• Home
  • Current News
  • Non-academic, non-scientific organizations only may pontificate in the Proceedings of US PNAS

Non-academic, non-scientific organizations only may pontificate in the Proceedings of US PNAS

Written by Giordano Bruno

Giordano Bruno has submitted to PSI a supplement to his article ‘Does the PNAS have an interest in selling windmills, solar panels and sea walls and collecting carbon taxes?https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/03/does-the-pnas-have-an-interest-in-selling-windmills-solar-panels-and-sea-walls-and-collecting-carbon-taxes/

psi 2

Giordano writes:

Just a few remarks on my post: I wish to note how the authors of the extreme paper on the committed sea level rise of 9.9 meters that can only be approved and not criticized in PNAS are not exactly the academics that should write in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the United States of America. Similarly to the authors that were permitted to comment the paper to approve the claim and allow the authors of the original extreme paper one more reply, they are all minus one partners of climate blogs, financial companies and other organizations having nothing to do with science or academy.

Please look at the affiliations of the authors in the front page of original paper, comment and reply.

  1. Original paper.

pnas.org

Carbon choices determine US cities committed to futures below sea level

  1. Benjamin H. Straussa,1,

  2. Scott Kulpa, and

  3. Anders Levermannb,c

Author Affiliations

  1. aClimate Central, Princeton, NJ 08542;

  2. bPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany;

  3. cPhysics Institute of Potsdam University, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

  1. Edited by James Hansen, Columbia University, New York, NY, and approved September 18, 2015 (received for review June 8, 2015)

The 3 authors are 2 from Climate Central that is not exactly a scientific organization but a blog of alarmists, plus 1 from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the world leading organization in climate scare, showing his two academic affiliations possibly to mitigate the lack of an academic affiliation by the first two authors. Theoretically, only Anders Leverman qualifies as an academic. Please also note who edited the work. I am curious about who were the reviewers of this paper.

The paper may also be downloaded directly from climatecentral.org

  1. Comment to this work.

The only comment that has been permitted by PNAS has not been written by academics, but by affiliated to alarmist organizations or companies selling climate mitigation.

pnas.org

Although critical, carbon choices alone do not determine the fate of coastal cities

  1. Ezra Boyda,1,

  2. Vincenzo Pasquantoniob,

  3. Frank Rabalaisc, and

  4. Scott Eustisd

Author Affiliations

  1. aDisasterMap.net, LLC, Mandeville, LA 70448;

  2. bLevees.org, New Orleans, LA 70115;

  3. cCrescent Growth Capital, LLC, New Orleans, LA 70170;

  4. dGulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, LA 70130

Look at the affiliations: DisasterMap.net, LLC, Mandeville, LA 70448 is not a University. Levees.org, New Orleans, LA 70115 is also not a University. Crescent Growth Capital, LLC, New Orleans, LA 70170 I suppose it is a financial institution. Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, LA 70130 does not seem a University either.

Are these organizations those that provide the “science” to the National Academy of Science of the United States of America?

  1. Reply to the comment.

This is finally the reply. Some authors of the original paper.

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/10/E1330.extract

Reply to Boyd et al.: Large long-term sea level projections do not mean giving up on coastal cities

  1. Benjamin H. Straussa,1,

  2. Scott Kulpa, and

  3. Anders Levermannb,c

Author Affiliations

  1. aClimate Central, Princeton, NJ 08542;

  2. bPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany;

  3. cPhysics Institute of Potsdam University, 14476 Potsdam, Germany

Conclusions

PNAS has permitted not only one publication by these guys mostly without an academic affiliation, but also a comment by other extreme alarmists not having any academic affiliations, and the final reply by the original authors, while censoring every proper comment by academics.

The National Academy of Science of the United States of America has never gone so low before. Should not the editor in chief of PNAS resign?