Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust

This sounds like great ammunition against Greenhouse warming alarmists!

Mike,

Who said all the ice had melted at the North Pole? Source, please.

Who said all the ice had melted at the North Pole? Source, please.

Dave,

This issue has been all over the news.

Have you not been paying attention?

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1453313/completely_melted_north_pole_a_probability_this_summer/index.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20448107-1702,00.html?from=public_rss

http://www.informify.com/top-stories/46-natural-world/274-north-pole-ice-may-melt-by-september-accelerate-global-warming

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5265092&page=1

Those are just the first five articles that show up from a simple Google search.

Here, Ladies and Gentlemen, is another stellar example of dogmatic assertion brought to you by Dave Noble:

Why would I also do all these things, even if there were no scientific consensus on global warming?

Pssstttt…..

Dave,

I know, and you certainly should know, that there is NO consensus on global warming.

DW,

There is really no question that the ice is shrinking.

The question is: “Why?”

How does this year compare to prior years?

Do you know the answers?

I do.

All is not as it seems with AGW:

The Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.

IPCC 2007 Survey results:

Don’t forget that many scientists don’t participate in the IPCC because they perceive it as biased. The Pasteur Institute’s Dr. Paul Reiter, for example, resigned from the IPCC because he and a colleague found themselves “at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our special

Lord Monkcton’s review of the 2007 IPCC report

National Academy of Sciences - had their CLEH (climate linked epidemic hypothesis) debunked by their own data.

Additionally, 400 prominent scientists - one of whom I know personally, dispute the ‘consensus’ you adhere to, David.

You can read about them and find links to other studies that point out how much we don’t know about global climate change. These scientist are quickly becoming the ‘Galileo’ of their time.

Oh, let us not forget the Nobel Prize Winners non-consensus:

Seven Nobel prize winners participated in a climate debate. How did it look like? Well, there may be a climate consensus among the high-school dropouts but there is none among the Nobel prize winners. There was one more difference. Many of the Nobel prize winners said, unlike the high-school dropouts, the following sentence: “I am no expert.”

Meeting of Nobel Prize winners, Lindau, Germany - 6/29-7-3

I’ll ask you again, David, please submit the studies that definitively links human activity and increased C02 to global climate change.

What is occuring is not substantive data that links human activity to global warming, all that is being producing is the second Inquistion of those who question AGW:

NASA - Put Those On Trial For GW Lies

Hanson targets CEO and politicians for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Silencing Dissent: A review of the cases.

Decertifying Weathermen/women

In the end of this there certainly has been no change in the science – there is still no persuasive evidence that humans are adversely affecting global climate or that humans can manipulate global climate by regulating greenhouse gas emission.

The Goracle and his cool aid srinking disciples are not scientists. Just a little while ago 31,000 scientists and PhDs signed a statemnet saying they thing that AGW is total BS and we have no control over the climate. The Global Warming scare is just another way for the socialists to control all of our lives.

I still do not see where in Constitution it tells the CONgress to tell me what products I can buy. I like the incandescent light bubls for certain lighting, but in a few years they will illegal because our great leaders have said they are bad for the einvironment, except now we are going to have to buy light bulbs that are more expensive and more harmful to the environment becasue some bureacrat said they willl save the environment.

The environmentalists are green on the outside and red on the inside. Watermelons

We have been warming for the past few hundreds of years from the time of the Little Ice Age, and it is looking more like we are in for a cold spell. The amount of Sun Spots have many scientists wondering why this is happeneing and that the last time this happened we had the Little Ice Age.

How does this year compare to prior years?

Do you know the answers?

I do.

Why, yes. Yes, I do. I’ve already posted this link. Why do I need to do it twice–because you can’t be bothered to read?

Oh, wait: let me guess. I’m cherrypicking the data because it only goes back thirty years, right?

I just dug a DW one out, Aye. Don’t see one for you. Is is this thread?

Nevermind… just found it and got it out, Aye Chi.

MataHarley
2nd generation un-hypenated American

DW,

According to this chart, this year’s melting is less than last year’s melting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-scientists-warn-that-there-may-be-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html?action=Popup&gallery=no

Could that be because 2007 is one of the coolest years in the last 30 years?

Could it be because there has been no global warming since 1998?

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=136273

You still didn’t address the “Why?” part.

In the Southern hemisphere the ice level has increased and is now in the highest levels since it is measured.

Here you have the chart

And another one

First, because of its fundamental nature: the issue of scientific consensus.

Aye Chi offers a simple dictionary definition of the general term “consensus”
It is more helpful to look at the more specific and applicable definition of “scientific consensus.”

“Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time” (Here, climatology in 2008).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

This is the problem with the Petition cited by Aye Chi and previously cited by Mike in an earlier thread.

“The Petition Project was organized by a group of physicists and physical chemists who conduct scientific research at several American scientific institutions.” This is quoted from their site.

If the petition truly represented a contrarian view of a large number of climatologists, wouldn’t they have organized the project and not physicists and physical chemists?
Of the 30,000+ signers, only 3,697 have degrees in the general and very loose category of “Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment” and only 40 are climatologists. That makes 40 out of 30,000+ signers (a little more than 1/10th of one percent) who are actually trained in the discipline upon which they are offering an ostensibly authoritative opinion. This is even more critical given that it is a contrarian opinion.

I wouldn’t go to an astronomer for crucial opinions on climatological issues anymore than I would ask my gardener to check out my house wiring or I would go to a urologist to find out if I have obsessive-compulsive disorder (actually a proctologist might be able to help with that)

Here is the actual breakout from the Petition’s website:

1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Just as a note: there are almost three times as many engineer signatories as there are “atmosphere, earth and environmental scientists.”

The Heidelberg Appeal list and the list of 400 scientists in the Senate Minority Report suffer from the same flaw. They are hodgepodges of scientists from numerous disciplines who seem to be cited primarily for the general academic credentials and not for their specific expertise. The Heidelberg Appeal also suffers from the flaw of being 16 years old. Scientific opinion continually evolves.

Skye, you are a biologist, would you find authoritative the opinions of physicists, physical chemists (or climatologists) on an issue within your discipline. Would you cite them authoritatively in a paper?

Neither the Heidelberg Appeal, nor the Petition group, nor the 400 scientists cited in the Senate Minority Report is a group of comparable repute to the scientific organizations I cited.
Accordingly, my challenge remains unmet.

Back to the definition of scientific consensus: “There are always outliers, remaining advocates of earlier ideas which have been superseded, cliques or individuals with unique points of view or with new ideas which have not yet been thoroughly tested, and other dissidents. Each of these groups can be quite forceful in pushing their points of view and often are. As science impinges on society, societal groups become advocates of outlying theories for policy purposes, not scientific ones, which can confuse scientific truth.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Finally, consensus is not unanimity. There will always be outliers. Despite the conspiracy theories advanced in the posts above and their sources, I trust the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process.

Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.

Let me ask, what do Climatolagists study???? Becasuse a Climatologist should not study the whole world, r the whole world as one. The Climate of the Eartyh is a misnomer. There is no such thing. There are climates such ans the Mediterranian Climate, Sub-Saharan climate, and many others. But to put them all together as some sort of Global Climate is against what Climatology is. You study one climate at a time, not all atonce, it is impossible.

Sorry Dave, but I will believe theMereologist over a supposed Climatalogist that spouts out this asnine stuff.

And using wickepedia to put your argument forward is ridiculous. wickepedia should notbe used as a real reference.

Ands I am still wanting to see the Scientific Method used to show any kind of AGW. Models do not count, garbage in =garbage out.

Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.

or

“There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Here, we’re confronted with the choice of who to believe. Dave, our Sky Is Falling Chicken Little, or Professor Lindzen, our PhD Professor of Meteorology, MIT.

The choice is clear.

***

Accordingly, my challenge remains unmet.

Hmmmm…..

I do believe that is what one would refer to as a conclusory statement.

Stix,

Are you saying the entire discipline of Climatology is pseudo-science? What are your credentials for making that claim?

I agree that it would be ridiculous to cite to Wikipedia for substantive facts on a controversial issue like this one. I would never do that. But to cite to it for a non-controversial definition is appropriate in my opinion. Do you have a more authoritative definition of “scientific consensus”?

Mata,

Look closely at my statement on the 928 peer-reviewed articles. Then compare it to your cite.
There is no disagreement between the two. What I said was that none disagreed with AGW.

If there are so many reputable scientists who disagree with AGW, where are their peer-reviewed articles?

As you know, AGW is anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. The climate changes on its own - e.g., the Ice Age was clearly not the result of AGW, not enough of us around then. The scientific organizations I cite above support AGW.

The IPCC expressed it’s results with an approximate certainty level of 80%. For inherently conservative scientists that’s a high certainty level. I once read an editorial attacking AGW and the Panel’s results. The writer asked if you’d get in an airplane after you’d been told that there was a 20% chance of it crashing. Unfortunately, he got the metaphor backwards. The proper question was “Would you get in an airplane if there was only a 20% chance that it would land safely?” There is a 20% that the AGW proponents are wrong and we have nothing to worry about. I don’t like them odds. As I told Aye Chi, I’m putting my money on the big guys.

Here is a shocker:

Press Release
SSRC 3-2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
11:00 am

The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration: Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun.

In a news conference held in Orlando, Florida today, Mr. John L. Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center, issued a landmark declaration on climate change.

“After an exhaustive review of a substantial body of climate research, and in conjunction with the obvious and compelling new evidence that exists, it is time that the world community acknowledges that the Earth has begun its next climate change. In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of the past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.”

According to Mr. Casey, who spoke to print and TV media representatives today, this next cold era is coming about as a result of the reversal of the 206 year cycle of the sun which he independently discovered and announced in May of 2007.

Casey amplified the declaration by adding, “Though the SSRC first announced a prediction of the coming new climate era to the US government and media in early 2007, the formal declaration has been held off pending actual events that validate the previously forecast new cold period. We now have unmistakable signs of accelerating decline in global temperatures and growing glacial ice, coupled with the dramatic if not startling changes in the sun’s surface including unusually low and slow sunspot activity. These signs, in conjunction with the research center’s ‘relational cycle theory ” or “RC Theory” of climate change which predicted these changes, now leaves no doubt that the process has already been initiated. It is also unstoppable. Our world is rapidly cooling. Even though we still may have isolated warm temperature records, the global trend to a colder era is now irreversible.”

As to whether others agree with his declaration, Casey congratulated the many other scientists around the world who had done “many years of outstanding research” which he used to corroborate his own research after he first found these climate-driving solar cycles and formulated the RC Theory. In the news conference he listed and praised more than a dozen other scientists, most in foreign countries, who had come to the same prediction on the Earth’s climate shift to a cold era.

He said, “I have consulted with colleagues world wide who have reached a similar conclusion. They have likewise been attempting to advise their own governments and media of the impending cold era and the difficult times that the extreme cold weather may bring. They are to be commended for their bold public stances and publication of their research which of course has been in direct opposition to past conventional thought on the nature and causes of the last twenty years of global warming. These last one or two decades of increased global warming were essentially the peak heating phase of the 206 year cycle.”

In the one hour presentation, Casey detailed the solar activity cycles that have been driving the Earth’s climate for the past 1,200 years. He condemned the climate change confusion and alarmism which has accompanied seven separate periods over the past 100 years, where scientists and the media flip-flopped on reporting that the Earth was either entering a new ‘ice age’ or headed for a global meltdown where melting glacial ice would swamp the planet’s coastal cities.

Much of the presentation focused on the positive and negative effects the next climate change will have on the State of Florida, the nation and the world.

Some effects of the coming cold climate on NASA’s space program were highlighted including an extended “quiet period’ produced by reduced solar activity. Casey believes this cold climate era will be the best time since the space program began to conduct human spaceflight. Advises Casey, “With the sun going into what I call “solar hibernation,” the harmful effects of solar radiation on astronauts in space will be minimized.”

Regarding the impacts of the next cold climate period on hurricanes, Casey summarized by saying “I would not be surprised to see the lowest number and least intense storms ever recorded in the US during this cold epoch, for obvious reasons. We should not forget however, the buildup along coastlines and an ever increasing population may continue to make Florida’s hurricanes potentially more destructive in the future, regardless of the number we have.”

On the subject of cold climate effects on agriculture, Casey was not optimistic. “I can see,” he added, “just like the last time this 206 year cycle brought cold, that there will be substantial damage to the world’s agricultural systems. This time however we will have eight billion mouths to feed during the worst years around 2031 compared to previously when we had only one billion. Yet even then, many died from the combined effects of bitter cold and lack of food.”

In his concluding remarks, Casey called on all leaders to immediately move from the past global warming planning to prepare for the already started change to a cold climate.

He ended with, “Now that the new cold climate has begun to arrive, we must immediately start the preparation, the adaptation process. At least because of the RC Theory we now have some advance warning. No longer do we need to wonder what the Earth’s next climate changes will be two or three generations out. But we must nonetheless be ready to adjust with our now more predictable solar cycles that are the primary determinants of climate on Earth.”

Kind of makes that “Consensus” a little bit debunked.

There is no such think in AGW. On both sides you will have a bias.

I just look at the science part and it tellsme thattheEarth will do whatever it wants with or without our help. The big orange ball in the sky will heat us or cool us. It has been happening since the Earth was formed. It has to do with the output of energy from solar flares and sun spots.

There’s inconsistencies with the solar flare theories as well.

BTW- “The Space and Science Research Center” appears to be three guys working out of a frontage road office park suite…

About that peer review process that is being bandied about so heavily on this thread:

Peer Review and Scientific Consensus

Journalists, politicians and advocacy groups refer to “peer-reviewed research” and “scientific consensus” as the authoritative last words on controversial matters involving the natural sciences, from climate change to stem-cell research and genetically engineered foods. But many people have an unrealistic view of how the scientific community actually works.
The peer-review process is not, contrary to popular belief, a nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny. Any editor of a peer-reviewed journal who desires to reject or accept a submission can easily do so by choosing appropriate referees.

Unfortunately, personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and irresponsibility are as much part of the scientific world as any other. Peer review cannot ensure that research is correct in its procedures and conclusions. A part of the work in every discipline – from the physical sciences to economics –consists of correcting previous mistakes.

At any given time, “scientific consensus” may exist about various matters. Over time, however, new interpretations, tests or observations may demolish that consensus. For instance, in the mid-1970s, an apparent scientific consensus existed that our planet was about to enter another Ice Age. Drastic proposals, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over polar icecaps to melt them. and damming the Bering Strait to prevent icy waters from entering the Pacific, were put forth by reputable scientists and seriously considered by the US government.

The truth is that scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world. Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, review one another’s work for funding organizations, and so forth. If you do not belong to this tight fraternity, it becomes extremely difficult to gain a hearing for your work, to publish in a “top” journal, to acquire a government grant, to receive an invitation to participate in a scientific conference, or even to place your grad students in decent positions.

“Scientific consensus” often emerges because the members of this exclusive club, and those who support them, have too much invested in the reigning ideas to let go. In this context, it behooves bright young scientists not to rock the boat by challenging anything fundamental or dear to the hearts of those who constitute review committees of funders or journals. The terms “peer review” and “scientific consensus” often serve to suggest a process of disinterested neutrality and saintly pursuit of truth. Like every other human endeavour, however, science is conducted by people with the full range of human emotions and motives.

Good rules of thumb for the non-scientist might be the following: government-funded research that is used to justify that government’s policy should be suspect, whether or not it’s peer-reviewed; and the research of scientists who appear at press conferences in the company of politicians or activists whose agendas they are there to support should be suspect, whether or not the work upholds the consensus opinion.

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute, editor of the quarterly journal The Independent Review, and the author of Depression War and Cold War, as well as numerous books and more than 100 articles in scholarly journals.

Dave Noble wrote:

Pssst ……The smart money is on the big guys.

You’re right.

That’s who I’m going with:

Statistics Needed

In this, the first of a series, I examine The Deniers, starting with Edward Wegman. Dr. Wegman is a professor at the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason University, chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. Few statisticians in the world have CVs to rival his (excerpts appear nearby).

CVs:

Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative’s Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.

Wegman became involved in the global-warming debate after the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked him to assess one of the hottest debates in the global-warming controversy: the statistical validity of work by Michael Mann. You may not have heard of Mann or read Mann’s study but you have often heard its famous conclusion: that the temperature increases that we have been experiencing are “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” of the millennium. You may have also heard of Mann’s hockey-stick shaped graph, which showed relatively stable temperatures over most of the last millennium (the hockey stick’s long handle), followed by a sharp increase (the hockey stick’s blade) this century.

Mann’s findings were arguably the single most influential study in swaying the public debate, and in 2001 they became the official view of the International Panel for Climate Change, the UN body that is organizing the worldwide effort to combat global warming. But Mann’s work also had its critics, particularly two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published peer-reviewed critiques of their own.

Wegman accepted the energy and commerce committee’s assignment, and agreed to assess the Mann controversy pro bono. He conducted his third-party review by assembling an expert panel of statisticians, who also agreed to work pro bono. Wegman also consulted outside statisticians, including the Board of the American Statistical Association. At its conclusion, the Wegman review entirely vindicated the Canadian critics and repudiated Mann’s work.

“Our committee believes that the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported,” Wegman stated, adding that “The paucity of data in the more remote past makes the hottest-in-a-millennium claims essentially unverifiable.” When Wegman corrected Mann’s statistical mistakes, the hockey stick disappeared.

Wegman found that Mann made a basic error that “may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimate studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.” Instead, this small group of climate scientists were working on their own, largely in isolation, and without the academic scrutiny needed to ferret out false assumptions.

Worse, the problem also applied more generally, to the broader climate-change and meteorological community, which also relied on statistical techniques in their studies. “[I]f statistical methods are being used, then statisticians ought to be funded partners engaged in the research to insure as best we possibly can that the best quality science is being done,” Wegman recommended, noting that “there are a host of fundamental statistical questions that beg answers in understanding climate dynamics.”

In other words, Wegman believes that much of the climate science that has been done should be taken with a grain of salt — although the studies may have been peer reviewed, the reviewers were often unqualified in statistics. Past studies, he believes, should be reassessed by competent statisticians and in future, the climate science world should do better at incorporating statistical know-how.

One place to start is with the American Meteorological Society, which has a committee on probability and statistics. “I believe it is amazing for a committee whose focus is on statistics and probability that of the nine members only two are also members of the American Statistical Association, the premier statistical association in the United States, and one of those is a recent PhD with an assistant-professor appointment in a medical school.” As an example of the statistical barrenness of the climate-change world, Wegman cited the American Meteorological Association’s 2006 Conference on Probability and Statistics in the Atmospheric Sciences, where only eight presenters out of 62 were members of the American Statistical Association.

While Wegman’s advice — to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics — may seem too obvious to need stating, the “science is settled” camp resists it. Mann’s hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.

To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

Another:

Warming is real - and has benefits

Richard Tol received his PhD in Economics from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He is Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University. He is a board member of the Centre for Marine and Climate Research, the International Max Planck Research Schools of Earth Systems Modelling and Maritime Affairs, and the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. He is an editor of Energy Economics, an associate editor of Environmental and Resource Economics, and a member of the editorial board of Environmental Science and Policy and Integrated Assessment.

And Another:

The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science

Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for the “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” He is a frequent contributor to leading journals, including Science, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, and Nature.

And Another:

Polar scientists on thin ice

Duncan Wingham was educated at Leeds and Bath Universities where he gained a B.Sc. and PhD. in Physics. He was appointed to a chair in the Department of Space and Climate Physics in 1996, and to head of the Department of Earth Sciences in October, 2005. Prof. Wingham is a member of the National Environmental Research Council’s Science and Technology Board and Earth Observation Experts Group. He is a director of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation & Modelling and principal scientist of the European Space Agency CryoSat Satellite Mission, the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.