<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax &#187; Richard Lindzen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://joannenova.com.au/tag/richard-lindzen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://joannenova.com.au</link>
	<description>Tackling tribal groupthink</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:11:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>When top scientists take 2 years to publish, it&#8217;s time to give up on old &#8220;Peer&#8221; review</title>
		<link>http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/when-top-scientists-take-2-years-to-publish-its-time-to-give-up-on-old-peer-review/</link>
		<comments>http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/when-top-scientists-take-2-years-to-publish-its-time-to-give-up-on-old-peer-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:43:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Joanne Nova</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feedback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindzen (Richard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PNAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Lindzen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joannenova.com.au/?p=15304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Ladies and Gentlemen this is the front line trench of modern science. If climate science is so important, and there is no time to waste, why does the system try so hard to discourage dissent (because they don&#8217;t want to find the truth, only the &#8220;correct&#8221; answer)? </p> <p>This paper by Lindzen and Choi was submitted and rejected by GRL in 2009, then rejected twice more by PNAS. (And in part because it needed to meet impossible standards. In the end, it was supposed to include &#8220;the kitchen sink&#8221; but fit into a sandwich bag &#8212; see below). The paper could have been out for discussion in 2009, and while it has improved upon revision, was it worth the two year wait? Those gains could have been made in two months (or two weeks) online.</p> <p style="text-align: center;"> </p> <p>Even the reviewers understand how significant these results would be if they are right. One admits the new paper shows the models don&#8217;t match the observations.</p> <p>Science needs free and open criticism, and competing theories. If Lindzen&#8217;s analysis is revolutionary, but potential wrong, is it so bad to publish those results? He is one of the most eminent researchers in the [...]<br /><div><img src="http://joannenova.com.au/wp/wp-content/plugins/gd-star-rating/gfx.php?value=0.0" /></div><div>Rating: 0.0/<strong>10</strong> (0 votes cast)</div><br />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/when-top-scientists-take-2-years-to-publish-its-time-to-give-up-on-old-peer-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>136</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A case against precipitous climate action</title>
		<link>http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/</link>
		<comments>http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JoNova</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Logic & Reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERBE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feedback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lindzen (Richard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Lindzen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://joannenova.com.au/?p=3053</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">UPDATED (see below)</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">Richard Lindzen is unarguably one of the top meteorologists in the world, with over 200 publications to his name, as well as awards, medals, prizes and is a member of the NAS, AAAS, AGU, AMS. He is The Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his work  includes major contributions to our understanding of the Hadley Circulation, small scale gravity waves on the mesosphere, as well as atmospheric tides and oscillations in the tropical stratosphere. From the beginning, he has questioned the claims that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions, pointing out that even with the poor resolution of ice cores back in the 1980&#8242;s it was still evident that there was a lag—as temperatures declined, carbon stayed high for thousands of years, something which didn&#8217;t sit well with the idea that carbon had a strong and constant force on the climate.</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;">What follows are his thoughts on the current state of the science. They must make it awkward for those who can&#8217;t help themselves but believe in authority. Here&#8217;s a man who knows more than most of us could ever hope [...]<br /><div><img src="http://joannenova.com.au/wp/wp-content/plugins/gd-star-rating/gfx.php?value=0.0" /></div><div>Rating: 0.0/<strong>10</strong> (0 votes cast)</div><br />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>102</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 1/23 queries in 0.007 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 365/388 objects using disk: basic

Served from: joannenova.com.au @ 2012-02-11 01:11:15 -->
