Recommended to read

About budbromley

Bud is a retired life sciences executive. Bud's entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service. Prior to those positions, his 19 year career in Hewlett-Packard Company's Analytical Products Group included worldwide sales and marketing responsibility for Bioscience Products, Global Accounts and the International Olympic Committee, as well as international management assignments based in Japan and Latin America. Bud has visited and worked in more than 65 countries and lived and worked in 3 countries.

View all posts by budbromley →

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Recommended to read

Ron Clutz says:

July 10, 2023 at 9:52 am

Bud, while unrelated to the solar topic, there is an action concerning CO2 and Skrable et al. 2022. I wanted to alert you since it relates to analyses you have done about atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It seems an attack team wants to discredit the Skrable paper because the finding is contrary to consensus IPCC science and are pressuring the publisher to withdraw it.

The paper and comments are here:
https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

The first comment is from Ken Rice who led the attack on Hermann Harde paper to get it rejected and prevent his reponses from publishing. He famously said at the time; Any paper finding that humans aren’t causing the rise in CO2 is obviously wrong. So he is doing narrative enforcement, not science.

Other comments suggest that the editor erred in publishing and atmospheric science journals would have rejected it. The editor made comment standing by the paper, and Skrable have made reponses to clarify and reinforce their finding.

I intend to dig into the arguments, but you have a deeper knowledge of these issues and your viewpoint would be valuable to me, as well as to the authors and the editor. Let me know your thoughts on this matter.

BTW, one the attackers is David Andrews who raised his objections in a comment on my blogpost on Skrable et al.

On CO2 Sources and Isotopes

I have not yet approved or responded to his comment.

LikeLike

Reply