Welcome to everyone who finds their way to my blog. As many of you will know I achieved minor celebrity status last week as a bit-part player, almost an extra, in the climategate saga. However for those of you who don’t know me here are a few words. I’m Paul Dennis, an isotope geochemist and Head of the Stable Isotope Laboratories at the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia. This blog is my personal site where I can write about any science that interests me, describe my research and give my take on ideas, and views on issues of interest. More importantly it’s somewhere I can engage with you on science. Science impinges on all our lives in many ways and we are all part of the adventure. The man on the Clapham omnibus has as much right to engage in science as I do. So please take this as a welcome to debate and discuss.
I’ve been described in the press as a climate scientist. I’m not. First and foremost I’m a geochemist with interest in many subjects. My research has wandered over the fields of solid state physics, point and line defect properties of silicate minerals, solid state transport processes, phase transformations, mineral deposits, isotope hydrology and hydrogeology, palaeoclimates, the earth in deep time, beam transport systems and mass spectrometer instrument design and construction. Some may say I’ve been a bit of a scientific dilettante. More I see myself as enjoying science in its widest sense. Perhaps it gives me a different and wider perspective. If I don’t understand something I want to take it apart, find out how it works and then try and put the pieces back together again.
So now you have some background please bear with me as I, possibly slowly, build this site. Feel free to comment, critique and give advice. At many times the postings may read like a diary. I hope they give you some idea of my scientific world, my lab and my research.
I’ll start with a posting on why I’ve called the blog Harmonic Oscillator, but that’s for tonight.
Best wishes to all.
harmonicoscillator.wordpress.com 
February 9, 2010 at 1:59 pm |
Came hear from Lucia’s Blackboard to say good luck, and thanks for engaging with us all. I am a UK geologist.
February 9, 2010 at 2:20 pm |
Came here. Memo to self – read through before posting!
February 9, 2010 at 2:27 pm |
As an interested reader of your comments elsewhere I’m greatly looking forward to what you have to say!
February 9, 2010 at 2:28 pm |
Good luck. I am torn between the notion of the more the merrier and the difficulty of keeping track of and keeping up with the number of blogs by those who have something substantive to say about climate science and science in general.
February 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
Good luck with this site. At least you won’t be open to journalistic vagaries.
February 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
Came here from Bishop Hill Blog
We await with interest your Harmonic Oscillator explanation
February 9, 2010 at 2:38 pm |
Great blog name!
I also came here from lucia’s blog:)
Blogging is a truly wonderful thing!
All the best
February 9, 2010 at 2:55 pm |
Paul – came here from the Bishop, on whose blog I enjoyed your Climategate comments.
Apologies in advance for staggeringly boring comment, but I must have been a proof-reader in a former life – no apostrophe in ‘its’ in para 2. SORRY.
I look forward to your blog. I had a nice email from your colleague Mr Jones this morning pointing me in the direction of UHI adjustment policy.
February 9, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
Thanks HotRod…..I’ve fixed the apostrophe. Like you I hate to see spelling mistakes but I seem to have a blind eye with regard to apostrophes. Memo to myself about the possessive apostrophe!
February 9, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
Welcome to the real world Paul 🙂
It’s encouraging that more fraternisation with the great unwashed is happening. It should help to repair the serious damage that’s been done of late.
I see you have been looking at the K-T extinction event.
The general consensus still seems to favour an asteroid impact. What is the likelihood of a volcanic explanation in your view?
February 9, 2010 at 3:05 pm |
You have seen this, on Stott’s site, presumably
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/2/8_Why_Scientists_Do_Not_Talk_to_Journalists.html
February 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm |
I was surprised and pleased that I had come to Philip Stott’s attention. I thought his comment was excellent and very much appreciate his support.
February 9, 2010 at 3:06 pm |
Paul,
Welcome. I really admire the work you guys put into your blogs. I have learned so much from them. They each have their own distinctive style and contribution.
I found the “‘open notebook'” science methods in teaching and research that you mentioned very interesting. I would like to know a little more. If you could point me to a link that would be great.
I think the ground is now shifting and we need to consider the next steps, part of which will be to provide a trusted information source.
February 9, 2010 at 4:08 pm |
Try this link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Notebook_Science
Jean Claude Bradley and his group are real pioneers in open notebook science. I think this is the way science is moving and hope that within a few years all science and publishing will be open access.
February 9, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
Simple, damped or driven?
February 9, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
a quantum harmonic oscillator. The title refers to the vibrational modes of a simple diatomic molecule. The difference in the zero point energy between molecules that contain an isotopic substitution and ones that don’t is the origin of isotope separation in nature. I’ll outline this in more detail in a blog post.
February 9, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
Best of luck with the new blog your site name resonates well.
February 9, 2010 at 3:19 pm |
Good luck with the site Dr. Dennis, came from Bishop Hill’s site, will stop by occasionally to see what’s doing.
g
February 9, 2010 at 3:38 pm |
Isotopes, eh? Do you do Be10 and C14, and if so, what do you think of Kirkby’s graph on page 3?
Click to access 0804.1938v1.pdf
P.S. Good luck and have fun.
February 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm |
I’m very persuaded by some of the research on galactic cosmic rays and the earth’s climate. The Kirkby graph you refer to is really interesting and something I want to discuss at some stage in this blog. I have a student looking at solar influences on the climate and am encouraging him to consider the effect of solar activity on galactic cosmic ray dose, cloud condensation nuclei and planetary albedo.
Whilst I don’t measure either Be-10 or C-14 in my lab I do have an interest in cosmic ray induced nuclides in minerals such as He-3 and Ne-21. The accumulation of these isotopes in surface rocks is a measure of cosmic ray exposure age and helps us to date rock surfaces, measure weathering rates etc.
February 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
Just seen your blog mentioned at Bishop Hills. I’m not too familiar with most of the areas of research you work on, but I liked the bit about taking things to bits to see how they work! On a more basic level I do that all the time. I will keep an eye on the site to see how it progresses.
Good luck.
February 9, 2010 at 3:47 pm |
As a physicist, I welcome your refreshingly open attitude to science. I came here after reading about you from the good Bishop.
February 9, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
Hello Paul (via Bishop Hill). Glad to see that you cover many fields – which is not dilettante.
I do pure maths and theoretical physics, so I know both sets of jokes. Look forward to reading you.
February 9, 2010 at 4:04 pm |
Welcome to the wacky world of blogging sir. Looking forward to your input!
February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
Hi,
you have been added to the blog roll of itsfaircomment.com (Climategate).
Best wishes, and watch out for the trolls….
February 9, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
Hello and welcome
good to see someone that has a wide background writting on the subject
“..a different and wider perspective. ..” makes for a well rounded perspective when looking at climate.
February 9, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
I have a lot to thank climate alarmists for. They have made me find out many things about the earth and how it works for myself. I have found really good science topics and the internet has provided me with great tools like Google Earth which allows you to look up places and see what is really happening eg the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Global Warming and Climate Change concepts are actually very boring because they stop scientific enquiry rather than provide the stimulus to find out more.
For example there is a theory that suggests ice ages are the result of stochastic resonance. Since this theory was advanced we find stochastic resonance cropping up in biological systems and I have a hunch a huge number of natural phenomena and ‘tipping points’ can be explained by understanding the mechanism of stochastic resonance. For good or bad you have been thrust into the public eye and it is heartening to see you turning ‘lemons’ into ‘lemonade’. I look forward to reading future articles, maybe even one on solitons! All the best from Sherwood Forest.
February 9, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
Good luck with the new blog. I came here from Lucia’s.
It’s nice to see a scientist at UEA who’s not afraid to engage with the public.
February 9, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
Welcome to the Fourth Dimension, aka Blogosphere!
I’m delighted to see this movement of scientists into the untrammeled realms of blogging. Caution! Here there be dragons!
February 9, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
Coming here by way of Lucia’s. Word is getting around fast!
As a humanist-type person with a strong interest in the history of science and technology, I deeply appreciate your efforts to reach a wider audience. Thanks also for being a voice of reason and honesty coming directly from The University of East Anglia, a.k.a. Climategate Ground Zero.
Best wishes!
February 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm |
Oh, its degenerate then.
February 9, 2010 at 4:55 pm |
Played with B and O isotopes as part of my graduate research and have done minor interpretive work on N and O in my current sub field. Always a fun topic.
I hope to see much more open discussion and sharing of data in all the sciences, but most particularly in climate studies. The open notebook approach looks like a good start.
We keep hearing about “robustness” of climate studies and then are told to trust the the word of the researcher when they keep methods and data hidden.
I wish you luck in your blog.
February 9, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
Looking forward to your as I have learned a lot about AGW by checking out others. These blogs fill the gaping hole left open by MSM (especially in the US).
February 9, 2010 at 5:00 pm |
Came here from the Bishop.
Good luck, you have been added to my reader.
February 9, 2010 at 5:11 pm |
I’ve been looking forward to your blog ever since you mentioned it in your comments in the blogosphere – and hasten to add my congratulations, haring across from the Good Bishop’s blog.
I’ve been most intrigued by the ‘open notebook’ method you’ve mentioned. As zoologist (ret’d) this makes a huge amount of sense to me.
Otherwise, I’m here to learn!
February 9, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
Welcome to the blogosphere!!!
February 9, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
Paul, welcome, I really do hope that you can bring a new tone to the discussions. I was involved very early on in the Open Source Software movement. ‘Open’ transformed the nature of software development. Radical ideas like http and module-loading monolithic OS kernels flourished in the Open Source world, whereas such ideas died a rapid and painful death in the orthodoxy of close, proprietary software. Arguably, without Open Source software, the Internet would not have developed as quickly and broadly as it did. Open Science could have a similarly transformative effect. Darwinism only works when ideas are free to mate with other ideas of their own choosing.
February 9, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
Let’s hope that more scientists will follow your excellent example and be prepared to talk to AGW sceptics rather shun them. I think that you will find that most of us will be keen to listen, even if we do rather enjoy asking questions too.
Welcome, good luck, and I’ve put up a link to Harmonic Oscillator.
February 9, 2010 at 5:27 pm |
I don’t have a good feeling about this blog. If you devote the time to cover the whole climatosphere, it will distract from your work. Perhaps if you do occasional, very good blog peieces and just get picked up by others for referalls that would work best.
As far as the skeptics (McIntyre or Watts, etc.), I urge you to be very wary of them. They dig up interesting questions (does the paint type affect the temp on Stevenson screens), but they never run them to ground or quanitify them. Instead they go for talking points and premature amateurish publication. At the end of the day, they are not really truth driven enough, curious enough to go for answers even when they “go against them”. And they waste a huge amount of energy in publicity versus real analysis.
February 9, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
TCO thank you for your comments. I only intend to write and comment on the science that interests me, that which I’m most closely associated with and hopefully it will also interest and engage with others. As I pointed out in my introduction I have a very broad perspective and am not just interested in climate change. It’s quite likely that I’ll wander off into other areas some of the time. It’s also quite likely that my updates will be irregular and dependent on my teaching and research schedule.
What is important to me is public engagement in science. This is one way I, as a professional scientist, can engage with others.
February 9, 2010 at 5:28 pm |
“The man on the Clapham omnibus has as much right to engage in science as I do”
Wow – what a refreshing attitude. A change from the usual ‘you are not a climate scientist so you are not qualified to criticise anything’.
Good luck with your blog. I hope you have a thick skin. You will need it if you are going to say anything about climate change!
February 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
Welcome to the blogosphere. I look forward to your insights and opinions. I really applaud your view that science is for all to explore.
Cheers, AJStrata
February 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
If the Bishop recommends you that’s good enough for me.
Good luck.
(I’m supposed to be an expert on apostrophes as well!!)
February 9, 2010 at 5:30 pm |
The Bishop sent us over, but I would have found you anyhow. I am looking forward to seeing what you have to say.
Re: Proof reading.
One of the most difficult issues for a writer is to see his/her own mistakes. While I don’t use the technique for blogging as it takes time, I find that I can spot my mistakes in my creative writing by having the computer read it back to me. Get a copy of TextAloud
http://www.nextup.com/products.html
and you will find 90% of your mistakes. Cheaper than a proof reader and sometimes more accurate.
February 9, 2010 at 5:31 pm |
Good Luck!!!!!
February 9, 2010 at 5:34 pm |
Cool.
Since I know nothing about any of your topics I’m going to sit back, shut my mouth, read, hopefully learn and maybe one day ask a smart question.
February 9, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
Excellent! Welcome to the Fifth Estate—I shall be following your writings with interest…
DK
February 9, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
May all your oscillations be damped.
February 9, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
Looking forward to your posts!
February 9, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
Hi Paul as an ex-Chemist from my undergrad and post-grad days in the late 70s, I will be very interested to hear from you what are the exciting topics in geochemistry today.
As an AGW-sceptic, I’ll also be interested to hear your views as climate science develops into new directions and communication models.
I really applaud your desire to be open and straightforward…and wish you good luck, good science and good blogging! Steve
February 9, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
I wondered when a geochemist might join the Fifth Estate. Used to be one in a previous incarnation.
These days I am little more than an amused, or should that be bemused, spectator. I am left wondering whatever happened to science and have grave doubts as to whether I would be prepared to buy a used care from many scientists these days.
Mind you there is little new under this sun.
February 9, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
Hope all goes well and the comments pages stay as supportive as this one. Such a shame climate science could not have been conducted in a more open way over the last 15 years – we might have had better knowledge and less warfare.
Hats off to you for your measured response to some pretty dire journalism – a model for others to follow.
February 9, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
so, you’re a AGW sceptic, a current acedemic and a UK scientist? some guy from the beeb was searching for such a person over on athony watts blog recently.
February 9, 2010 at 6:56 pm |
I did wonder whether or not to contact the Beeb. I think it was Roger Harrabin who was trying to promote a debate. Frankly, until they remove the word climate denier from their lexicon I think they’ll find it difficult to find any sceptic scientist to engage with them.
February 9, 2010 at 6:28 pm |
Welcome Paul. I will send some of my traffic here as you blog. Skeptic or not makes no difference to me as I expect it is true that your views are less defined than the recent press release stated. I’m looking forward to it.
February 9, 2010 at 6:29 pm |
I too found my way here from the Bishop but only because I read hsi site before visiting Lucia! There is nothing dilettante about having wide interests, its often those with such interests that see connections that more focussed individuals have missed. I am a marine chemist by training and like Steve Mosher, am inclined to sit back read and be educated.
Welcome to the 21st century science community!
February 9, 2010 at 6:32 pm |
Good to see you !!
Welcome to WordPress !!!
February 9, 2010 at 7:06 pm |
Ceud mile failte Dr Paul.
and there i was, an old merchant navy radio officer with lovely memories of ohms law and harmonic oscillations. sadly there the connection with the late great John Daly ends.
welcome to the somewhat crowded land of climate realism. got directions here from his lordship the Bishop on the Hill.
most likely much of your high intellectually challenging posts will tax my old brain – but so what. we look forward to your input.
the more realists the better.
i am thinking of starting a blog called SINS (scince is not settled).
but enough i hear you all say.
February 9, 2010 at 7:50 pm |
Lucia referred me.
February 9, 2010 at 8:27 pm |
I hope to learn as you blog. Really exciting
February 9, 2010 at 8:32 pm |
Best of luck with the new blog and many thanks for taking the time to do it.
Tom
February 9, 2010 at 8:45 pm |
Greetings,
I, too, received direction here from His Eminence Bishop Hill; I have dutifully bookmarked this site and will return frequently to learn.
I think that I have received more in the way of valuable education in the last two years of reading ‘proper’ scientific blogs than I did in five years of university education.
I look forward to reading your discourses on subjects which are, at present, a complete mystery to me. Please understand that I am but one of many seeking honesty in science and science which my geriatric brain can comprehend. Would it be possible for you to provide a simple language translation for some of your more esoteric but, I am sure, interesting articles?
February 9, 2010 at 8:54 pm |
I came by way of the Bishop. Welcome and good luck. I’ll be looking forward to your postings and will try to keep up.
February 9, 2010 at 9:41 pm |
Enjoy!
“As chief operating officer for the cabal of Billionaires who control the global warming scam, Hitler quickly realizes the long range implications of “Glaciergate”.”
February 9, 2010 at 9:46 pm |
Welcome to the blogosphere!
I suspect you are already planning it, given your explanation of the blog’s name, but I think a good explanation of the dO18 isotope levels as a proxy for polar temperatures would be very welcome.
There are some interesting follow-on questions on this topic: I have seen studies that use this as a proxy in tropical glaciers. Is this at all valid? Would the effect be reversed there? Do we understand this particular effect well enough to make any real claims?
Also, Kaufman et al’s recent proxy reconstruction of Arctic temperatures “adjusted” the temperatures derived from dO18 levels in the ice cores due to time-dependent altitude changes from long-term glacier flow. I had thought that the temperature that was represented was the air temperature in the clouds where the precipitation started. Any light you could shed on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
February 10, 2010 at 12:32 am |
Curt, yes one of my first blogs will deal with isotopes in the water cycle and see if we can back temperature out of polar and low latitude glaciers. I need to go back and read the Kaufman et al. paper and check on their ‘correction’ for altitude changes but this could be a topic for discussion.
February 9, 2010 at 9:58 pm |
Oh, and I love the “quilt square” graphic thingies for those of us without avatars. I see everyone gets his or her own distinct personalized square. Very charming!
February 9, 2010 at 10:18 pm |
Paul,
Welcome to the University of the Internet.
February 9, 2010 at 10:36 pm |
“until they remove the word climate denier from their lexicon I think they’ll find it difficult to find any sceptic scientist to engage with them.” No worries – I call myself a refutenik.
February 9, 2010 at 10:41 pm |
What I want to know is why do the major “names” always mentioned when climate science is involved never seem to be climate scientists, but economists, railway engineers and as above, a geochemist? Is there such a thing as a climate scientist?
February 10, 2010 at 1:14 am |
As someone once said… If a subject has the word “science” in its title – that is quite a good clue that it is not in fact science.
February 9, 2010 at 10:46 pm |
Do you accept hate prose? Or am I waisting my time here. I’m pretty pissed off these days.
February 10, 2010 at 12:32 am |
You are waisting your time. Go on a blog diet.
February 9, 2010 at 10:46 pm |
Welcome to the blogosphere!
Open notebook science is a great idea. And there are lot of other areas of human activity which could use an open approach.
February 9, 2010 at 11:12 pm |
His Grace the Bishop and Lucia provided the heads up. Good luck.
February 9, 2010 at 11:19 pm |
As a Clapham omnibus sort of person & AGW sceptic, I will just say best of luck with the blog, will bookmark it and make sure to pop back often! Looking forward to reading your future posts.
February 10, 2010 at 12:22 am |
I came here from Bishop Hill’s blog. Good luck and I look forward to hearing your POV. Would you care to comment on Prof. Ravetz post on Anthony Watts’ Whats Up With That blog?
February 10, 2010 at 3:26 am |
Came here from His Grace’s site. Thank you for starting your blog. I look forward to your postings.
I second hmmcard’s request for comment on Prof. Ravetz’s post.
February 10, 2010 at 3:40 am |
Via Lucia, I second hmccard’s query.
IMO, the blogosphere will have come of age when scientists abandon censored advocacy sites like Real Climate and open themselves to free debates. I think that time is very close since those sites have become so obviously counter-productive.
Spending several days on Real Climate some years ago convinced me that this was not science and I needed to look elsewhere for it, which in turn led me to develop an informed scepticism – about undue certainty on both sides.
February 10, 2010 at 3:41 am |
Your new website is an interesting and welcome development – I hope posters can distinguish between genuine and rhetorical questions so this site can develop
After that piece of likely naivety, I have a question related to your Antarctica experience. As background, I am a practising geologist with over 30 years between R&D and hard application and despite my genuine, on-going efforts to read relevant papers, I remain unconvinced that current atmospheric CO2 levels are of any significance in driving any current climate change
So, the question, prompted by your comment above that the Antarctic Peninsula is warming – I don’t doubt that, because:
I visited the Peninsula about 13 months ago for 10 days on a small ship. The ship was one of many running these trips, but was small enough in passenger capacity to allow “digging into their database” activity if one wished … so I did. Being a geologist, the old survey maps from the 18th-19th century whalers I found very interesting. Say what we may wish about those old-time whalers, they were extremely good sailors who made very accurate and annually updated survey maps for their own survival
And the century-long cumulative mapping showed ? That the glaciers were in constant retreat, but at variable rates over time. No ifs or buts. I regard this as hard prima facie evidence of a quite long-term warming trend in the Peninsula with no need at all to invoke industrial CO2 atmospheric levels
What say you, please ? And obviously I would like to see a comparison of the current claimed retreat rate against the recorded rate from these maps
February 10, 2010 at 4:23 am |
Paul,
Wish you luck.
With your blog I hope there can be fresh start to get on with the study of the H20, N2, O2 and other chemicals (in all their phases) surrounding our earth’s crust that interact with each other and are acted upon by influences outside of themselves. I hope you can achieve a high level of independence from the current baggage of the so called “climate science” and move on to just the science.
John
February 10, 2010 at 6:05 am |
Greetings from Australia via His Grace and Lucia.
Could I have an open string graphic please?
February 10, 2010 at 7:07 am |
On Welbeck Street in central London is a plaque to Thomas Young, well known to all engineers, which simply says ‘Man of Science’ those days less complicated and easier for all rounders?
Best wishes, came here on Lucia’s recommendation. I hope there are not too many Grocers, or is it Grocers’ or Grocer’s. The blog that gets a spell checker will win hands down:-)
February 10, 2010 at 7:09 am |
Greetings from the southern oscillation index
February 10, 2010 at 8:56 am |
Visiting from Bishop Hill’s blog (Hope I got the apostrophe right!). Looking forward to visiting regularly. I especially like the description of yourself having moved in many different spheres of science. IMHO there is nothing worse than a super-specialist. (I came across a chap recently who said that he was a Navel Doctor!)
Good luck with the blog, may your visitors be many.
Dane in Oz.
February 10, 2010 at 9:31 am |
Looking forward to a refreshing stance on science! Well done & bon-chance. Via the Holy One on the hill!
February 10, 2010 at 3:17 pm |
As I add intelligently written blogs to my reading list, the more I realize how little I know.
Hopefully you’ll have me feeling like an imbecile in a few months.
February 10, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
The idea of “open motebook science” is terrific. Some years ago, I was persuaded (rather reluctanty) to distribute my hard won data among some scientists who were interested in the results and couldn’t perform my experiments for politial rather than scientific reasons.
The response was an eye opener. First, several minor mistakes in my analysis were discovered. My programming style was severely criticised. I was on tenterhooks for a year expecting someone to find a major flaw in the analysis and bring my whole structure down. They havn’t so far.
However, the interest in the data and the mechanisms underlying became widely discussed and became very productive. I am converted to the open release of data and code because, as long as it is acknowledged that one is author of the data and the code, it is real peer review and a hugely valuable source of scientific thought.
Please explain to us more about the measurement of temperature and CO2 history from ice cores. Not being a geo-person I get the idea but I havn’t got the background to know how robust these measurements are. This would seem a very important contribution to the climate history debate on the blogosphere. The fact that you teach in schools is geat and very refreshing; I have found that I thought that I understood a subject until I had to teach it!
Best wishes, keep on going and this site will become a classic!
February 10, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
Hi,
best of luck. I’m not a climate expert but I am a psychiatrist with 30 years experience of reading papers in a very fuzzy discipline. The climate blogs are gripping and educational. Keep going please.
Anthony Farrington
February 11, 2010 at 1:08 am |
via hill and lucia. Best of luck.
Doug
February 11, 2010 at 3:24 am |
Came here from Bishop Hill Blog.
I am a cardiologist and medical device manufacturer with great interest and alarm in climate modeling. I look forward to your blogs.
February 11, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
Good luck and success to you, Paul. You have the best wishes of everyone over at climategate.com. We applaud you and all other scientists of integrity who stand up for their principles.
February 12, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
Couldn’t be more pleased to see a blog like this. Have watched Climate Audit and Lucia etc. I’m a retired neurologist, prone to logic & analysis, and interested in science.
I too have a need to know ‘how it works’! You are in the esteemed company of James Clerk Maxwell. He was a mathematician and theoretical physicist who, it is said, in his armchair postulated the existence of electromagnetic radiation from a mathematical basis and was the originator of the wave theory of light. As a three year old , everything that moved, shone, or made a noise drew the question: “what’s the go o’ that?”, or “what’s the way o’ it?” [A Scotsman].
Best wishes for your venture, which promises to be fascinating.
February 24, 2010 at 10:55 am |
Congratulations, your work speaks for itself.
Glad to see you blogging and going more public with it.
Best of luck to you.
March 11, 2010 at 5:30 am |
Paul, what is your take on the Patterson et al article in PNAS?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/02/0902522107.full.pdf+html