Archive for August, 2011

Wind power has less potential than claimed and the role of gas is underestimated

August 14, 2011

That the intermittent nature of solar and wind power inherently limits how such capacity can be installed and despatched seems pretty obvious but has always been underestimated by the renewable energy lobby. As subsidies are reduced in the face of government cutbacks and as the still very high costs of renewable power work their way into electricity tariffs some of the “green sheen” surrounding solar and wind power is becoming decidedly tarnished.

A new  study of the UK energy system has been published by the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies 

The Impact of Import Dependency and Wind Generation on UK Gas Demand and Security of Supply to 2025

By Howard Rogers

Summary: This paper by Howard Rogers challenges the assumption of UK government policy papers and projections that, as a result of substantial increases in renewable and other low carbon generation capacity, the role of gas in the will decline rapidly over the next decade and beyond. The study suggests that gas will retain a central and undiminished role in the UK power generation sector. Although its role in the power generation sector may change, gas is likely to be particularly important in respect of ensuring security of supply in the context of increasing intermittent wind generation. As a result, additional gas storage will be needed and, given current market conditions, immediate attention needs to be devoted to creating incentives to ensure this will be provided.

The Telegraph writes:

UK Windpower targets are ‘unfeasible’

Howard Rogers, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, said in a study that Britain’s power network is not built for wind power accounting for more than a third of capacity on the system.

He said that any more than 28 gigawatts of wind would mean it is likely that turbine owners would regularly have to be paid to keep capacity off the system. Earlier this year, six wind farms were paid £900,000 to stop generating for one night, because the system became overloaded.

The study challenges the ambitious estimates in a study commissioned by the Government which estimates that 58 gigawatts of wind is likely to be built in a “medium activity” scenario by 2030, out of a total system of 80 gigawatts of capacity. …. Mr Rogers said this does not fully consider the ability of the grid to cope with the intermittency of wind, which often does not blow at all or can be too strong, causing overload.

“It would appear that the more ambitious targets for wind generation in the UK have been formulated without a full appreciation of the costs and complexities caused by the intermittency of very substantial levels of wind generation,” the report says. “The analysis concludes that the maximum feasible level of wind generating capacity is 28 gigawatts.

At higher levels than this, the country faces the prospect of short notice intervention to reduce turbine output with the added complication that forecasts of wind speed beyond six hours into the future are inherently uncertain.”

The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies is allied to three Oxford University colleges but also receives funding from “members” and sponsors, such as gas producers BP and BG Group and companies with huge investments in wind power, including Centrica and Dong Energy. Its gas research is also sponsored by National Grid.

Professor Jonathan Stern writes in the preface to the study: “It is no part of the remit of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies gas research programme to promote natural gas, either in the UK or more generally. We are gas researchers not advocates or lobbyists. However, our research increasingly suggests that the likely future role of gas in energy balances has and continues to be underestimated.”

Related:

Wind stops wind power….. 

Bio-gas is out, shale gas is in and there is no “peak” gas in sight!

Polargate: When peer review is degraded to spouse-review and friend-review

August 13, 2011

An earlier post carried the story of Charles Monnett who apparently when flying over the Arctic to survey whales thought he saw 3 or 4 dead polar bears in the water. He did not get any pictures and did not retrieve any carcases but instead wrote a paper  published in Polar Biology and which was supposedly peer-reviewed. He baldly presented his observations and then speculated that the bears had probably drowned in a storm and that many more of them would drown if global warming led to the melting of Arctic ice in the summers and forced  the poor polar bears to spend more time in open water.

It was all speculation even if one supposes that he actually saw some dead polar bears. His speculations were taken as established fact and blown up by the Global Warming orthodoxy. Al Gore, the almost -President of the US and the self-proclaimed inventor of the internet, picked up the story with gusto which then  played a major part in his science fantasy movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which helped to win him a Nobel prize.

Panic over the dead bears and Monnett’s wild hypotheses about them helped fuel calls for declaring the bears endangered, despite all evidence that their populations have actually been increasing over the last few years.  Monnett did quite well from the work, parlaying his fame into management of a $50 million study budget, the dream of all academics. – Coyote Blog

Monnet is now being investigated by the Interior Department’s Inspector General’s office for some kind of wrong-doing associated with his award of research contracts which has also led to interrogations about his sightings and his paper and subsequent research grants. Investigators are apparently  examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada’s University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office.

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as by Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the  million dollar Canadian study funded by Monnet’s generosity.

Monnets co-author Jeffrey Gleason is back-pedalling and is in damage-control mode.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.  
“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators.
 Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility who have also demanded an investigation of the investigation. They should perhaps pick their causes a little more carefully. Even the New York Times  weighs in but tries to trivialise the impact of the wrong-doing. Though just how they take computer model results to be a  “broad array of evidence” that “polar bear populations — and the health of the planet — will be threatened by climate change in future decades” is just a bit mysterious if not plain gullible.

A modest scientific observation about a few drowning polar bears has enmeshed a government wildlife biologist in an investigation into whether he is guilty of scientific misconduct. The investigation has taken on symbolic importance in the debate over global warming. …… Whatever the ultimate verdict on Dr. Monnett, the controversy over his observations is a minor sideshow in the global warming debate. A broad array of evidence suggests that polar bear populations — and the health of the planet — will be threatened by climate change in future decades even if not a single additional polar bear drowns while swimming far from shore.

That peer-review is often corrupted is not new but Monnet must be congratulated on getting his wife and a “friend” to be the reviewers.

But the Journal Polar Biology has been silent. How were the reviewers chosen?

Monnets original paper is here : Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming  by polar bears in the Arctic Beaufort Sea 


The Spine Journal takes on Medtronic and publication of questionable research

August 12, 2011

When medical researchers have financial ties – running into millions of dollars – with pharmaceutical or medical equipment companies, and then publish scientific, peer-reviewed papers which are to the financial benefit of these companies,  questions of scientific misconduct escalate to become questions of scientific fraud.

Medtronic is the world’s largest medical device company and Minnesota’s seventh-largest public company based on revenue, which totaled $15.93 billion for the fiscal year that ended April 29. Medtronic’s Infuse product is a bioengineered bone-growth protein that has been used in spinal fusion procedures for the past nine years and is used in about half of the 80,000 anterior lumbar fusion procedures performed every year in the United States.

According to Twin Cities Business, The Spine Journal recently published two articles about the product, one that claims the product may increase the risk of sterility in men, and another that claims that the product’s adverse effects were not reported in clinical research. Those effects reportedly include inflammation, back pain, infections, and potentially life-threatening complications. The Journal pointed out that researchers for 12 of the product’s 13 industry-sponsored studies had multimillion-dollar “financial associations” with Medtronic.

The Spine Journal seems to be on a crusade:

From the Nature News Blog:

The Spine Journal devoted its entire June issue – two clinical studies, two reviews, two commentaries and a scathing editorial – to picking apart Medtronic’s controversial bone growth treatment, Infuse. The drug, which is a recombinant form of the protein BMP-2, is used in some kinds of spinal fusion surgeries and racked up $900 million in sales last fiscal year, according to the New York Times.

Company-sponsored clinical trials for Infuse found no side effects directly linked to the drug. But a review and reanalysis of these studies published in Spine Journal found that the incidence of adverse events ranged from 10 to 50 percent, depending on the use. What’s more, the same review study, led by Eugene Carragee, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, reports that the authors of the supporting studies had financial ties to Medtronic ranging from $560,000 to $23,500,000, with a median of $12 million to $16 million. In some cases, the authors of these studies did not disclose the full extent of their financial relationships with Medtronic.

“A consistent number of people involved with these studies got extraordinary sums,” Carragee told the Times.

Side effects of the drug include cancer, fertility problems, infections, dissolving bone, and leg and back pain. According to the Times, Medtronic reported the side effects to the US Food and Drug Administration, as required.

In response to the Spine Journal articles, Medtronic CEO Omar Ishrak issued a  statement  that said: “While the Spine Journal articles raise questions about researchers’ conclusions in their published peer-reviewed literature, the articles do not raise questions about the data Medtronic submitted to the FDA in the approval process or the information available to physicians today through the instructions for use brochure attached to each product sold.”

The US Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into whether Medtronic illegally promoted Infuse for “off-label” applications not approved by the FDA, the Times reports.

 

The American Society of Business Publication Editors have acknowledged the efforts of the Spine Journal and awarded them the 2011 “Journalism That Matters” award. From the New York Times Media Decoder blog:

In June, the publication, The Spine Journal, devoted an entire issue to editorials and reports that challenged previous medical studies supporting the safety and effectiveness of Infuse, a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic. The product, a bioengineered material, is used mainly in spinal fusions.

The Spine Journal charged that academic experts paid by Medtronic to conduct earlier research about Infuse had issued biased and misleading results that overstated the product’s benefits and claimed that it did not pose risks.

On Friday, the American Society of Business Publication Editors celebrated the journal’s effort by presenting it with its 2011 “Journalism That Matters” award, an honor given in recognition of coverage that causes change by government or industry.

It is highly unusual for one group of researchers to publicly repudiate the work of professional colleagues. And by throwing down its challenge, the special issue of The Spine Journal, which is the official journal of the North American Spine Society, was something of a turning point in the debate over conflicts of interest in research paid for by makers of medical products.

Medtronic is on the defensive and is conducting a damage limitation exercise:

But there is little doubt that The Spine Journal’s coverage has had an effect. Last week, Medtronic took the unusual step of announcing that it was giving a $2.5 million grant to Yale so that independent researchers could conduct a broad review of all Infuse studies in order to determine the facts. 

Related:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110731/BUSINESS/307310070/Norton-pair-accused-hiding-risks-spine-drug?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Local%20News

http://beckersorthopedicandspine.com/spine/item/8901-two-more-spine-surgeons-cited-for-underreporting-infuse-complications

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/paul-taylor/medtronic-pledges-independent-review-of-bone-graft-product/article2119735/

 

An analysis of retractions of scientific papers in India

August 12, 2011

From Professor T.A. Abinandanan on his blog Nanopolitan:

Scientific Misconduct in India: An Analysis of Retractions in PubMed

I presented this work at the Workshop on Academic Ethics organized by Rahul Siddharthan, Gautam Menon and N.S. Siddharthan about a month ago.

Quick summary: PubMed database lists ~103,000 papers published by Indian authors during the previous decade (2001-2010); 70 of these papers have been retracted, and 45 of the retractions are due to some form of misconduct. Plagiarism is overwhelmingly the primary mode of misconduct: all but one of the 45 misconduct-related retractions were due to plagiarism.

If that doesn’t sound bad enough, consider this: At 44 per 100,000 papers, India’smisconduct rate is far higher than that of countries such as the UK, the USA, Germany and Japan.

There’s some silver lining, though: Retraction of papers from Indian authors show a steep fall since 2007 — either because Indian researchers know better now, or because plagiarized papers are ever less likely to make it to print in the first place due to increasingly widespread use of plagiarism detecting software by journals.

Here’s the html version; if you prefer a pdf, get it from here.

Indian exports up 82% as focus shifts to new markets in Africa and S. America

August 12, 2011

Financial turbulence in India’s traditional markets in Europe and the US have threatened to limit  development. Even though domestic consumption has increased significantly in the last decade the Indian economy is still very dependent upon exports. There has been a shift of emphasis in the last few years as India has tried to emulate China and develop new markets in Africa and South America.

Although exports had contracted for 13 straight months beginning November 2008, India rebounded from the crisis quickly, logging an unprecedented 37.6% growth in 2010-11 on the back of incentives and a push into new markets in Latin America and Africa.

July exports surged nearly 82% from a year ago to $29.3 billion while imports grew 51.5% to $40.4 billion, trade data released on Thursday showed. 

Exports of engineering goods, which now account for as much as 30% of the export basket, to Latin America increased four-fold during April to July. The IT industry too intensified exports to the region while the pharmaceutical industry found huge demand for its generics in Brazil and Mexico.

This strategy targeting Latin America and Africa has its limits since in absolute terms the US and EU still account for a third of the country’s exports and a large portion of India’s imports. Any decline in exports to these regions will create a balance of payments problem. In April-July 2011, imports grew 40% to $151 billion, expanding the trade deficit to $42.7 billion. In July alone, the trade deficit was $11 billion.

Fortunately the 2011 monsoon looks like being  close to an “average monsoon” which should keep domestic demand buoyant. But the best long-term demand hedge for India will be in differentiating from Chinese products and increasing exports to China. Imports from China are growing fast and to get trade with China into a more healthy balance will also reduce the balance of payment risks.

From the Hindu Business Line (which is by far the most balanced and reliable financial newspaper in India):

NEW DELHI, AUG 11: 

Exports in July grew by an astonishing 81.8 per cent to $29.3 billion, according to provisional data released by the Commerce Secretary, Dr Rahul Khullar, on Thursday.

The drivers of this growth – the fastest since April 1995, according to Bloomberg – were sectors such as engineering, petroleum products, readymade garments, gems and jewellery. The strategy to diversify to new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America has helped in maintaining high growth rates.

Dr Khullar, however, told reporters that the growth rates will definitely slowdown from August due to a demand contraction in traditional markets such as the US and Europe. He said the increase in interest cost is hurting small and medium exporters, adding that, “I am trying to get something done on that front”. …..

Since consumers in the US and Europe — owing to lower income and fear of job losses — are likely to switch over to cheaper products, exporters adapting quickly to cater such a demand will survive, Dr Khullar said. He added that the country is “better prepared” to face any slowdown than it was in 2008 during the global financial crisis.

Dr Khullar said that monthly exports are likely to fall to less than $25 billion, which would make it tough to achieve a figure of $300 billion for the entire fiscal. In 2010-11, India’s merchandise exports were valued at a record $246 billion. …… 

Meanwhile, imports in July rose 51.5 per cent to $40.4 billion. Trade deficit (gap between imports and exports) in July widened to $11.1 billion, up from $7.7 billion in June and $8.9 billion in April 2011. It had touched a $15 billion–high in May.

Dr Khullar said the high level of trade deficit continues to be a worry, adding that it could be over $130 billion for this fiscal. Trade deficit during April-July 2011 is already $42.7 billion.

Exports during April-July 2011 jumped 54 per cent to $108.3 billion, while imports during this period increased 40 per cent to $151 billion.

Engineering exports were $8.7 billion in July alone and $31.6 billion during April-July 2011 due to a huge increase in such shipments to Africa and Latin America. Thanks to high oil prices, shipments of petroleum products also rose. They were worth $4.6 billion in July and $18.6 billion in April-July, an increase of 60 per cent.

Mr Khullar said exports of most sectors have shown huge growth due to the ‘lag effect’ as these were the orders that Indian exporters received months before the recent crisis in US and Europe, tsunami in Japan, huge inflation in China and a robust growth in Latin America.

If you can’t kill the virus, kill the cells that contain the virus

August 11, 2011

An ingenious way of getting around the problem of attacking viruses. An MIT press release desribes a development that could transform how viral infections are treated. A team of researchers at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory has designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection.

Rider TH, Zook CE, Boettcher TL, Wick ST, Pancoast JS, et al. (2011) Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22572. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022572

Todd Rider invented the PANACEA and DRACO antiviral therapeutics, and previously invented the CANARY (Cellular Analysis and Notification of Antigen Risks and Yields) sensor for rapid pathogen detection and identification: Image MIT

In a paper published July 27 in the journal PLoS One, the researchers tested their drug against 15 viruses, and found it was effective against all of them — including rhinoviruses that cause the common cold, H1N1 influenza, a stomach virus, a polio virus, dengue fever and several other types of hemorrhagic fever.

The drug works by targeting a type of RNA produced only in cells that have been infected by viruses. “In theory, it should work against all viruses,” says Todd Rider, a senior staff scientist in Lincoln Laboratory’s Chemical, Biological, and Nanoscale Technologies Group who invented the new technology.

Because the technology is so broad-spectrum, it could potentially also be used to combat outbreaks of new viruses, such as the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak, Rider says.

Other members of the research team are Lincoln Lab staff members Scott Wick, Christina Zook, Tara Boettcher, Jennifer Pancoast and Benjamin Zusman.

McGill University reprimands Professor for medical ghostwriting

August 11, 2011

Something stinks when academics are “helped” to write their papers by professional ghostwriters who are paid for by pharmaceutical companies. It is even worse when the papers are written by the pharmaceutical companies  and academics in the field are flattered or otherwise persuaded by their agents to put their names to the papers. McGill University has “reprimanded” a senior professor, Barbara Sherwin, for the practice but are at pains to point out that she has not been “sanctioned”.

What exactly does a reprimand – which is no sanction – accomplish?

The ghostwriting for what was ostensibly a peer-reviewed scientific article was essentially just promotional literature for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals’ and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Wyeth paid a New Jersey professional-writing firm, DesignWrite, to help Sherwin produce a paper on treatment options for age associated memory loss that was eventually published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. The paper was published in 2000. Sherwin was listed as the sole author of that paper, even though Karen Mittleman, an employee of DesignWrite, was involved in the process. The paper was published just when critics started raising doubts about hormone-replacement therapy.

Wyeth – through DesignWrite – had commissioned at least 40 scientific papers endorsing the therapy. During 2001, Wyeth sold hormones for HRT worth $2.1 billion.

Apparently Dr. Sherwin is no longer a member of the Quebec Order of Psychologists, which means she can no longer practice under the title of psychologist.

The Montreal Gazette has the full story.

Even more worrying is the Macleans story that Karen Mittleman of DesignWrite – on behalf of Wyeth – actually solicited this paper. There is also a hint of a rather cozy relationship between the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society and DesignWrite.

The stink is more of a stench!

Her alleged transgression came to light in a class-action suit involving 8,400 women against the drug company Wyeth (now part of Pfizer). Lawyers representing the women, who claim they were harmed by their hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drugs, discovered that scientific research papers extolling the virtues of the treatment while downplaying potential harm appeared to have been written, not by the academics who signed their name to the papers, but by writers hired by the pharmaceutical company.
According to court documents filed by the plaintiffs, Wyeth paid the Princeton, New Jersey-based medical communications company DesignWrite to produce articles on HRT for publication in academic journals between 1997 and 2003. DesignWrite would write the papers, then approach leading academics to claim authorship for them.

Sherwin’s relationship with the pharmaceutical company started innocently enough. In the early 1990s, she was invited to give a presentation about her work on androgens and psychological functioning in women. There, she met a woman named Karen Mittleman during the lunch break. Mittleman introduced herself as a PhD and a former academic who worked in medical communications. The pair hit it off, and kept in touch. “I liked her, and considered her a casual friend,” Sherwin told Maclean’s over the phone from her office at McGill.
Several years later, in 1998, Mittleman called Sherwin to ask if she wanted to write a paper for the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society at the invitation of the journal’s editor. The subject was pharmacological treatment options for age-associated memory loss. Sherwin, an expert on hormones and how they influence memory and mood in people, had just completed a grant proposal on the subject, and said she’d be happy to write the article. 
“[Mittleman] told me she would provide support by typing the manuscript and formatting it in the style of that particular journal,” explains Sherwin. The work itself would be based on Sherwin’s notes. In return, Mittleman, a senior writer at DesignWrite, promised to send Sherwin typed drafts for editing, and hard copies of references the professor requested. “I was completely under the impression that [Mittleman] was working for the journal, that it was the journal who hired her.” 

What Mittleman never revealed was that her employer, DesignWrite, had a business relationship with Wyeth and other pharmaceutical companies.

Karen Mittleman, as Antidote has noted, has the perfect Dickensian name for her job as the go-between finding researchers willing to sign their names to papers written by drug companies.

The reprimand by McGill seems little more than a very mild slap on the wrist.

Related: McGill sets bad example on integrity

Chinese trade surplus at a record high as US downgrade threatens their holdings

August 10, 2011
National emblem of the People's Republic of China

Image via Wikipedia

The Chinese economy is not immune to whatever craziness is going on around the world. They hold such a large amount of US treasury bonds that the gridlock and political irresponsibility in Washington is leading to some fundamental policy changes regarding their reserve holdings. The People’s Bank of China owns about $1.1 trillion of US Treasury bonds out of the  $1.5-trillion treasury bonds or so of foreign treasuries that it holds amid China’s total reserves of about $3.2 trillion.

It is not therefore surprising then that China is among those most concerned by Standard & Poor’s recent downgrade of the United States’ AAA credit rating. It was sufficiently concerned to publicly chastise the US for its irresponsibility!

“The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone,” reported the Xinhua news agency.

Meanwhile

BEIJING, Aug. 10 (Xinhua) — China Wednesday reported faster than expected growth in exports, imports and trade surplus in July, but analysts said the picture would become worse in the coming months amid a faltering global economy.

The trade surplus rose sharply to a record high of 31.48 billion U.S. dollars in July from June’s 22.27 billion U.S. dollars and the 28.7 million U.S. dollars in the same period a year ago, the General Administration of Customs (GAC) said on its website.

July exports rose 20.4 percent year-on-year to reach 175.128 billion U.S. dollars, a record monthly high compared with 17.9 percent in June. Imports quickened from June’s 19.3 percent to 22.9 percent to 143.64 billion U.S. dollars.

The robust readings suggests both China’s competitiveness in exports and domestic demand are in relatively good shape, Bank of America-Merrill Lynch economist Lu Ting said in an email to clients.

Exports to the EU and Japan rose to 22.3 percent and 27.2 percent year-on-year in July from 11.4 percent and 20 percent in June.

And exports to the United States expanded 9.5 percent, down slightly from 9.8 percent in June, but down significantly from 13.3 percent in the second quarter and 21.4 percent in the first quarter, which indicated weakness in the U.S. economy has been weighing on its imports from China, according to Lu. ….

On Wednesday morning, yuan hit a record high of 6.4167 against the U.S. dollar.

US politicians in the Administration and those grand-standing in Congress will need to get their act in order if they are to avoid the day when the Chinese are no longer around to buy their debt. As it is, China is now engaged in diversifying its foreign reserves away from US dollars to other currencies and even other asset classes and is under severe internal pressure to accelerate this diversification.

Marc Hauser’s lobbyists get to work but only end up excusing scientific misconduct

August 9, 2011

Marc Hauser’s friends have started on the process of repairing some of the damage to his reputation brought about by his own misconduct. He has “resigned” from Harvard but – with a little help from his friends – he will no doubt pop-up with a fancy title at some other institution soon.

 The Harvard Crimson reports that a group of academics have written a “letter” criticising the investigation of Hauser’s misconducts by Harvard. The letter was written by Pierre Pica, a scientist at the National Center for Scientific Research, Bert Vaux, director of studies in linguistics at King’s College in the University of Cambridge, and Jeffrey Watumull, a Ph.D. student at the University of Cambridge. Watumull previously worked in Hauser’s lab. Eight other academics including Naom Chomsky have added their signatures.

But they protest too much about one of their own. I felt on reading their letter that while they accuse Harvard of a witch-hunt and express concern about the undermining of scientific inquiry they actually end up trivialising ethical behaviour and excusing scientific misconduct. Their concern does not ring true. The letter talks about a media frenzy against Hauser but ignores the fact that nothing came up in the media until after the 3 year investigation had shown the misconduct and Hauser had taken a year’s gardening leave.

Harvard Crimson: Monday, August 08, 2011

The letter—which was signed by MIT Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky, one of Hauser’s mentors—criticizes the scope of the inquiry into Hauser’s research, the media frenzy that followed the release of Harvard’s findings, and insinuations that Hauser’s body of work has been thrown into question by the investigation. ….

Eight academics from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Brazil signed the letter, including Harvard Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology Florian Engert. It has been circulated among top academics.

The Crimson obtained a copy of the letter—titled “Could the Process of Investigating Scientific Misconduct Undermine Scientific Inquiry?”—from the authors.

Following allegations that Hauser falsified research data, a three-year investigation into Hauser’s research found him “solely responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct,” Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith wrote in a letter last August. Reports attributed the source of those allegations to his graduate students.

In the fallout from the investigation, Hauser took a year-long leave of absence, was then barred from teaching for another year, and ultimately resigned from his tenured position this summer.

Related: Hausergate posts

Arctic Ice: “Rapture” of an ice free Arctic now postponed till 2030

August 9, 2011

The ice free Arctic which was to have happened in 2008 according to Mark Serreze of the doomsday crowd has now been postponed till 2030 while scientists find that current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.

From WUWT’s Quote of the week:

WUWT

We all cringed, then laughed when Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC first said it, then marveled about it as it got a life of its own, being the buzzphrase for every alarmist who wanted to shriek about declining Arctic sea ice.

In 2007 we heard him say:

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.

So far, the “screaming” hasn’t kept anyone awake at night, and we have not returned to the low of 2007 in the last three melt seasons.

In 2008 Serreze made the  bold claim:

The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

And in 2008 we had the forecast from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze of an “ice free north pole”.  As we know, that didn’t even come close to being true. Summer 2008 had more arctic ice than summer 2007, and summer 2007 was not “ice free” by any measure.

With those failed predictions behind him,  in an interview in The Age just a few weeks ago, Serreze pulled a Harold Camping, and changed his prediction date. Now he’s saying the new date for an ice free summer is 2030.

”There will be ups and downs, but we are on track to see an ice-free summer by 2030. It is an overall downward spiral.”

And in the meantime research reveals that ice levels in the Arctic were about half the present levels some 5000 years ago and had no problems in recovering.

Scientists say current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.