These are not observational studies
These are studies of situations that the research institution has created
They are human subject experiments
B10 clearly sees football players as lab rats
“... an opportunity in a global pandemic to be able to help solve some of these medical issues, especially from a cardiac-registry standpoint & be leaders from a research standpoint, that was really important"
The B10 needs to get IRB approval from every participating institution ... this won't happen (as a practical matter, even if underway) unlikely before full practices begin
Universities are openly & obviously engaged in research misconduct
From The Belmont Report (on ethical medical research):
"Certain groups, such as racial minorities... should be protected against the danger of being involved in research solely for administrative convenience, or because they are easy to manipulate..." hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/def…
Now that the Big10 commissioner has explicitly identified football player as research subjects in a research registry, university IRBs are in a position to halt football
A time series of base (i.e., current-year) loses was first compiled from annual reports published in the Monthly Weather Review by Chris Landsea in 1989 for 1949-1989
I extended the data using same methods to 1996
Chris and I extended back to 1900 for Pielke and Landsea 1998
Then, Pielke et al. 2008 extend the dataset to 2005, again using the same methods
The heavy lifting was done by my then-student Joel Gratz
Joel graduated and went to an insurance company called ICAT . . .
Last month I revealed based on files part of the public record of the Michael Mann trial how Mann coordinated peer review of a paper of mine to ensure that it "would not see the light of day"
I only had a snippet of the relevant Mann email
Now I have the whole thing
And JFC...
First
New: the editor of GRL, Jay Familigetti, originally sent our submission to Mann!
That's right
A paper by Pielke & @ClimateAudit was sent to Mann to peer review
Mann wisely didn't accept but instead recommended hostile reviewers so that "it would not see the light of day"
@ClimateAudit Mann emails his partners Caspar Amann (NCAR) and Gavin Schmidt (NASA) to express his glee that this gives him an opportunity to cause harm
🧵
"The U.S. installed 1,700 miles of new high-voltage transmission miles per year on average in the first half of the 2010s but dropped to only 645 miles per year on average in the second half of the 2010s"
The US has 240,000 miles of high voltage transmission capacity
An expansion of 645 miles/year is just about 0.3%/yr
Take that 0.3%/year HV grid expansion to the next Tweet
The Princeton study (@JesseJenkins) used to promote the Inflation Reduction Act claimed the HV grid has been expanding at a rate of 1% per year based on a newsletter from JP Morgan
That 1% is >3x greater than actual recent grid expansion rates of 0.3%
🧵
I have a new favorite example of bad statistics on disasters
By 2085, climate-fueled natural disasters will cost more than $100 trillion, or more than the entire US GDP
Big if true!
What is the methodology?
EM-DAT of course
Misinterpretation Left
What EM-DAT says right:
"what the figure is really showing is the evolution of the registration of natural disaster events over time"