Fred Singer

It has been brought to my attention that Fred Singer has made outrageous claims during recent lectures in Europe, including about temperature trends. I guess I’ll have to blog about that. But it’ll take a bit of time, since I’m busy with several projects right now. More to come…

About these ads

76 responses to “Fred Singer

  1. Do you have any sort of link/transcript of comments made by him? I’m sure we could deal with some of it over at skeptical science if we can find out.

    [Response: Well, there’s this.]

    • The first thing I immediately notice in that document is the number of times Singer makes comments about various charts saying “no noticeable ________ over the period 1979 to 1997″ without ever presenting a single calculated statistic.

      He says that a lot about data that looks to have pretty clear trends to my eye, but he seems to love the tactic if just saying “there’s no trend” even when there almost certainly is one.

      And why is he constantly harping about 1979 to 1997 in a 2011 document?

  2. PT Barnum was an entertainer. But Barnum was not dealing with life and death matters of human futures. Why would a “scientist” promote such bunkum?

  3. Hi,
    Not a comment related to this post, but I’ve noticed your blog takes a long time to load- often several minutes. I recently realised this is due to the Gravatar service taking a long tome to load avatars for comments.

    http://dontsurfinthenude.blogspot.com/2011/09/connecting-to-1gravatarcom.html

    This problem could be affecting other readers of your blog.

  4. Singer has been making stuff up for so long that it must be hard to know where to start. It wouldn’t be fair to expose just the most recent lies: that would be cherry-picking, wouldn’t it? ;)

  5. Fred Singer and outrageous claims? No….really??

  6. Frfed Singer has been estranged from reality for so long they don’t even exchange Christmas greetings anymore. At this point, if someone cites Singer, it reveals more about them than they probably would like you to know. So, again, the question is why anyone pays attention to what this deluded loon has to say. It is like stupid kid who has decided to cheat on his science exam, but sits next to all the other stupid kids. It’s not gonna improve his score much.

  7. Jesus, the guy really is an outright liar, isn’t he? What the hell makes people do things like this? Or do I not want to know?

  8. Rob,
    A clip with Singer’s presentation in Belgium can be viewed here: http://bambuser.com/v/1939418

  9. To borrow a line a comedian named Ron White,
    “You can’t fix stupid”.

  10. Great to see that you will check his claims!

  11. Singer features extensively in Naomi Oreskes’ Merchants of Doubt. He’s the go-to guy for any cause that pits big business against the environment. You want something plausibly denied by a ‘scientist’? Then Singer’s yer man.

    Denial of the harm of tobacco smoke, CFCs, sulphates, CO2 et. al.? It’s Singers all the way down!

  12. Plausibly? Well, in a superficial way, perhaps.

    Major premise: People who tell lies for pay are evil.
    Minor premise: Fred Singer has made a career of telling lies for pay.

    Not stupid, in the narrow sense.

  13. Dikran Marsupial

    Singer demonstrates he doesn’t understand the major problem with the DCPS paper (with a statistics 101 level fail)

    “The distribution of trends from model runs is Gaussian; the yellow area corresponds to the Standard Deviation while the grey area shows the extremes (“range”) of the distribution. It is evident that if the number of model runs increases, the yellow area will shrink while the grey area
    expands.”

    No Fred, the standard error of the mean would shrink as the number of runs increases, but the standard deviation wouldn’t (in expectation). The fact that the standard error of the mean shrinks with the number of model runs means that the DCPS consistency test would fail an ideal model, which suggests to me that it perhaps isn’t a very sensible test! Consider a model with perfect physics and infinite tempral and spatial resolution (e.g. another Earth in a parallel universe); if you had an infinite number of model runs (parallel universes) you would have a perfect characterisation of the physics and of plausible realisations of internal variability, you could not possibly do any better. For this model, as there is an infinite number of runs, the standard error of the mean would be essentially zero and the perfect model would fail the DCPS test unless the realisation of the internal variability we actually observed was EXACTLY average (which is essentially infinitely unlikely).

    Thinking the standard deviation decreases with the sample size is a howler though! (it seems Singer doesn’t realise that the yellow area is not the standard deviation but the standard error of the mean – but not comprehending the difference is equally a howler).

    I don’t really understand why Santer et al don’t just see if the observations (within their stated uncertainty) don’t lie within the spread of the models. If they lie in the spread of the models then they are obviously consistent with the models as the models predict something even more extreme is plausible. It seems to me the Santer test is also somewhat conservative.

  14. When Singer crops up denying something you can be sure there really is a problem, otherwise why’s been hired in? I’ve not heard him denying that power-lines cause cancer, for instance, but vested interests can put real scientists with good science up against that. Only when their people look at something and tell them “yes, there’s a problem” do they feel the need for Singer.

  15. My brain just melted. I read most of that thing.

    I know he’s been doing this a long time. I know he sticks within limits for his reading, check out that reference list. But this ugly artefact is no better than much of the boilerplate, out-of-date ramblings available any day on multitudes of blogs.

    Dreadful writing. (Is that because he’s targetting a particular audience?) Just horrible.

  16. Speaking of temp trends, I cooked this up just for you, Tamino.

    I have often heard that global warming is not a random walk, or random process. Over the time series of 1950 -2010, a linear relationship can explain 74 % of the variance of the GISS data set. However, over short periods of 11 years, linear trends do a terrible job of explaining the variance. Therefore, one must conclude that such short term variations are random noise.

    For 11 year chunks, only the periods from 1992 to 2002, and 1993 to 2003 have decent linear trend r squared values above 0.5 (0.65 and 0.62, respectively).
    While it is accepted by most that an underlying trend (forced by greenhouse warming) exists in the GISS data, is it also possible that the decadal relationship is simply due to random behaviour, as demonstrated by the two periods above?

    Lets randomly select 66 years from the 1950 to 1960 GISS time series, 11 years at a time:

    1
    -0.07
    0.38
    -1.17
    1.29
    0.91
    -0.44
    0.91
    -0.07
    0.7
    -1.17

    0.91
    -2.05
    0.7
    -2.05
    -1.15
    1
    -1.17
    0.91
    0.7
    -1.17
    -0.07

    1.29
    -1.86
    -0.07
    0.91
    -0.07
    1
    0.91
    -1.86
    1.29
    0.7
    -1.86

    1.29
    -1.15
    -1.15
    0.91
    -0.44
    1
    -2.05
    1
    1
    -2.05
    -0.44

    -1.15
    0.91
    1
    -0.44
    0.38
    0.91
    1
    1
    1
    -1.86
    -1.15

    0.38
    0.38
    -1.86
    0.38
    -2.05
    -0.07
    -2.05
    1.29
    -0.44
    1.29
    1

    Now construct a time series by joining each of the individual 11 year periods together, relative to the last known data point of each series. And you get this:

    1
    -0.07
    0.38
    -1.17
    1.29
    0.91
    -0.44
    0.91
    -0.07
    0.7
    -1.17
    -0.26
    -3.22
    -0.47
    -3.22
    -2.32
    -0.17
    -2.34
    -0.26
    -0.47
    -2.34
    -1.24
    0.05
    -3.1
    -1.31
    -0.33
    -1.31
    -0.24
    -0.33
    -3.1
    0.05
    -0.54
    -3.1
    -1.81
    -4.25
    -4.25
    -2.19
    -3.54
    -2.1
    -5.15
    -2.1
    -2.1
    -5.15
    -3.54
    -4.69
    -2.63
    -2.54
    -3.98
    -3.16
    -2.63
    -2.54
    -2.54
    -2.54
    -5.4
    -4.69
    -4.31
    -4.31
    -6.55
    -4.31
    -6.74
    -4.76
    -6.74
    -3.4
    -5.13
    -3.4
    -3.69

    Simply by chance it is cooling, and chance again that a linear relationship with a variance of 62% is found.

    My first attempt had no trend at all, I got the result above on my third attempt.

    By chance it can explain 41% of the variance in GISS.

    So is there any justification in using 11 years data chunks?
    For GISS, it’s all mathturbation.
    2 data points will give you ‘r squared = 1′ everytime, therefore data chunks less than 11 years are easily explained by simple linear relationships and give you very high r squared values.
    Conversely, data chunks with values higher than 11 years also give you impressive linear relationships for the same reason, via cancellation.
    11 year frames generally give you no linear trends in GISS.

    If any random 11 year period is selected from the constructed series above, it has no more variability compared with the original individual chunks. The trick is how the chunks are stitched together. Anyway it’s an interesting exercise that can give you plenty of time series that have similar charateristics to GISS.

    Just a bit of fun.

    • Or you could try physics…but that would be work.

      • Horatio Algeranon

        Yes, but work is just fun acting over a distance.

        [Response: I define “work” as whatever it is that you want done, but you don’t want to do.]

    • Interesting if you do a scatter plot for the constructed cumulative series above vs. the original random data above, you get Roy Spencer’s famous feedback stripes!

      lol.

  17. Once again, hopefully with correct formatting….

    OT, but the latest fake-skeptic bullshit is “Horngate”.

    Unsurprisingly Judith Curry thinks it is “very interesting” and her “denizens” are lapping it up.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/08/extreme-measures/#comment-110313

  18. Speaking of drought, La Niña, and climate change, here’s a more serious attempt by john n-g to figure out the level of contribution of global warming to the current event.

  19. The response to the first comment above provides a link to a booklet by Singer, “NIPCC vs. IPCC Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” Singer claims that UAH satellite data show no increasing surface-temperature trend between 1979 and 1997, whereas temperatures measured at ground level (GISTemp and HadCRUT3) show increasing trends. He does not consider RSS or NCDC data. His Figure 11 shows what he claims to be UAH data and the figure shows no obvious trend for the period 1979-1997.
    I have copied monthly surface-temperature data from GISSTemp, HadCRUT3, NCDC, RSS, and UAH for the period 1979-2010 and calculated and plotted 12-month running averages vs. time for this period. The UAH data show a very clear positive upward trend between 1979 and 1997 and the slope is only slightly lower than the slopes for the other four data sets. All five slopes are close to each other.
    I’m really curious about where the data in Singer’s Figure 11 came from. There once were errors in the UAH data that investigators from RSS identified. The erroneous data showed a negative trend in surface temperature data. UAH acknlowledged the errors idenfied by RSS and corrected its data. Is Singer using the old data? Does anyone out there in blogland know?

    • I have a suspicion of where Singer’s data can be found, but getting the data would require you to wear vinyl gloves. Something akin to the end of the Summoner’s Tale, or the friar’s tail as the case may be. I’m probably wrong, though, and this comment should probably be deleted since it reminds me uncomfortably of the usual fare over at WTFUWT. Still, who knows the mind of Friar Fred, that singer of salubrious airs, where ne’er the taint of carbon twixt oxide shall end with us frying our heirs.

    • I’m pretty sure there is a trend in the data in Figure 11 but Singer has plotted it in such a way to make it look like there isn’t a trend, especially on comparison to the earlier figures 9 and 10.

      I eyeball the trend at about a 0.5 deg C increase over the 30 years presented. At a minimum it should the obvious that most of the temperatures in the first half are well under zero and most of the data in the second half are well above zero – a fairly reliable way to determine a significant trend by eye.

      Singer is performing the equivalent of a slight of hand trick here.

    • I just verified that Figure 11 really is the UAH global temperature. Even though he says in the text:

      “On the other hand, the reported 1979 to 1997 surface warming [Fig. 10] is not seen by atmospheric observations [Fig. 11].”

      there is a trend in the UAH data (1979-2011) = +1.3 +/- 0.6 deg C/century (p < 0.001) (95% confidence intervals, Mann-Kendall test, no pre-whitening).

      But it's not obviously there if you focus from 1979-1997 in UAH (only 19 years) = +0.31 +/- 1.2 deg C/century (p = 0.22).

      But he's juxtaposing that with GISS over the same period, where the trend is (1979-1997) = +1.2 +/- 0.9 deg C/century (p = 0.004).

      All this is completely ridiculous because he's trying to argue that two data sets that have a R-square correlation from 1979-2010 of 0.86 contradict each other.

      • You’re right about the UAH data. They are the corrected data. The horizontal (time) scales in Figures 9a, 10, and 11 are not the same. Figure 11′s time scale covers 32 years while Figure 9a’s coverage is 130 years and Figure 10′s is 60 years. In Figure 11, The 32-year scale is stretched across the page and makes the UAZ data appear to be trendless. If Singer had put all five data sets on a common baseline and plotted all five temperature histories in Figure 11, the five curves would have been close with respect to values and trends.

      • Oops. That’s a 22-year scale in Fred’s Figure 11.

  20. re: Horngate

    So, it’s a scandal that the IPCC report predicted something that’s happening? Am I reading that right? That seems like a pretty freakish threshold for scandal, but then I’m not post-modern person by habit.

  21. Don’t waste any time on Singer. He has zero credibility.
    Just my .02

  22. Not so sure Jeffrey.
    I have a feeling that the IPCC said a few things about trends over multiple decades, some leading to the end of this century. Apparently that means the same thing as predicting events over multiple months leading to events in less than 5 years. But my post-anyrubbishatallism analytical abilities are limited.

    • The issue I’m confronting “out there” is that Hulme (2001) and Ruosteenoja (2003) said there is modelled increased precipitation from in East Africa which were cited in AR4, but East Africa’s gone drier. Unfortunately, it’s being claimed that NGOs took AR4 as gospel and planned for increased rain, not drought, and the IPCC is being blamed for the deaths of tens of thousands. They just can’t stop beating their wife, apparently. The science (not the propaganda) is explained HERE.

      • Hmmm. So the IPCC failed to successfully predict a disaster resulting from a warmer world.

        Forgive me for being cynical, but I thought that “warmer was better”, and that “CO2 is plant food”, and that the IPCC were “alarmist”.

        Incidentally, when doing the economic modelling that your side of the debate assures us shows that the cost of adapting is less than the cost of stopping warming, how did they factor in the cost of these deaths?

      • @ John Brookes. My side? A bit of blue-on-blue methinks. All I was doing was pointing to where this latest gate-du-jour crap was coming from in repsonse to others pointing out “Horngate”.

      • Sorry – my mistake…..

  23. David B. Benson

    What Jim Bouldin | September 10, 2011 at 2:18 pm wrote.

  24. I agree with Jim and David; Tamino your time is better served IMHO addressing more worthy foe than Singer.

    I watched the first half of the Belgium tape. It was pathetic. The setting is depressing. Singer can’t even calculate simple geographic percentages. Admittedly he has continued to be a useful propaganda tool much longer than some tobacco execs predicted, but whatever his metric of credibility may have been, has obviously expired. Anyone citing him now will simply be taking “more rope”.

  25. John, J. Bowers isn’t on the side of ‘doing nothing’ about AGW. Note that he says he’s “confronting” the denialist meme he then goes on to describe.

  26. Unchallenged dishonesty or stupidity gains creditability.

    • Agreed. I spend inordinate amounts of time challenging one or the other or both. On today’s menu: “China’s CO2 absolves us from responsibility,” “warming is natural,” “it was warmer 125,000 years ago,” and “you don’t want the younger generation to prosper so you are trying to drive us to ruin with your worthless renewable energy.” (Yes, really. And to clarify, the perpetrator of that last farrago is not, himself, a member of said younger generation.)

      • Horatio Algeranon

        “Solar Wreck”
        – Horatio Algeranon’s diversification of “Hot Rod Lincoln” (by Charlie Ryan and W. S. Stevenson)

        My pappy said, “Son, you’re gonna’ drive us to heck’
        If you don’t stop drivin’ that Solar Wreck”

        Have you heard the story of the “Solar One”
        The Grand prix of the Formula Sun?
        That story is true, I’m here to say
        I was drivin’ the “Solar Way”

        It’s got a vaccuum-cleaner motor and it’s really souped up
        That jet-ski body makes it look like a gup
        It’s got one cylinder, uses it all
        Got a solaro-drive, always stalls

        With no cabureator and and no exhaust
        With only one gear you can really get sauced
        It’s got safety tubes, but I ain’t scared
        Brakes aren’t needed, tires fair

        Sat in the parking lot late one night
        The moon and the stars was shinin’ bright
        Goin nowhere fast, oh what a thrill
        Cars were passin like we was standing still

        All of a sudden in a wink of an eye
        A Cadillac sedan passed us by
        I said, “Boys, that’s a mark for me”
        By then the tail light was all you could see

        Now the fellas was ribbin’ me for bein’ behind
        So I thought I’d make the Solar unwind
        Put my foot to the road and man alive
        I shoved us on down into overdrive.

        Wound it up to 9 or 10
        My speedometer said that I hit top end
        My foot was glued like lead to the tar
        That’s all there is and there ain’t no more

        Now the boys all thought I’d lost my sense
        A picket fence looked like a picket fence
        They said, “Slow down! I see spots!
        That traffic light just looks like dots”

        Took a corner, sideswiped a bike
        Told the little kid to take a hike
        My foot was clickin’ the guardrail posts
        The guy beside me was white as a ghost

        Smoke was comin’ from out of my shoe
        And my leg was really hurtin too
        Knew I could catch him, I thought I could pass
        Don’t you know by then I’d be low on gas

        We had flames comin’ from out of my side
        Feel the tension, man, what a ride!
        I said, “Look out, boys, I’ve got a license to fly”
        And that Caddy pulled over and asked “Want a ride”?

        Now all of a sudden she started to knockin’
        And down in the dips she started to rockin’
        I looked in my mirror; saw a man on a bay
        The cops was after my Solar Way

        They arrested me and they put me in jail
        And called my pappy to throw my bail
        And he said “Son, you’re gonna’ drive us to heck’
        If you don’t stop drivin’ that Solar Wreck”

  27. Horatio Algeranon

    Pappy said “Son, you’re gonna’ drive me to Heck If you don’t stop drivin’ that solar-powered wreck” (sorry Charlie [Ryan]) [stay tuned for further diversification]

    “the perpetrator of that last farrago is not, himself, a member of said younger generation.)”

    How do you know that? Did you ask him who wrote “Hot Rod Lincoln”?

  28. Commandeer Solar and the Lost Photon-men

    • Horatio Algeranon

      “The Lost Photon”
      – by Horatio Algeranon

      “I’m lost” the emitted photon said
      “This greenhouse has me on my head.
      I started on my way to space
      From earth and now again I face
      The Terra surface whence I came
      Up and down seem just the same.”

      • ‘Zactly (sorta).

        Hey wait! We’re all saved! All we have to do is invent solar cells that function in the IR GHG spectrum. Think of how much more efficient they will be now that more lost photons are returning to earth!

        I think I’ll write a guest post for the folks over at that what? site. They won’t worry ‘bout no stinkin’ quantification.

  29. Funny you should mention that, arch. Just read in The Economist (right-wing, but sane) that one technology under development is indeed a small aerial drone that scavenges energy from upward IR.

  30. This thread seems to be functioning as an Open one at the moment, so perhaps this isn’t too OT. As one of the habitues here who is more verbally than mathematically adept, I’d like to solicit comment on a tiny bit of Excel analysis I undertook.

    The context is ‘renewable energy denialism,’ which has seen many of the same tactics (and suspects) as the pure climate change sort. The claim I was responding to was that “Denmark has closed not one coal plant as a result of deploying all those wind turbines.” Preliminary research says that’s probably true, but misleading–rather than close them, they have 1) upgraded them, for instance by retrofitting ‘super-critical’ boilers, with the result that Danish coal plants are about 50% more efficient than average, ranking #1 in fleet efficiency globally, and 2) by modifying them to co-burn biomass and waste as well as coal. So during the growth of Danish wind power, coal consumption (coincidentally or not) has dropped significantly and so have CO2 emissions per capita.

    (It would be interesting to do multiple regression to see if one could attribute the emissions decline to economy, wind power, cleaning up coal and whatever else, but a little too ambitious for me just now, to say the least.)

    Which gets us to the analysis: I found stats for national emissions per capita (thanks, Wikipedia) and loaded the Danish numbers into Excel, creating the linked graph:

    A reasonably clear downtrend, albeit with a fair amount of statistical noise. (I suppose the noise comes from the vagaries of the economy, mostly.) Pretty clearly, the result of Danish energy policy as a whole has been to reduce CO2 emissions.

    What I’m wondering about, though, is how most fairly to characterize that R2? I’m lacking the sense of context that comes with experience doing this sort of thing, but from reading I know that you’d like it to be closer to 1.

    So, to anyone who cares to comment, what do you think? And what would you say about it, for the benefit of those who are statistically naive?

    • Hmmm. I’m not as enthusiastic as Barton. All that R2 indicates, by itself, is that Denmark’s per capita emissions have been declining since the early 1990s. It doesn’t really help much in trying to demonstrate why it declined.

      If you want to demonstrate that it’s due to wind power proliferation I think you will need to get some data on year-to-year energy production and consumption by source.

      Alternatively, you could plot annual coal consumption and wind production over time (using the same units, for example exajoules, 10^18 joules), but I understand you may have to account for energy exports.

      In the end, if you can demonstrate that the decrease in domestic coal consumption happens at a comparable rate as the increase in domestic wind power consumption then you’ll really be on to something.

      Otherwise, you only have a stat that is consistent with the theory that wind power has lead to a decrease in carbon emissions. But there could be other reasons such as efficiency gains, fundamental changes in their industrial production, or an economic decline.

      Another tactic is to compare Denmark’s time trend with other similar economies, but then you have to know something about the individual countries. As a first guess, I’d suggest the Netherlands or Finland. They all had similar emission rates in the early 1990s but Denmark has had achieved much bigger declines. Finland’s year-to-year ups and downs also closely match Denmark’s.

      • Thanks, Ernst. In the context of the ‘debate’ I was having, I’d already presented a graph showing increased renewables coinciding with decreased coal, oil, and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. I’ll see if I can dig that up when I have a bit more time. I do think that efficiency gains are part of the picture, particularly the efficiency of the coal plants themselves.

        And I was thinking idly about possible ‘comparison cases,’ so thanks for the suggestions there, too.

      • Also according to this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark

        Denmark’s wind power production increased rapidly from 1996 to 2004. Guess which years Denmark made all it’s emissions gains with respect to Finland?

        Year, Denmark , Finland ,Fin – Den,Den_wind
        1990,9.8,10.2,0.4,0.57
        1991,11.9,11,-0.9,0.68
        1992,10.5,9.8,-0.7,0.83
        1993,11.5,10.3,-1.2,0.92
        1994,11.7,11.7,0,1.06
        1995,10.7,10.2,-0.5,1.09
        1996,13,12,-1,1.19
        1997,11,11.7,0.7,1.89
        1998,10.5,11.1,0.6,2.76
        1999,9.5,10.7,1.2,3
        2000,8.8,10.1,1.3,4.22
        2001,9.2,10.9,1.7,4.31
        2002,9.6,11.7,2.1,4.86
        2003,10.4,13.2,2.8,5.56
        2004,9.4,12.8,3.4,6.58
        2005,8.6,10.4,1.8,6.61
        2006,9.9,12.6,2.7,6.11
        2007,9.2,12.1,2.9,7.14
        2008,8.4,10.7,2.3,6.98

        Denmark = Danish per capita CO2 emissions (t CO2)
        Finland = Finnish per capita CO2 emissions (t CO2)
        Fin – Den = difference between Finland and Denmark (Finland – Denmark) (t CO2)
        Den_wind = annual Danish wind power production (TWh)

        Finland’s 2010 wind power was 0.292 TWh (I’m not sure if this is production or capacity)

        For what it’s worth, the R2 for the last two columns is 0.86.

        Both countries have about 5.5 million people.

  31. Kevin-kun,

    Accounting for nearly half the variance with one variable is pretty darn good. Look at the t-statistic on the coefficient of time and check its significance.

  32. BTW, where did you get your time series data? I’d like to look at that myself.

  33. Hi Kevin
    Maybe if you add the political leaning of the government in Denmark in the period, you get to account for more of the variance. Until 2001 we had a very good secretary of environment and energy, who supported development of clean energy. Wind energy production grew substantially. After 2001 a more conservative government changed the politics.
    To me the middel part of your graf looks the most interesting. It shows that a dedicated political system can really decrease CO2-pollution.

  34. Thanks, MS. IIRC, though, current Danish goals for further increased renewable energy capacity are pretty aggressive. Do I have that right? And if I do, what do you think about the prospects for follow-through?

  35. Just for the record, the Monnett witch-hunt seems gradually to be unravelling, as Neven posted (following up on Rabbet Run.) PEER seems to have demonstrated very convincingly that the inquisition is unfounded.

    Unfortunately, it’s given us another instance of harassment and intimidation–the execrable Marc Morano actually posted Dr. Monnett’s wife’s work email with an invitation to ‘comment’ about the ‘polar bear paper,’ which she was falsely claimed to have peer-reviewed. (The peer-review was anonymous, and both informal and formal ‘reviewers’ were thanked–separately–in the paper itself.)

    Predictably, she got spammed with some nasty material. (PEER’s rebuttal refers to this, and I personally verified the Climate Depot site’s post earlier today.)

    Vile behavior indeed.

  36. Re danish goals for wind power: Today is election day. Tomorrow we vil know more.

  37. Okay, Marc Morano is a MAJOR dick. If I were Monnett, I’d be strongly tempted to go over to Morano’s office and threaten to punch him in the nose. He’s harassing the guy’s _wife_ now? Jesus, doesn’t he have any shame?

  38. Using this stub-thread once again as an “Open Topic,” I note that those here looking for a “plaine and easie” introduction to climate change science and policy might like to know about Dr. Andrew Weaver’s latest book, Generation Us. It would be a great book to refer naive but interested questioners to–it’s especially suitable for adults in a hurry, ESOL readers, and high-school to advanced middle-school students, and is intended to be readable in a single sitting.

    You can read my summary review here:

    http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Generation-Us-The-Challenge-Of-Global-Warming-A-Summary-Review