundation* 1 have no trouble with its goal of establishing what is valid and fair. The study will serve no other goals. While I am always open to suggestions from all quarters, I will be accountable only to the Foundation, and to no one else.

As to our findings, like those of my previous report for the Foundation, these will be available to one and ail/ as is the case in ether academic reports. 

 At this point Etzioni appears to have cut off communication with the TI, and indeed drafting the budget and contract for Phase I of the Etzioni Project fell to Susan Stuntz and Ron Utt.  Sam Chilcote, Stuntz's boss notes on a memo complaining how long setting up the project is taking

It has taken a lot of time.  Is it still worth it

In the end it was not.  that is Part III.

By the beginning of September 1990 an agreement was in place between the Tobacco Institute and the National Chamber Foundation, which established the cost and the NCF's take

This letter agreement confirms that The Tobacco Institute will provide funding support for the project entitled, Extreme and Moderate Responses to Exercise of Individual Rights, to be undertaken by the Center for Policy Research under the auspices of the National Chamber Foundation. We understand that this project will be completed in two phases. Institute support for Phase I, which will begin on October 1, 1990, and is expected to be completed June 30, 1991, will total $137,000, and will include a 15 percent management fee to be paid to the National Chamber Foundation.

Evidently Etzioni wanted more upfront, as the original offer letter from the NCF offered $118,966.19 for the first year, while the second one budgeted $178.216 for year one.  Both contained a clause which gave the NCF (and by implication the TI) ownership and copyright to any work product including the case studies and the monograph

The National Chamber Foundation shall be the owner of the completed case studies and monograph and all rights therein, including without limitation the copyright and all reproduction rights throughout the world. The National Chamber Foundation will retain these rights through first publication. Subsequent to the National Chamber Foundation's first publication, both the Center and NCF shall retain rights to utilize the completed work. 

Now EINAL, but the clear implication of this is that the National Chamber Foundation, a contractor to the Tobacco Institute, would control publication.  If they objected, nothing would be published.

Etzioni accepted 

Part III will describe what happened to the Etzioni Project.

Amitai Etzioni and Willie Soon

Amitai Etzioni and Willie Soon are amongst the oddest of odd couples.  Soon, of course, is eminently forgettable, noticeable only for his incompetence and self regard, who, to keep the wolf from the door went looking for funding from the fossil fuel industry and delivered what was required.  Much of Soon's trouble arises from the conditions of his support, that he was to allow review by his funders and did not acknowledge their support in his publications.

Etzioni, one could argue, is one of the world's best known sociologists.  Got his own institute.  Got his own blog.  Got his own theory, communitarianism, which looks to Eli like an attempt to graft good neighborliness onto libertarianism.  Past president of the American Sociological Institute.  H number in the mid 40s.

But Eli has come across a chapter in Etzioni's past which draws him close to Willie Soon.  As the bunnies will see, Etzioni may, or may not have crossed the line to the dark side, but he certainly skated right on the line, if not over.  Not surprisingly the dark side for Etzioni was the tobacco industry and the source of documents that Eli found in this most tangled of tales was the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library (LTDL).  Not surprisingly Etzioni was much more skillful than Soon at maintaining implausible deniability.

The LTDL is not complete, but it does lay out one particular interaction of Etzioni in detail, a grant for a project entitled "Extreme and Moderate Responses to Exercise of Individual Rights".  This project appears to have grown from the Tobacco Institute Legislative meeting in early 1990.  Etzioni was paid a fee of $10,000 and first class travel expenses to discuss

. . . the general topic of "social trends" would be a very timely area for you to address. We can talk in more detail over lunch after the first of the year. We will, of course, provide you with a room and meals and will reimburse round-trip first class airfare for you and your guest. We will also pay an honorarium in the amount of $10,000.

It appears that one outcome of this meeting was a preliminary proposal that Prof. Etzioni submitted in February to the Tobacco Institute.  The hook, was the purpose of the proposed study

To examine reactions of the public to adults exercising choices which some segments of the public strongly disapprove, such as the wearing of furs, smoking, obsenities on records. To study the continuum of reactions, from censorship to violence, and examine their moral standing from the viewpoint of widely held public philosophies, such as libertarians, conservatives, communitarians and others.  

Early on the tobacco industry was very concerned with efforts to move smoking out of buildings and businesses.  One of their tactics was to claim that the rights of smokers were being ignored and that smokers were being persecuted.  A memo from 1984 catches some of this,

Pointing out that it's time to question this unbridled hostility toward smokers, we will then present the American Cancer Society's defense of their practices, with emphasis on the "Great American Smoke-Out ." This necessarily narrow defense will be put into broader perspective by a noted member of the psychiatric community, a spokesperson for the American Jewish community, or social behavioralist . Names that fit this category are 

 • Bruno Bettleheim
• Hyman Bookbinder
• Amitai Etzioni 

This juxtaposition of opinions will reveal the underlying denial of rights practiced by anti-smoking zealots . 

the objectives were to

• bring national attention to the abusive treatment of cigarette smokers instigated by the American Cancer Society; 
• to heighten the public's awareness of the increasingly hostile treatment of the American Cancer Society adherents in relation to those who chose to smoke cigarettes ;
• to demonstrate to the American people that the segmentation, of smokers is parallel to, that of the Jews in Nazi Germany, or blacks before the Civil Rights movement; that the American Cancer Society's practices have lead!to acts of physical and psychological violence against smokers, and the potential for even more . 

Deja vue all over again Eli knows, but the playbook was written by big tobacco and is being followed by big fossil.  In Etzioni's preliminary proposal there was an interesting comment about funding

Funding. While the project will be conducted, as all others by the Center for Policy Research, as a completely autonomous undertaking, in view of the strong sensitivities involved, the project will not be undertaken until there is funding from several different (at least three) sources.  

showing that Etzioni was, shall Eli say it, quite sensitive to being funded by the smokey side, at least alone and displaying the sort of caution that would have served Willie Soon well.

The Tobacco Institute Executive Committee met on April 5, 1990 to consider the preliminary proposal.  After some scene setting

OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES OF SCIENTISTS CENSORED WITH THREATS OVER FUNDING OR TENURE IF THEY GOT INVOLVED WITH THE SMOKING ISSUE IN A DISPASSIONATE, OR OBJECTIVE WAY. THERE HAVE BEEN AIR TRAVELERS HARASSED OR ARRESTED IN DISPUTES OVER SMOKING ON AIRCRAFT. . . 

The Etzioni project was described

ETZIONI HAS PROPOSED TO EXAMINE PUBLIC REACTION TO ADULTS EXERCISING CHOICES WHICH SOME SEGMENTS OF THE PUBLIC STRONGLY DISAPPROVE SUCH AS SMOKING OR THE WEARING OF FURS. HE WILL LOOK AT THE RANGE OF REACTIONS FROM CENSORSHIP TO VIOLENCE AND EXPLORE THE POLARIZATION NOW FACING THIS SOCIETY ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES.

The project was to have an "incident" gathering first phase (think nut picking) which would be presented to a panel of wise guys who would prepare a report the goal of which was to demonstrate 

THE GOAL OF THE FINAL PRODUCT IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE BREAKDOWN OF DIALOGUE IN THIS SOCIETY WHEN ANTI-GROUPS THREATEN AND ATTACK THOSE WHO MIGHT DISAGREE OR ENTERTAIN A CERTAIN LIFESTYLE. IT WILL SHOW THE ANTI-GROUPS CANNOT TOLERATE COMPROMISE AND THAT IT IMPACTS ON NUMEROUS ISSUES, NOT JUST SMOKING.

Good to know what the research would conclude.  Of course, the resulting report

. . . WILL BE PUBLISHED BY THE CENTER AND WILL BE MARKETED TO OPINION LEADERS IN THE NEWS MEDIA, COLUMNISTS, LEGISLATORS AND OTHERS CONCERNED ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND THE DIRECTION OF THIS SOCIETY.

The Center, which would publish the report was Etzioni's Center for Policy Research.  The marketeers would be big tobacco.  The Tobacco Institute was on board with Etzioni's suggestions for three of the wise guys, Robert Nozik a libertarian, Michael Walker a communitarian and Herbert Stein from AEI.

Etzoni submitted a budget for $516,186 for both phases, including $150,000 for the principal investigator, Etzioni.  Susan Stuntz of the Tobacco Institute had an interesting comment on the later amount in an April 25, 1990 memo

Per our discussion, I asked several of the Public Affairs consultants for their advice on a fee for Etzioni. Their estimates ranged from $150,000 - $250,000. The high estimate would include publication of a book on the issue, which is not contemplated in this proposal. The estimates are based in part on fees that would be charged by an individual like Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan, for a similar project.

Eli's friend Jules of the Klimaatblog has posted on the involvement of economists as paid help for the tobacco lobby and a longer article is in preparation.

The Tobacco Institute also saw the need for not having their fingerprints all over Etzioni's study.  The Executive Committee presentation foresaw that Etzioni would take care of this

HOWEVER, WE CAN'T BE ALONE IN THIS. IT WILL ALSO HAVE TO INVOLVE THE COOPERATION OF OTHER INDUSTRIES IF IT IS TO BE CREDIBLE AND EFFECTIVE. PROFESSOR ETZIONI WOULD CONTACT OTHER INDUSTRIES ONCE THE THIRD ISSUE IS FINALIZED.

While that appears not to have worked, the US. Chamber of Commerce, a lobbying group that Etzioni had worked with before was pleased to wash the Tobacco Institute money.  Stuntz continued

I have not yet shared this final budget with Etzioni, but am prepared to do so with your approval. At that point, I will return to the U.S. Chamber. 

Part II tomorrow will describe how the US Chamber of Commerce provided cover for the Tobacco Institute and Prof. Etzioni through its National Chamber Foundation.  This must have been decided between the April 5 Executive Committee meeting and the April 25, 1990 Stuntz memo.

Having opened this box, allow Eli to post here an image of what passes for a smoking gun in this case

Good work if you can get it, 50K$ for writing an eight page proposal . 

Another April Fools Prank

About four months ago the first view CO2 data was released from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory covering October to November and the blogs of science denial went mad.

tallbloke says:

January 31, 2015 at 6:50 pm

It could get interesting at Paris when ‘the west’ demands huge sums of money from Brazil and the forested African and Asian nations for their countries’ huge net CO2 emissions, no?

From Bishop Hill

Is the "data" 'unfiltered', 'raw', 'unadjusted'? Who decides the colours? How is the "measurement" depiction calibrated and against what 'gold' absolute? What are the normative values / colours?...please don't keep me in suspense....I'm simply dying to know.

and a quote from Uncle Murry

Large values, in yellow and red, are a signature of source regions. Notice, they are not found in the industrialised centres - the Ohio river valley of the US, or western Europe or even China. Rather, they appear in the Amazon basin, tropical Africa and South East Asia. Those regions have little human population, let alone industrialisation

Murry Salby

Eli tried to play nice

This pattern has been observed from space for many years by GOSAT and SCIAMACHY. The part of the pattern shown here emphasizes agricultural burning across Brazil and Central Africa. You can get an idea of the pattern changes over a year here. Also here but not so prettified but with some links to papers.

Finally, it's a new year, try not to be so silly.

But it did not really work

Haha, that's some pretty widespread "agricultural burning". You'd think someone might have noticed.

and

"Finally, it's a new year, try not to be so silly." That's rich coming from someone who thinks he's a rabbit.

To be honest, some others stepped up to the plate

If you look at the time lapse simulation of CO2 concentrations here: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2015/01/01/mists-of-time-missed/

And stop it around 2006/10/14 it matches the OCO map quite well, really no surprises. According to the audio on the time lapse simulation the higher CO2 levels in South America and Africa are indeed from the burning of fires. The CO2 hotspot near Greenland is a result of a swirling motion from the CO2 produced in the USA.

I'm with Judith Curry on this one, the evidence for man made CO2 increase by burning carbon fuels is extremely robust.

The evidence that rising CO2 concentrations in the PPM range will change the climate or cause significant warming is, on the other hand, very weak.

Jan 2, 2015 at 3:31 PM | Redbone

Stephen Richards

Actually Eli Rabett is correct - you can see maps of fire activity here, and if you scroll on to October 2014 you can clearly see the fires in Brazil and southern Africa.

Jan 2, 2015 at 4:15 PM | Richard Betts

Willard Tony excelled, 

NASA’s new Orbiting Carbon Observatory shows potential tectonically-induced CO2 input from the ocean?

Guest Blogger / January 2, 2015

Guest essay by Martin Hovland, Geophysiscist and Professor Emeritus, Center for Geobiology, University of Bergen, Norway

Eli will leave the comments to Sou, especially since WT and his merry trolls (yes you Smokey) terminate Eli's erudite comment with, well, regular regularity.  Blame yourselves boys.

The OCO-2 team has now established a site for data release and shown a few products including the Nov 21 to December 29 measurements

which show, among other things, some continued agricultural burning in Africa, and increases in the northern hemisphere which de-greened in the late fall, resulting in low absorption of CO2 emissions, both natural and from us.  Marty Hovland's volcanoes  have taken time off to go to the beach.

There was another interesting map released showing recent nadir views (which only make sense over land)

These agree quite well with earlier satellite measurements.  Of course, by next April there will be a map of annual emissions and Eli can have more fun

There was one interesting question @ the good Bishop's, why the OCO-2 was not in polar orbit so CO2 over the poles could not be measured.  The usual conspiracy theories were hatched, but the answer simply is that OCO-2 was designed to and now is flying with the A-train, a series of Earth observatories that are in (EXCERT ELI'S MISTAKE HERE - see corrections in comments from Ken and Magma) sun synchronous polar orbit.  OCO-2 cannot observe at high latitudes because of the sun angle that is needed for observations

Eli gives you the Duke for your listening pleasure

It's the Dragons, No It's the Trolls, NO It's the Sun

Well, it's silly season again, and Nature has a good one and it is open

Emerging evidence indicates that dragons can no longer be dismissed as creatures of legend and fantasy, and that anthropogenic effects on the world's climate may inadvertently be paving the way for the resurgence of these beasts.

and another taste

Further work has revealed that the early medieval period was a veritable paradise for dragons. This can be attributed to the period's unusually warm temperatures Fig. 2 and an abundance of knights, the beasts' favourite combatant and food. It was also a time when wealth and status were measured in terms of gold and silver — the preferred nesting material for Western dragons. As a result, the major needs for living, feeding and, crucially, relaxation were readily available to dragons, allowing populations to flourish. The roasting of flesh and the indiscriminate demolition of hovels and castles became commonplace.

However, Fergus Brown points out that it's not the dragons but their grooms, the trolls who have time to get up to no good when their masters are busy burning down villages

But the new research is truly unbelievable. "According to the data gathered," we were told by lead scientist Arne Illbebaackersson, "we have historically vastly underestimated the volume of emissions generated by Trolls and other quasi-human entities. Once these new estimates are incorporated into climate models the correlation becomes obvious." 

And, as Lars Karlsson points out, this all was well known to Hubert Lamb, who, unfortunately was sworn to secrecy by the trolls after the dragons burned down his Stevenson screen.  Fortunately for John Mashey, Lars has uncovered the original which will be added to John's research results

 

With mounting evidence of the real cause of climate change, Fergus also points out the Guardian kicking off the silly season, also known as the British election campaign (Cameron should have known better than to set the first day of the campaign when he did).

Rabett Run eagerly awaits the response these bombshell papers by the Pastifarian Church

Yet mounting video coverage shows that it's the sun

At 8:02am today, SunCommon notified the Agency of Natural Resources of a massive solar spill. Attempts to limit this discharge have failed, and it appears that the spill will continue unabated. Unchecked, this incident is pouring solar radiation the equivalent of 3 billion gallons of gasoline across Vermont’s landscape – every day.

Eli is not adverse to adding other links and bits and pieces.

Technical and Esoteric and No Part of Chris Horner's Business

Following up on having their teeth kicked in by the Virginia Supreme Court in their quest for Mike Mann's Emails, Chris Horner and his sidekick David Schnare,  have filed a number of FOIA requests seeking Email from various climate scientists.  Strangely, nowhere can Eli find Roger Pielke Jr. or Bjorn Lomborg railing against that dynamic duo, now doing business as the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute.  Given the rapidity of how they change the name of their shells, Eli might think that business is not excellent.

Today the Union of Concerned Scientists brings word of the Arizona Superior Court handing another set of dentures to the gentlebunnies from E&E (as the Court labels them, perhaps accidental but quite appropriately) .  It was a remarkable decision.

The defendants, the Arizona Board of Reagents, had provided the Court a sample of 90 representative Emails from 1700.  The Court, kinda was like an undergrad with Spring Break reading assignments

The volume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting. Initially, AzBOR provided the Court a CD with approximately 90 emails described as representative of all those requested. While reviewing 90 emails may seem like a relatively easy task, such was not the case here. The emails ranged from one or two pages to multiple pages to at least one exceeding 800 pages in length. Further, to describe the content of the emails as technical and esoteric is an understatement. Many hours were spent reviewing the emails and, by no stretch, was the Court able to fully comprehend the substance of the emails.

At which point everybunny agreed that the 90 Emails were representative and that they did not need a special master or to spend their lives litigating each Email.  The question was, did the  Regents properly withhold the Emails from E&E's FOIA request.

The answer of the Court was comprehensively yes, but for interesting reasons.  Arizona law holds that

“ . . ., the law also recognizes that an unlimited right of inspection might lead to substantial and irreparable private or public harm; thus, where the countervailing interests of confidentiality, privacy or the best interests of the state should be appropriately invoked to prevent inspection, we hold that the officer or custodian may refuse inspection.” 141 Ariz. at 491.

In other words, using FOIA as harassment is not allowed if it causes public or private harm.  Among the categories that the Court held were not subject to inspection were Emails which contained student and personal information, correspondence with attorneys, information about on going research projects and information about prepublication peer review.

What is left are Emails about "prepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary".  The Court narrowed the question about this to whether the Regents withholding the documents was capricious or arbitrary and answered that

When the release of information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer, there is discretion not to release the requested documents. Arizona Board of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 167 Ariz. 254, 257-58, 806 P.2d 348, 351-52 (1991). After weighing the evidence presented in this matter, the Court cannot conclude that by withholding the remaining emails for the reasons stated, AzBOR abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously.  

Schnare and Horner lose.

This is, IEHO, a very important statement that the government of the State of Arizona and its people have a vital interest in supporting the research of scientists at state universities and in state agencies and assuring that they cannot be harassed by those engaging in hackery for fun and profit that Rick Perlstein calls the long con.

And yet this stuff is as important to understanding the conservative ascendancy as are the internecine organizational and ideological struggles that make up its official history—if not, indeed, more so. The strategic alliance of snake-oil vendors and conservative true believers points up evidence of another successful long march, of tactics designed to corral fleeceable multitudes all in one place—and the formation of a cast of mind that makes it hard for either them or us to discern where the ideological con ended and the money con began.

The World Turned Upside Down

In the 1970s investment in renewable energy was killed dead by the realization that the Saudi's could drop the cost of oil to zero making any capital investment in wind and solar foolish, that and the relatively high cost of wind and solar at the time made it certain that the cost curve for renewables would not reach that of oil and coal within the investment horizon.

Fossil fuel energy sources have relatively low capital costs and high (cost of fuel) running costs. Today, no one has any idea of what the price of oil will be next month, let alone next year or the next decade.  Having seen a close to $(US)100/bbl swing within a year, planning is not possible.

The extraction cost of coal is low, but again, anybunny investing in fossil coal plants has to worry about pollution control costs and costs imposed in the future to pay for other externalities such as putting the top back on mountains and disposing of the ash and overburden.

Renewables are the reverse, high up front capital cost and low running costs with large recent cost drops driven by improved manufacturing.  With over half a decade of low interest rates behind us and no indication of any inflation at all in the developed world, capital costs todaydo not carry high interest, and investment in renewables looks attractive to any organization, even the ones in Texas.

Tom Dart in the Guardian reports that Georgetown, a town of 50,000 in Texas, is planning to go 100% wind and solar.

When its staff examined their options last year, they discovered something that seemed remarkable, especially in Texas: renewable energy was cheaper than non-renewable. And so last month city officials finalised a deal with SunEdison, a giant multinational solar energy company. It means that by January 2017, all electricity within the city’s service area will come from wind and solar power.

This is a 25 year deal.  Especially in Texas, wind and solar have strong advantages, guaranteed (and low) pricing amongst them

The region bordering New Mexico is one of the prime solar resource sites in the US and the wind whistles across the plains to such an extent that, as Scientific American pointed out last year, the state is America’s largest wind power producer – as well as leading the nation in the production of crude oil and the emission of greenhouse gases. 

Renewable energy also uses much less water than traditional power generation – a bonus in a state where half the land and more than nine million people are affected by drought conditions, though Briggs said that for Georgetown, water conservation was only a “side benefit”.

Today relatively expensive W. Texas crude is at more risk from Saudi petro-politics than wind and solar.  Indeed, many commentators thought that the Saudi's dropping the price of oil was directly aimed at killing off the frackers and further expansion of oil drilling in the oceans rather than renewables.

Have Another Drink

Continuing the story of Vlad and Est

No SUVs on Mars, and no warming either

After reading recently that pits in the Mars polar CO2 ice caps were determined to be cyclical and not evidence of Martian climate change, I thought I'd do a cleanup post.

Time was that denialists relied on rather thinly-sourced evidence of potential warming on Mars to say it's proved, proved I tell you, that the warming that Earth has not even experienced came from the Sun. You saw and heard stuff like this:

I could've sworn that the SUV reference came from Michael Crichton originally, but digging around didn't confirm it.  Inhofe was into it, though. Here's the 'scientific' source of the claim:

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. 

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

So much for that.

To be sure, we don't necessarily know what's happening on Mars, we haven't studied it as long and as closely as Earth. Solar irradiance is well studied though and not the cause of the warming we're seeing on EArth. 

Pesticide drinks for thee but not for me

Patrick Moore, the climate denialist who falsely claims to have helped found Greenpeace (UPDATE: facts are unclear, see David Lewis' comments. Either the pre-2008 documents were wrong or someone did dubious editing at Greenpeace) most recently offered his expertise to deny any health risks associated with glyphosate. Embedding the video didn't work, so here's the link to it, and key dialog below:

Moore:  you can drink a whole quart of it [glyphosate] and it won't hurt you. 

Interviewer:  You want to drink some? We have some here. 

Moore:  I'd be happy to, actually. Not, not really, but... 

Interviewer:  Not really? 

Moore: I know it wouldn't hurt me. 

Interviewer:  If you say so I have some glyphosate... 

Moore:  I'm not stupid. 

(cross-talk) 

Interviewer:  So it's dangerous, right? 

Moore:  People try to commit suicide with it and fail fairly regularly. 

Interviewer:  Let's tell the truth, it's dangerous. 

Moore:  It's not dangerous to humans, no it's not. 

Interviewer:  So you are ready to drink one glass of glyphosate? 

Moore:  No I'm not an idiot. 

Shortly afterwards, Moore cuts off the interview and walks away.

Funny but also sad that an old man like that is so ready to lie. Drinking glyphosate is something that's okay for other people, but he's not stupid enough to actually believe the things he's saying.

I wonder if he continues to use the "you can drink it" line in contexts where he can't be challenged with a glass.

Ringberg 2015: Andy Dessler ECS > 2K and more

POSTSCRIPT:  The presentation slides for all the talks are now posted and Gavin has a post on Real Climate

Andy Dessler posted his Ringberg 2015 talk on climate sensitivity.

Exhausting

Eli is famous for finding simple solutions to complex problems, although also aware that while every complex problem has a simple solution it is often wrong.  Be that as it may, the recent post about indoor air pollution pointed out that the problem, and it is a big one, is not the cooking stove, but the exhaust, better put the lack of it, because it is real hard to ween anyone away from their accustomed way of fooding and because of that, introduction of fancy dancy cooking stoves has not worked.  Worse, although many are burning shit (dried shit, but shit none the less) or dead plants, and these are not ideal fuels, they are cheap fuels and there is no hope of weaning the poor away from them as long as they are poor.

Now the moral of the tale here is that Eli is perturbed, nay angry, that the following simple solution occurred to the bunny when egged on by Tom Fuller.  Angry?  Well it means that Eli can no longer think of Tom as useless, but here it is.   Tom ended a comment with

Your argument about the ventilation being the problem rather than the cooking is true, but really reminds me of what a SF comedian used to say--'Guns don't kill people. It's those darn bullets.' 

To which Eli replied off the tip of his ears

For venting, even a small fan run off solar electricity in the wall near the cooker could make a significant contribution.

But this is not such a bad solution, because moving the effluvia out of the house, while it would not completely solve the problem, would certainly minimize it and save much health and lives.  So, of course, there is always the google and the google found a solution, a small exhaust fan with an integrated solar cell panel that could easily be put into just about any house or hovel.  Turns out, and on reflection, no surprise, that such things are made for RVs.  Still probably too expensive, this one is $25.67, but in large quantities, maybe not made so well, it looks like it could make a difference.

Put a simple screen filter on it and it would be even better.  The fan units are designed to be mounted on RV roofs, on top of plumbing vents and come with a one year guarantee.  Just the sort of thing that people could donate to organizations like Heifer International or Oxfam or the Gates Foundation could buy by the millions.

On Cooking Steak

Since Rabett Run appears to be working on the culinary side, and the first steak has been thrown out opening the barbecue season in the Northern Hemisphere Eli thought he would share a useful trick.

The problem with cooking steaks or roasts is to get a nice crusty outside while leaving the center, well, unshoeleathered, or the inverse, with the center nice and the shade of red you like while the outside is pasty brown.

What the Bunny is about to betray is one of those utterly revolting secrets that works on the thickest steaks and roasts without the expense and time necessary for using a sous vide.

Build the hottest fire you can, or turn the broiler up to nuclear or heat the frying pan red hot  THEN toss the steak into the microwave for a minute to three or so minutes.  Season the steak with salt and pepper and a little olive oil.  The time for microwaving depends on how red you want the center, from blu to rare to medium rare.  That takes a bit of trial and error and the degree of doneness should be a bit less than you want to eat because of what follows. Another benefit is that even for thick cuts, the meat is evenly done inside.  A little more olive oil, maybe even butter and salt and pepper at this point is a good thing.

You then toss the steak onto the fire, into the oven, into the pan, in front of the blowtorch, into the pit of hell, whatever and crust the outside.  This procedure shortens the cooking time by separating cooking the inside and the outside.

On Cooking

This started out to be a very very very very snarky take on why Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Jr. and assorted others are just dangerous when they go on about how coal electrification is needed to eliminate indoor pollution in Africa and Asia, but indoor pollution from cooking and heating using biomass or coal is a huge problem, killing many each year, and among many there is a dangerous naivety.

Further, this problem is no secret, and there is a considerable literature, easily found, but allow Eli a few moments to lay it out.

The first point is that the issue is not fuel, but ventilation.  Many bunnies have, or have prior experience with wood stoves and the older amongst us with coal stoves.  While there are issues with external air pollution, a good chimney moves the problem out of the house.  Of course, if your house is a hut or less, a good chimney is well beyond the cost of your house.

The second point is that the poor will always use the cheapest fuel, that is why they are called the poor, so substituting a more expensive fuel such as LPG or natural gas and certainly not fossil fuel generated electricity simply does not work.   It has been tried.  Further, in poor places, an entire infrastructure has been developed to provide biomass fuel of all types, if you forbid burning of biomass, many people who were making a bare living providing the fuel no longer have an income.

The third point is that a better, more efficient stove has value, the value is in lower pollution because the burning is more efficient, less fuel needed, e.g. less deforestation, etc., but the problem, of course is that better stoves are more expensive and unfamiliar.  There have been successes, but these involved subsidies for the stoves, creating local industries to manufacture the stoves, and careful attention that the stoves were not far removed from what people were used to cooking on so that there was no culture shock. Improved cookstoves designed in a laboratory for maximum efficiency and minimum pollution without consideration of convenience and how people cook simply are rejected even when handed out for nothing. Solar cookers run headlong into this problem.

OK?  Eli will turn the snark machine on again, but do go do some reading.  Here is a review article.