Mission of DrK's Blog: To stimulate neurogenesis. To promote critical thinking and systems thinking. To provoke thoughts and questions about the assumptions and "models" (e.g., mental, computer, scientific, linguistic, economic, environmental, biological, etc.) we use to comprehend and communicate our experience (as humans, citizens, employees, family members, teammates, etc.) and upon which we base important decisions effecting ourselves and our families, organizations, communities, societies, government, economy, and world. ==========================================================================================================================================

Still a work in progress, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 needs your support

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 00:10
in

Pediatric Neurologist Martha Herbert MD & PhD from Harvard Medical School theorizes that the dramatic increase in autism and other neurological disorders in children is related to the dramatic increase in largely untested chemicals in our food, air, and water. Join with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to tell your senators to protect children and support the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 today!

EWG's groundbreaking research has found hundreds of chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborns. It proves that babies being born every day have already been exposed to toxic chemicals.

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 would require the chemical industry to prove that its products are safe before they are sold. Under this bill, chemicals would have to be tested against a strong standard that protects the most vulnerable among us, especially children. The same safety standard has already been shown to be effective and feasible when used for determining the safety of pesticides. This bill as currently written would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to restrict or prohibit chemicals already known to be dangerous. It would also protect the public from smoke-screening secrecy claims.

The bill as it stands needs work since sadly the EPA is already out of control and doesn't need more power to abuse in foolish and destructive ways that hurt citizens and the economy. Hopefully our political leader on both sides of the aisle can find a reasonable way to protect the public and allow our important chemical industry to thrive as well. No doubt massive political contributions will corrupt the process but hopefully sanity and safety will prevail.

Support the efforts of the EWG. It's the only environmental group left that actually wants human beings to live on the earth too.

Click the link below to email your senators and tell them to protect children from chemical pollutants.

Editorial: The phony ‘consensus’ on climate change

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 15:04
in

From: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/article_e642454a-35b3-57dc-9a75-...

The end is near ...

... that is, for the myth that scientists have reached "consensus" on global warming and climate change caused by humans.

The theory (more accurately called a religion for the redistribution of wealth) has taken a number of body blows in recent times -- although the climate-change lobby is still straining to impose its view on the world. For example, Time magazine issued a screed headlined "Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?" The piece wonders why any doubts linger. Time says, "an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does."

Of course, this is the same magazine that predicted the onset of a new ice age in the early 1970s and scared the dickens out of millions. In the end, it turned out to be a myth.

That consensus exists today is just another myth, and it's time to debunk it.

Even climate-change skeptics agree that the human race is changing the composition of the atmosphere. With more people on the planet enjoying great wealth and comfort thanks to industry, there's a bit more carbon dioxide. That goes in the "So what?" file.

Beyond that, though, there is no consensus -- not on whether C02 is warming the planet, not on how major those changes are, not on whether humanity is to blame, not on whether warmth is harmful and not on what to do about it.

Those who say otherwise and tout the alleged consensus are at best naive.

Take, for instance, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. At a national Republican debate he said that global-warming skeptics were denying what "98 out of 100 climate scientists" believe in.

James Taylor of the Heartland Institute quickly responded that Huntsman seemed to be referring to an online survey to which 77 people responded -- a survey in which the questions were so slanted and vague as to be meaningless.

Scientists bailing out

That could be put down as one incident -- except that the "consensus" trope is so widely used as a weapon to bludgeon critics into silence. The truth is that more and more scientists are rejecting the notion that such a complex debate can be closed.

Last month, for instance, a winner of the Nobel Prize in physics resigned from a major scientific group to protest its close-minded stance on climate change. In his resignation from the American Physical Society, Ivar Giaever wrote: "In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Others have been more blunt. Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, also resigned from the group with these words:

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

And just for argument, if numbers are the criterion, they have plenty of company. More than 400 scientists raised questions about the warming hypothesis in a 2007 report to the U.S. Senate. An update of that report in 2010 swelled that total to about 1,000 signers.

Meanwhile, more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that human activity is responsible for major climate change. The petition, now under the auspices of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, asserts: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments."

If you want to play the numbers game, let's look at one example: 52 scientists wrote a key warming tract, 2007's IPCC Summary for Policymakers. That means they are outnumbered 600 to 1 by the signers of the Oregon Institute petition.

The carbon problem

Over the last decade, global emissions of carbon dioxide increased 28 percent. Africa's carbon-dioxide emissions rose 30 percent, Asia's 44 percent, and the Middle East's 57 percent. China's emissions more than doubled. China's emissions in one year now total more than 2 billion tons more than what the U.S. produces. Plus, the pace if anything is accelerating. Last year China's production of CO2 grew 10 percent, while emissions in the U.S. decreased.

Developing nations, and their billions of residents, are voting, by their actions, to reject climate-change hysteria. That's because there are better places to spend money to achieve a better life in light of the flimsy foundation on which climate change is built.

But isn't science on the side of the doomsayers? Not good science. The theories behind the hysteria are being shaken by new ideas and discoveries. Essential questions are still unanswered. For instance, Nobel Prize-winner Giaever is among those who have noted the difficulty in verifying any data about worldwide climate and in proving that warming would be a bad thing.

"The claim [how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?] is that the temperature has changed from 288.0 to 288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which [if true] means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

The ocean problem

In talking to the New York Times, he brought up another inconvenient truth about the data: "There is no unusual rise in the ocean level, so where is the big problem?"

What? Isn't Antarctica about to melt, and isn't New York going to be engulfed by the rising sea?

Um ... no. Last year, scientists involved in a key study claiming ocean levels were rising had to retract their research after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The authors of the paper in Nature Geoscience said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work."

In other words, they don't know. But one of the world's leading researchers in sea-level studies says he does. And he says ocean levels are not -- repeat, not -- rising catastrophically.

Nils-Axel Mærner is chief of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Sweden's Stockholm University. He said the sea level rose by about 1 millimeter a year from about 1850 to perhaps 1940. That's a tiny amount. But then sea levels fell. "There's no trend, absolutely no trend," Mærner said.

What about the IPCC report on rising ocean levels? He said the IPCC team didn't record ­-- i.e., actually see -- such an increase. It was a "correction factor" of a computer model. In other words, Mærner said, "It is a falsification of the data set."

What about the Maldives Islands sinking into the Indian Ocean? Morner went there. Islanders confirmed there was a sinking of the sea level -- in the 1970s. But it was probably caused by other factors, not the level of the ocean. That new level, moreover, "has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years."

Yet, what about the polar regions melting? "Antarctic is certainly not melting," he said. "All the Antarctic records show expansion of ice."

Too often, he says, global warming theorists actually have no background in sea-level research. "So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations," Mærner says. "The observations don't find it!"

A computer model is built with computer programming. And there's that old acronym: "GIGO," or Garbage In, Garbage Out.

As for the increase in carbon dioxide, human activity may be only a tiny factor. Last month, Murry Salby, chair of the climate department at Macquarie University in Australia, asserted that natural sources account for 96 percent of overall CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not the supervillain the warming crowd makes it out to be. It is essential to the environment, according to Craig Idso, chief of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide. He has even written a book listing 55 ways CO2 improves the environment.

In extreme amounts virtually anything is a poison, but CO2 is simply not present in extreme amounts. And even if it were, there's nothing anybody could do about it.

"Everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas," Idso has said. "What very few people seem to know is that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse gas, and so as far as I know we will not be able to control water vapor in the atmosphere as long as the wind blows over the ocean."

That inconvenient sun

Which brings up the question: how about controlling the sun?

In June, the National Solar Observatory and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory reported three separate analyses indicating that the sun is now entering a cycle of low sunspot activity. Such periods have corresponded with global cooling -- including the "Little Ice Age" from 1645 to 1715.

Moreover, a recent paper in the prestigious journal Nature reported on findings from Europe's CERN Laboratory, the most advanced particle accelerator in the world. Scientists there have concluded that cosmic rays play a much larger role than previously thought in creating clouds on earth. Obviously, cloud cover has a huge effect on temperatures.

Which means that all warming theories have to go back to the drawing board.

Politics vs. science

There is furious debate going on these days over what to do about warming. The debate is mostly political, which would include scientists in search of government funding.

Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, while asserting that the planet is warming, nevertheless argues "that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years."

To sum up, neither scientists nor scientific theory provide a "consensus" on whether climate change is happening, what it might mean, and what to do about it.

All this just underlines a central truth: Science is not a popularity contest. What counts is not how many people believe something, or whether they call themselves scientists, or whether they are able to bully critics into silence. What counts is what is true.

The only honorable and useful course is for global-warming advocates to stop browbeating critics into silence while pretending that consensus exists. Instead it's time to engage in an honest review of all the complex theory and data. Then and only then will rational progress be possible.

Copyright 2011 Daily Herald. All rights reserved

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/article_e642454a-35b3-57dc-9a75-e7bee5853a9b.html#ixzz1aVMiTcym

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group's Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Wed, 09/14/2011 - 23:26
in

He joins thousands of other scientists who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming theory (which at times seems to pose as religious dogma instead of just a theory which happens to have little factual basis).  

Would you bet $100 on the accuracy of a 5-day weather forecast?  Then why are we betting trillions on 100-year weather forecasts?  Study the facts.  Make up your own mind.

Whether you believe there is warming or not (the evidence for which is often largely a function of when you start to measure it and which readings you chose to use), there is scant scientific evidence that humans are causing changes to our climate.  There is far more evidence that the climate models and their underlying theories are far less than perfect and that things humans have little control over (like the sun, oceans, and the greenhouse gas water vapor) are far far more responsible for climate than anything humans do.

Don't let your desire to be a good steward of the planet we all love be misdirected into obsessing over the plant food carbon dioxide while thousands of known toxins are allowed into our food, air, and water daily by those who want you to believe that your exhales are destroying the earth.  What does your common sense tell you about that situation?

We know that in the past the Earth had much higher temperatures and much higher level of CO2 (carbon dioxide).  That CO2 facilitated the growth of plant life on the planet which in turn provided oxygen and nutrition for animal life.  The Earth still works that way and thanks to CO2 and plants, we humans thrived.  Now, suddenly, the CO2 that makes up less than one-half of one percent of our atmosphere is destroying the place.  What does your common sense tell you about that?

From http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming.

Emphasis mine.

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.'

Wednesday, September 14, 2011By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: '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.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming: 'We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated'

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,”

Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can't be discussed -- just like religion...there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It's strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science' & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' -- APS President Curtis Callan 'seems to have abandoned most ethical principles...APS has become a corrupt organization' & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis -- AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

APS President has been under fire as well. See: 'APS President Callan didn't even bother to discuss the ClimateGate and the petition inspired by it with Will Happer and Robert Austin'

Below is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

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.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

********************************************************************************************************

Ivar Giaever

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 10:27
in

Sadly, this is only one of countless examples of science corrupted by ideology, political agenda, and money.  Seems to be particularly rampant in medical (particularly FDA-related drug research) and environmental sciences these days.

by  Audrey Hudson

08/11/2011

Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.
 
But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.
 
Special agents from the Interior Department’s inspector general's office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.
 
Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18.  Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.
 
The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”
 
It galvanized the environmental movement that led to the bear’s controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, and it is now protected under the Endangered Species Act.
 
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, according to the transcript.
 
“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May.  “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”
 
Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.
 
“I think these sorts of things tend to mushroom, and the interpretation gets popularized,” Gleason said.  “Something very small turns into this big snowball coming down the mountain, and that's, I think, what happened with this paper.”
 
Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.
 
“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.
 
Monnett now manages $50 million in studies as part of his duties as a wildlife biologist with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.
 
Investigators are also 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 work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general's office.
 
Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which posted the interviews the inspector general's office conducted with both scientists on its website.
 
PEER calls Monnett’s work “groundbreaking research,” and says the investigation is a political attempt to “impugn his observations on polar bears’ vulnerability to retreating sea ice.”
 
“With each interview, it becomes more outrageous that government funds are being spent on this crackpot probe while paying Dr. Monnett’s salary to sit at home,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of PEER.
 
“This seven-page paper, which had undergone internal peer review, management review and outside peer review coordinated by journal editors, galvanized scientific and public appreciation for the profound effects that climate change may already be having in the Arctic,” PEER said in another statement in support of Monnett.
 
Eric Holder’s Justice Department has already declined to pursue any criminal prosecution in the probe, but the scientists still face possible administrative action for any wrongdoing, the inspector general said in the memo.
 
With investigators suggesting his research is collapsing, Monnett was defensive in the interview, and asked for the inspectors’ credentials to question his work or second-guess his calculations.
 
For example, there was some confusion as to whether it was three or four dead bears used in the calculation to determine the ratio of survival, and whether Monnett assumed that four swimming bears seen the week earlier were the same polar bears recorded as dead in the next survey.  The statistic in question was the percentage of bears likely to survive when swimming in a storm—Monnett estimated it to be around 25%, whereas investigators put the number at more than 57%.
 
“Is there a potential we made a mistake, and the peer reviewers didn’t catch it?  Possibly,” Gleason said.
 
If the scientists had reported the 57% figure, investigator May said, “how people were taking this and exaggerating the results, probably may not have happened in terms of the world taking your study as attributing [the drownings to] global warming.”
 
After nearly two hours of Monnett defending his work to investigators, Ruch from PEER asked the officials to explain what allegations are being made against Monnett.
 
May said they are examining the “wrong numbers,” “miscalculations” and “scientific misconduct.”
 
“Well, that’s not scientific misconduct anyway,” Monnett said.  “If anything, it’s sloppy.”
 
“I mean, that’s not—I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to change it,” Monnett said.
 
“I sure don’t see any indication of that in what you’re asking me about,” Monnett said.
 
The actual survey Monnett was conducting when he observed the dead bears in 2004 was the migration of bowhead whales.  Investigators questioned how he later obtained data for a table listing live and dead polar bear sightings from 1987 to 2004.
 
“So how could you make the statement that no dead polar bears were observed” during that time period? May asked.
 
“Because we talked to the people that had flown the flights, and they would remember whether they had seen any dead polar bears,” Monnett said.
 
Asked whether he had any documentation to back that up, Monnett said that he did not.
 
“Science is about making the best case you can to test your hypothesis,” Monnett said.  “You assemble your arguments and your data, you put it out there, and you see who’s going to knock it down.”
 
“And surprisingly, nobody, you know, knocked this down in any way.  Everybody was just kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah, four dead polar bears.  Okay, that’s kind of cool,’ ” Monnett said.
 
Dr. Rob Roy Ramey, a biologist who specializes in endangered species scientific issues for Wildlife Science International, Inc., reviewed Monnett’s paper as well as the inspector general's interviews for HUMAN EVENTS and said that the authors made unwarranted assumptions and large extrapolations based on a single event.
 
“They did not know if the polar bears actually drowned, they assumed that they had drowned.  There were no statistical tests, just extrapolations made with no accounting for measurement error,” Ramey said.
 
“The paper gives the appearance that rigorous surveying was done for polar bears, when it was not,” Ramey said.
 
“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”
 
Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.
 
“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said.  “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent.  If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”
 
“I think it’s very illustrative of the problems with government research on endangered species, and raises the question as to whether government should be in the business of science,” Ramey said.
 
Numerous studies contributed to the bear’s listing as a protected species, including the paper on polar bear drowning, which was cited in the Federal Register’s proposed rule.
 
In making the announcement May 14, 2008, to protect the bear under the Endangered Species Act, the Interior Department said the listing “is based on the best available science, which shows the loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat.”
 
The Interior Department said it would modify regulatory language “to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a backdoor climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.”
 
As part of the Endangered Species Act listing, the department said work would continue with scientists to monitor polar bear populations and trends, as well as the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.
 
“Power, money, authority and recognition come with listings on the endangered species list,” Ramey said.
 
Investigators conducted a second interview with Monnett on Tuesday.  PEER said in a statement afterward that his “2006 peer-reviewed journal article on drowned polar bears remains the focus of the inquiry.”
 
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that the government is expected to “spend trillions of dollars to save the world from global warming on the basis of what a few scientists say.”
 
“There needs to be due diligence, and we need to challenge and investigate every single claim.  The public expects that,” Ebell said.  “But we find over and over that shoddy science has been put forward, and in some cases, dishonest and manipulated science, and they say, ‘Trust us,’ ” Ebell said.
 
“It’s extremely irresponsible.”

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

New NASA data challenges global warming alarmism

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Fri, 07/29/2011 - 10:05
in

Like the 5-day weather forecast, the 100-year ones are prone to error.  In fact, more so given their added complexity.  From the report: "'There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.'  Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy ...."

From http://www.kurzweilai.net/new-nasa-data-challenges-global-warming-alarmism

New NASA data challenges global warming alarmism

July 29, 2011 by Editor

Volcanic particles in upper atmosphere slow down global warming, says NASA (credit: USGS)

NASA satellite data show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, according to a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

In research published in the journal Remote Sensing, Spencer and UAHuntsville’s Dr. Danny Braswell compared what a half dozen climate models say the atmosphere should do to satellite data showing what the atmosphere actually did during the 18 months before and after warming events between 2000 and 2011.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks.

Energy lost, not gained: satellite data

Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.

“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.

Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.

Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases.

“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”

For this experiment, the UAHuntsville team used surface temperature data gathered by the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Great Britain. The radiant energy data was collected by the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments aboard NASA’s Terra satellite.

The six climate models were chosen from those used by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UAHuntsville team used the three models programmed using the greatest sensitivity to radiative forcing and the three that programmed in the least sensitivity.

New book -- "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax"

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 14:15
in

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire. 

The so-called climate change issue is critically important economically, politically, socially, and environmentally.  Too important to be left just to politicians, their funded scientists, and the unquestioning media.  I suggest you question everything you read and hear, including this blog.  Follow the money and question the quality and motives of your sources.  Consider the possibility that we have been (and continue to be) duped (intentionally or otherwise) by those who wish to gain power and money by appealing to our noble desires to be responsible caretakers of the earth and its environment.  Sources outside the mainstream political, media, and government-funded science like this book by Larry Bell and the other sources mentioned over the years in my blog are worthy of your time and consideration ...

Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax
by Larry Bell (internationally recognized space architect who holds an endowed professorship established in his name at the University of Houston).

The Hype Behind the Hysteria
THE IDEOLOGICAL, POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL FABRICATION OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS

Mostly sunny with a chance of showers. That just about sums up the weather forecast in any-town, USA. It covers all the bases: sun, rain and clouds, yet meteorologists notoriously get it wrong! When it comes to global warming why should we believe they finally got it right?

From Orson Welles' warning about the Martian invasion in 1938 to the New York Times predicting a new ice age in 1975, the American public has been subject to outlandish hoaxes and misinformation. The threat of global warming is no different. Larry Bell, internationally recognized space architect and author of the new book, Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax, exposes the hype behind the hoax.

Written for the layman, yet in-depth enough for the specialist, Climate of Corruption digs deep into the natural and political aspects of the climate change debate, answering fundamental questions that reveal politization and misrepresentation of science. Why and how are some of the world's most prestigious research organizations cashing in on the debate? Which hidden ideological and financial agendas benefit most by promoting public climate change hysteria? Whose purposes are served by the demonization of carbon dioxide as a 'pollutant'? How do climate deceptions advance irresponsible energy policy and  global wealth redistribution goals?

"Yes, climate change is real, occurring with regular and irregular cycles and for lots of reasons," says Bell."Scientists know about many of them, but they know less about how these dynamic causes and effects interact or what combined results will occur at any given time. No one, not anyone, can even begin to predict what Earth's global climate will be in a decade or longer, much less the impact it will have on us."

Debunking the man-made climate crisis, Climate of Corruption, disputes the global warming theory with hard facts:
   *  Sets the Climate Record Straight - explains natural, unpredictable cycles and forces that influence climate change over long and short periods                   
   *  Challenges Fabrications and Myths - factually dispels unfounded claims of consensus among scientists and other experts
   *  Exposes Political Hijackers of Science - reveals key self-serving special interest groups     
   *  Connects the Dots - exposes the entwined relationships between the climate research companies, green industries, political campaigns and international politics
   *  Follows the Money - traces the trail of taxpayers dollars into the pocket of energy consumers
   *  Offers Positive Solutions - elaborates what we can do to reclaim control, rediscover abundant national advantages and exercise American 'exceptionalism'

"It is absolutely clear that Earth is no warmer now than during many past periods when life flourished," advises Bell, "times when agriculture was abundant, pyramids and cities were built, and world citizens became connected in trade and culture."

With its devastating portrayal of scientific and government establishments run amok, this book is an invaluable addition to the tremendously popular literature attacking the scientific status quo. Climate of Corruption will bring welcome relief to all those who are fed up with climate crisis insanity.

About the author:

Larry Bell is an internationally recognized space architect and holds an endowed professorship established in his name at the University of Houston. He is the founder and director of Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). Bell and SICSA are frequently featured, nationally and internationally. Appearances include ABC TV-Australia, The History Channel, Discovery Channel - Canada, NASA Select, National Geographic, Time Magazine and the Christian Science Monitor. International honors include the prestigious Space Pioneer Award from the Kyushu Sanyu University in Japan, and two of the highest honors awarded by the Federation of Astronautics and Cosmonautics of the former Soviet Union for his contribution to international space development. Bell also has a weekly column on Forbes.com titled "The Bell Tells For You."

Website: http://www.climateofcorruption.com/

Climate of Corruption is available on the new non-fiction table in over 200 Barnes and Noble stores. It is also available through Amazon.com, and BarnesandNoble.com.

Climate Change Irony alert: U.N. conference on man-made climate change in Cancun amid record cold temperatures

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 13:28
in

"The irony: As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F."  Read the rest at http://theweek.com/article/index/210181/irony-alert-the-unusually-chilly-global-warming-summit.

If all this climate change and cap-and-trade political activity was actually about the environment, you’d think some of these folks might at least mention the dumping of over 100 million plus tons of mercury a year into our air, water and bodies since, mercury is toxic to just about all life forms on the earth (a fact about which there is actually a scientific consensus).  According to the EPA (http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2010/12/08/1) more than half of the USA’s contribution to mercury pollution comes from coal-fired power plants.  Yet the EPA is basically doing nothing whatsoever to reduce mercury pollution in the USA, such as setting emission levels that would encourage the switch over from coal to natural gas (which is also abundant in the USA and emits almost no mercury and far fewer so-called greenhouse gasses than coal). 

So while the US government gives a $7500 tax credit for buying an electric car, over half our electricity comes from mercury spewing coal burning power plants and many US politicians including the president promote regulating CO2 omissions and spending billions of our tax dollars for R&D concerning CO2 (a plant food with a highly questionable link to climate).  And the so-called environmental groups cheer them on.  Do you really believe all this activity is actually about the environment?

Another distinguished scientist speaks out about "the global warming scam"

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 23:17
in

The distinguished career of Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, also includes serving as a former member Defense Science Board (DSB), chairman of the DSB study on Nuclear Winter, former member of the President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety, Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group, and former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board.  He recently resigned with the letter below from the American Physical Society (APS) after 67 years of membership, including serving as its chairman and as a fellow of the society.  His reason, "the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.  It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.  Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.  (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.)  I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.  I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist" [emphasis mine].  The entirety of his resignation letter follows ...

Like I tell my students, “Question everything, study the facts, and make up your own mind about this and everything else.”

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities” – Voltaire


Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence---it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind---simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people's motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don't think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

 

Cited from http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

Information Age Education Model Needed

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Mon, 10/11/2010 - 21:25
in

This is the Information Age, when brains and knowledge workers are among the most important resource an individual, company, government, or country can have.  So it is reasonable to ask: how is the USA doing to prepare its population to compete in these times?

The NY Times reported in April 2009 that "the average high school graduation rate in the nation’s 50 largest cities was 53 percent" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/education/22dropout.html.  Is there any wonder why the unemployment rate among teens is appreaching 30%?

Moreover, the US ranks poorly in global comparisons of middle schoolers in math, science, and reading, which in 2003 put the USA at 25th in math, 20th in science, and 12th in reading (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html).  

Is the current educational model used in the USA broken beyond repair, poorly managed, or just obsolete?  According to John Taylor Gatto, 3-time NY State Teacher of the Year who "quit teaching on the OP ED page of the Wall Street Journal in 1991 while still New York State Teacher of the Year, claiming that he was no longer willing to hurt children" (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/), the US educational system is basically an adaptation of the Prussian education system of the 19th century, the purpose of which was to train good mercenaries that the government could hire out to other countries.  Not exactly the stuff that knowledge workers are made of.

But the really big question is what to do about it?  Is there a model for Information Age Education?  There is not one widely agreed upon, but there have been some ideas milling about such as http://members.fortunecity.com/rapidrytr/NSU/infoajed.htm and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html.  But information systems are my area of expertise, not education systems.  So I invite you, dear reader, to share your ideas about what an Information Age Education Model might look like.  The floor is now open for discussion ... but whereever you choose to have it, this is a conversation the USA desparately needs to have.

The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture now into third printing -- Thanks!!

Submitted by Leon Kappelman on Sun, 03/28/2010 - 17:43
in

I had the honor of editing and contributing to this book -- The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture.  It is a project of the SIM Enterprise Architecture Working Group (http://eawg.simnet.org) and all author royalties go to further the work of the not-for-profit SIM EA Working Group.

A flyer with more information about the book is here http://courses.unt.edu/kappelman/aboutwork/SIM%20GUIDE%20TO%20ENTERPRISE%20ARCHITECTURE%20FL20.pdf.

An excerpt from the book is on CIO Update’s site here http://www.cioupdate.com/features/article.phpr/3851866/EA-is-the-Road-Map-of-Enterprise-Transformation.htm.

Get 20% off on The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture with free shipping when purchased direct from publisher's website http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/978 1439811139 and you enter code 460GA when checking out. 

More information about the book, a link to the publisher, and the 20% discount code can be found at http://www.simnet.org/TheSIMGuidetoEnterpriseArchitecture/tabid/1453/Default.aspx too.

 

A project of the Society for Information Management's Enterprise Architecture Working Group and edited by Leon A. Kappelman. The SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture provides insights from leading authorities on EA, including John Zachman, Larry DeBoever, George Paras, Jeanne Ross, and Randy Hite. The book supplies a solid understanding of key concepts for effectively leveraging EA to redesign business processes, integrate services, and become an Information Age enterprise. Beginning with a look at current theory and frameworks, the book discusses the practical application of enterprise architecture and includes a wealth of best practices, resources, and references. It contains the SIM survey of IT organizations' EA activities, which provides important metrics for evaluating progress and success.

Features:

  • Presents insight into enterprise architecture from pioneers in the field, including John Zachman
  • Provides IT managers with industry benchmarks on enterprise architecture and related IT capabilities
  • Includes case studies illustrating industry-leading practices, tools, and processes
  • Examines the relationship between business processes and enterprise architecture
  • Discusses enterprise architecture ontologies, frameworks, and models
  • Explores the roles of information technology and IT professionals in organization

What they are saying about the SIM Guide to Enterprise Architecture:

"... a visionary yet practical guide to perhaps the most fundamentally important topic facing enterprises today. It is the best and most comprehensive book that I have seen on the critically important topic of Enterprise Architecture and its ability to transform a company."
 - Ed Trainor, CIO & Senior Vice President, IS, Amtrak

"The best in the field bringing clarity to EA. You'll learn why its value for good-oriented, integrated systems is undeniable."
 - Joe Tenczar, Sr. Director of Technology/CO, Hard Rock International

"A compelling book co-authored by the "who's who" in the EA space. It provides deep and thorough coverage of this critical discipline, and is an excellent source for real world, practical insight, and ideas."
 - Michael Rapken, CIO and Executive Vice President, YRC Worldwide, Inc.

"... a powerful collection of research work all dealing with how to bring EA to your organization ... as the complexity of enterprises continues to increase the importance of having a strong competency in EA becomes paramount. This book offers many perspectives on the approach to formalizing the process of EA within your organization."
 - Doug Watson, Vice President, CIO Americas, Bacardi

"... a valuable and comprehensive reference that every practitioner should own. The topics that are covered reflect the maturing of this discipline and its increased value to enabling public and private sector organizations to be more agile and competitive."
 - Scott Bernard, PhD, Deputy CIO, Federal Railroad Administration/Editor, Journal of Enterprise Architecture

From the Foreword: "... a timely and important book."
 - Jeanne Ross, Director and Principal Research Scientist, Center for IS Research, MIT Sloan School of Management

 

 All author royalties support the work of the not-for-profit SIM EA Working Group

Syndicate content