Peer Evaluation Form - State University Of New York: Fill & Download for Free

No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory.The work of the UN IPCC admitted openly is less focused on the environment and real climate science , rather it is more a project in economics and wealth distribution with the fear of global warming the cat’s paw to gain supporters.The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability. This is critical to seen that the radical view of human caused warming is not settled science. The full story well documented in Bernie Lewin’s recent book.Why this history of the IPCC machinations is so important. E. Calvin BeisnerCompelling historyReviewed in the United States on January 18, 2020Anyone who thinks the science behind global warming alarmism it's simple, objective, empirically sound science in action needs to read this book. The political and financial forces driving toward alarmist conclusions about climate change have been powerful for generations, and that have resulted in scientific claims that go far beyond the evidence. Those in turn have led to government policies that go far beyond not only the science but also the economics, and threaten to undermine the prospects uplifting the world's remaining poor out of their poverty and suffering.The UN are guilty of a swindle about human made climate change as they doctored the key scientific working group report in 1995. The sordid story is presented objectively by Bernie Lewin in his book SEARCHING FOR THE CATASTROPHE SIGNAL.The UN climate science working group of 2000 experts said this when they made their report in 1995. They said we do not have scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reducedThe IPCC Working group presented details of the uncertainty about human caused climate that focused mostly on the fact the Co2 thesis is overwhelmed by natural variation and climate history. Here are details in their report where evidence is uncertain.Environment blogClimate changeFriday, December 19, 201497 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.Popular Technology.netThe claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand upConsensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrongRichard Tol: 'There is disagreement on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate.' Photograph: Frank Augstein/AP Photograph: Frank Augstein/APRichard TolFri 6 Jun 2014 15.59 BST971The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard TolDana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth.I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up.Cook and co selected some 12,000 papers from the scientific literature to test whether these papers support the hypothesis that humans played a substantial role in the observed warming of the Earth. 12,000 is a strange number. The climate literature is much larger. The number of papers on the detection and attribution of climate change is much, much smaller.Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.The abstracts of the 12,000 papers were rated, twice, by 24 volunteers. Twelve rapidly dropped out, leaving an enormous task for the rest. This shows. There are patterns in the data that suggest that raters may have fallen asleep with their nose on the keyboard. In July 2013, Mr Cook claimed to have data that showed this is not the case. In May 2014, he claimed that data never existed.The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.Attempts to obtain Cook’s data for independent verification have been in vain. Cook sometimes claims that the raters are interviewees who are entitled to privacy – but the raters were never asked any personal detail. At other times, Cook claims that the raters are not interviewees but interviewers.The 97% consensus paper rests on yet another claim: the raters are incidental, it is the rated papers that matter. If you measure temperature, you make sure that your thermometers are all properly and consistently calibrated. Unfortunately, although he does have the data, Cook does not test whether the raters judge the same paper in the same way.Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy. People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.On 29 May, the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the US House of Representatives examined the procedures of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Having been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, my testimony to the committee briefly reiterated some of the mistakes made in the fifth assessment report but focused on the structural faults in the IPCC, notably the selection of authors and staff, the weaknesses in the review process, and the competition for attention between chapters. I highlighted that the IPCC is a natural monopoly that is largely unregulated. I recommended that its assessment reports be replaced by an assessment journal.In an article on 2 June, Nuccitelli ignores the subject matter of the hearing, focusing instead on a brief interaction about the 97% consensus paper co-authored by… Nuccitelli. He unfortunately missed the gist of my criticism of his work.Successive literature reviews, including the ones by the IPCC, have time and again established that there has been substantial climate change over the last one and a half centuries and that humans caused a large share of that climate change.There is disagreement, of course, particularly on the extent to which humans contributed to the observed warming. This is part and parcel of a healthy scientific debate. There is widespread agreement, though, that climate change is real and human-made.I believe Nuccitelli and colleagues are wrong about a number of issues. Mistakenly thinking that agreement on the basic facts of climate change would induce agreement on climate policy, Nuccitelli and colleagues tried to quantify the consensus, and failed.In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless.Nuccitelli’s pieces are two of a series of articles published in the Guardian impugning my character and my work. Nuccitelli falsely accuses me of journal shopping, a despicable practice.The theologist Michael Rosenberger has described climate protection as a new religion, based on a fear for the apocalypse, with dogmas, heretics and inquisitors like Nuccitelli. I prefer my politics secular and my science sound.Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of SussexCO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle EditionbyNakamura Mototaka(Author)ArticlesGSMANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”SEPTEMBER 26, 2019CAP ALLONDr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his bookThe Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his websiterealclimatescience.com.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onKindleSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ MythPosted: June 10, 2020 | Author: Jamie Spry |It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game | CFACT“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendationson the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”– Prof. Chris Folland,Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictionsthat provide something very useful.”– Dr David Frame,Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.Via Clear Energy Alliance :97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :Fear, Complexity and Environmental Management in the 21st Century (Michael Crichton) | ClimatismNew lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.Articles“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEDECEMBER 20, 2018 CAP ALLONFor those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELSDr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWNSyun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCESIndur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]SPEAKING OUTA system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.Lennart BengtssonAny person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Michael CrichtonAnother name I have yet to add to the list:Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here."The List" - Scientists who Publicly Disagree with the Current Consensus on Climate Change - Electroverse

Update: now nine major and statistically reliable studies covering 270,000 property transactions.Summary: No.Five major and statistically reliable studies covering 45,600 property transactions by different respected and independent organizations in different countries spread over a decade have found no correlation between operating wind turbines and negative property values (two found positive impacts in fact).The prestigious US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found no correlation.The respected UK-based Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in combination with the Oxford Brookes University found no correlation.The US-based Renewable Energy Policy Project found positive correlations between wind turbines and property value increases.A University of Illinois Masters in Applied Economics thesis found statistical evidence that fear of an impending wind farm affects property values, but that operating wind farms do not, and that property values near operating wind farms increase faster.A recent New Hampshire study found no correlation between wind farms and property values.Fear of wind turbines impact on property values before the wind turbines are erected and shortly afterward seems to have a short-term impact on property values and sales. If so, anti-wind advocacy groups are complicit in this – arguably intentionally -- by publicizing and promoting fear of property value impacts.Respect the concernsWhether it is a home or a vacation property, the vast majority of people who buy or own rural property have a variety of deep emotional drivers attached to it. For some older people, it is the unchanging home they have been in for decades, in the midst of an often confusing and rapidly changing world. For others, it is a rural idyll, the fantasy of a hobby farm or country estate. For others, it is an escape from the vertical canyons, concrete, steel and noise of the city. For almost all of them, it represents a very large chunk of their money, with all of the attendant concerns that it might turn to dust as happened in the US with the subprime mortgage fiasco in 2008. It is worthwhile to respect the deep emotions involved in this subject. Anti-wind advocacy groups certainly do, and while some are directly motivated by fears of falling properties, many broader groups are using those fears to directly motivate grassroots organizations to form to fight wind turbines.Property values show no long-term correlation to wind turbine presenceThe best study in this field was funded by the US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. They charged the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory[7], a government-funded laboratory managed by the University of California. This report was delivered in 2009. [2]To ensure that the seriousness of this organization and its devotion to academic excellence and scientific truth is understood, thirteen Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the Lab and thirteen have been awarded the US National Medal of Science, the top US honor for lifetime achievements in science. Dozens more have received other extraordinary levels of recognition. This is an organization that is not for sale. This is an organization that takes its independence and excellence seriously.Here’s what they found:The present research collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single- family homes situated within 10 miles of 24 existing wind facilities in nine different U.S. states. The conclusions of the study are drawn from eight different hedonic pricing models, as well as both repeat sales and sales volume models. The various analyses are strongly consistent in that none of the models uncovers conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities.It is worth noting the arguments used against the study:It doesn’t agree with what is obviously happening around the person observing; statistics have never had much success in convincing someone who believes something and receives sufficient evidence to support their confirmation bias.The Lab is government-funded; the bona fides and independence of the LBNL are top-notch and questioning them indicates the rhetorical or intellectual disposition of the questioner.The study excluded 34 statistical outliers; statistical studies of any size do this to eliminate unrepresentative data and 34 exclusions on a sample size of 7,500 is miniscule. This study is accurate and has not been gamed.The next study is the 2007 study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) [10] in conjunction with Oxfords Brookes University [11], [12]. These are serious, respectable and trusted institutes as well. The researchers assessed property transactions within five miles (8 kilometers) of three wind farms from 2000 to 2007. This provides geographical, distance and time-frame perspectives. They eliminated transactions where significant other factors would impact prices: a large open cast slate mine, very expensive properties, very cheap properties and sea view properties. This was to provide a clear view of specifically wind turbines’ impact on property values. This left them with 919 transactions, which is statistically valid.[5]Their findings:Despite initial evidence that there was an effect, when they investigated more closely, there were generally other factors which were more significant than the presence of a wind farm. Insofar as there was any impact on prices, the results seem to show that it is most noticeable for terraced and semi-detached houses, with there being a significant impact on properties located within a mile of a wind farm. The effect seems much less marked – if at all – for detached houses.Regarding the terraced and semi-detached houses:The view of the estate agents was that proximity to a wind farm simply was not an issue. What they did say, though, was that the properties close to one of the wind farms – St Eval – were, in fact, ex-Ministry of Defence properties, and so less desirable than similar properties.To paraphrase, while people blamed wind turbines for property value decreases, other factors were much more significant, and detached homes, the dominant form of real estate near wind farms showed no price impacts.Unfortunately, RICS has removed this survey from their available publications on their website and are not standing by the results of their research.The third major study worth assessing is the Renewable Energy Policy Project’s (REPP) 2003 study. While the oldest, it also assessed the largest pool of data, more than 25,000 property transactions in the USA. They looked at every home within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of ten large (>10 MW) wind developments that came online between 1998 and 2001. They gathered sales data for the control regions near the wind turbines but outside of the 5 mile (8 kilometer) boundary to ensure that they could assess differences accurately. They gathered six years worth of data covering the years leading up to and following the wind farms’ online dates. [22]It is worth noting that while this is by far the largest study with the least statistical adjustment of data, the creator of the study, REPP, is an organization whose public and stated goal is to accelerate the use of renewable energy. [13] As such, while the study design is arguably very good and sample size the largest, it is the easiest to discount due to the source.What did they find:For 8 of the 10 of the wind projects, property values increased faster inside the five mile limit than outside of it over the six years.For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than they had before.For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than in the comparable communities.Not only did this massive study not find negative impacts on real estate values, it found exactly the opposite: wind turbines have a positive impact on real estate values.A fourth study is worthy of inclusion: "Wind Farm Proximity And Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis Of Property Values In Central Illinois" by Jennifer L. Hinman in partial fulfilment of a Master in Applied Economics with Illinois State University in 2010. Her study evaluated 3,851 residential property transactions from January 1, 2001 through December 1, 2009 from McLean and Ford Counties, Illinois around the 240-turbine, Twin Groves wind farm (Phases I and II) in eastern McLean County, Illinois.Ms. Hinman's study found no correlation between a working wind farm and decreased property values, in fact saw more rapid price increases nearer to the wind farm as was observed in the REPP report. Her study most clearly shows that there is a statistical correlation between fears about a wind farm before it is erected, temporarily depressing property values, and that this temporary dip is rapidly eliminated once the wind farm is in operation.[18]Ms. Hinman also did a literature review and found the same results: all major statistically valid studies find no negative correlation, but very small studies at or just above the level of the anecdotal do find negative impacts.A preliminary Australian study indicates that this is also true south of the equator. While the sample size of sales transactions is low, they found that 40 of 45 sales transactions had no evident reduction in value in close proximity to wind farms and that properties that were in sight of wind farms found no reduction in value. [17]They also did a literature survey and summarized additional references with similarly devastating results for studies showing negative impacts:This just in, a New Hampshire study published in December 2012 assessed another 4,600 property transactions and found:While this study does not exclude the possibility of isolated cases of property value impacts attributable to the Lempster Wind Power Project, this study has found no evidence that the Project has had a consistent, statistically‐significant impact on property values within the Lempster region. This is consistent with the near unanimous findings of other studies—based their analysis on arms‐length property sales transactions—that have found no conclusive evidence of wide spread, statistically significant changes in property values resulting from wind power projects.[23]Two correlation graphs from this study paint a clear picture.Note that distances are in kilometres.Basically, there's no variance on home prices due to distance from wind turbines, and a huge correlation to size of dwellings.What is the evidence that shows negative impacts?There is one statistically valid, methodologically sound, peer-reviewed study which contradicts the preponderance of evidence above. Martin Heintzelman and Carrie Tuttle did a study of 11,331 property transactions over 9 years in three counties in Northern New York, 461 of which were within three miles of wind turbines.[19] They found that two of the three counties had significant property value decreases while the third had positive indicators. For context, this study is relatively equivalent in terms of organizational respect and depth to Ms. Hinman's study from Illinois State University; credible but not from a world-class organization such as the Berkeley Lab or RICS.A significant failing of the study that makes it difficult to trust compared to other studies is the short time frame of the data for the two counties with negative impacts. Their wind farms became operational in 2008 and 2009, basically in the last year of the data set. The county with positive impacts went live in 2006, in the middle of the data set, providing a much richer analysis space. There are several other significant differences between the two counties that showed negative results and the county with positive results as well.The two counties with negative impacts (Franklin and Clinton) had significantly fewer transactions -- 210 between them -- than the county with some positive impacts (Lewis) which had 251 transactions.The two counties with negative impacts had significantly higher resales of properties than the county with positive impacts, 75 to 65.The two counties with negative impacts are adjoining to one another with the third county two hours drive away, effectively in another community conversation region and making it possible for other local impacts to be masked; three completely separate or three completely co-located regions would have eliminated this oddity.The two counties with negative impacts had fewer wind turbines on average than the county with positive impacts (221 between them to 194 in Lewis).This region also has a robust set of anti-wind activist groups. The 2011 anti-wind documentary, Windfall [20], is from upstate New York, and Lisa Linowes, a long term anti-wind advocate with ties to astroturf-supporters such as the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers [21] was the sole technical advisor to the movie and has been active in the area.Despite the largest county with the longest history of wind energy and the most transactions having positive indicators for property values, the authors focused their conclusions dominantly on the negative counties. The authors state in their preamble that they did not believe it possible that wind turbines didn't negatively affect property values. They found the results they expected, ignoring the significant oddities in their results.The examples listed in the question and others [1], [4] represent real people telling the truth as they see it, which is to say, from a limited perspective in both space and time. What they are observing is accurate but restricted.Some people do not buy homes when they understand that wind turbines might be going up near bySome people do sell or try to sell their homes when they hear that wind turbines are going upProperty prices do dip under those conditions: this is a real occurrence, supported by the Illinois statistical study.What are the fears that are driving this?Fear of health is one, with the psychogenic Wind Turbine Syndrome and it’s equally fictitious cousin Vibro-Acoustic Disease. Note that these are not real diseases, but they are promoted by both the originators of the concept and by anti-wind advocacy groups as being real, and they are creating a health hysteria in English-language countries around wind energy.[8], [9], [13]Fear of property value decreases, which this article is assessing.Fear of wind turbines collapsing, throwing blade parts or causing fires. These are so massively unlikely that no rational analysis would include them, but they are highly evocative. [15]Fear of an innumerable (currently 113) other negative things attributed to wind turbines. [16]These are real fears of unreal things. They are strongly promoted by anti-wind advocacy groups. It is strongly arguable that anti-wind advocates drive down property prices in the run up to wind farms becoming operational just as they are creating the psychogenic health hysteria, "Wind Turbine Syndrome.:"References:[1] http://friendsofwind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/USA-2010-Hinman-Wind-Farm-Proximity-and-Property-Values.pdf[2] The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis[4] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2012/wind-turbines-constitute-a-taking-of-private-property-value-mass/[5] http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/estates/kenly-farm/images/RICS%20Property%20report.pdf[6] http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/do-wind-turbines-affect-property-values/[7] http://www.lbl.gov/[8] "Wind turbine syndrome" is more wind than syndrome[9] Wind farms don't make people sick, so why the complaints?[10] http://www.rics.org/[11] http://www.brookes.ac.uk/[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Brookes_University[13] http://www.repp.org/aboutus.html[14] Humans evolved with infrasound; is there any truth to health concerns about it?[15] Wind farms causing fires? All smoke, no flame[16] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.docx[17] http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/117621/t0L51WT8.pdf[18] http://friendsofwind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/USA-2010-Hinman-Wind-Farm-Proximity-and-Property-Values.pdf[19] http://clarkson.academia.edu/MartinHeintzelman/Papers/1155349/Values_in_the_Wind_A_Hedonic_Analysis_of_Wind_Power_Facilities[20] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1581829/[21] http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/08/12/lisa-linowes-and-the-disinformation-of-industrial-wind-action-group/[22] http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf[23] http://windworksvermont.org/uploads/14B_lempster_property_value_impacts_final.pdf

Why study in the US?Before starting the research, you should be asking this. If you follow this field closely, the answer should be obvious. US is the largest analytics / data science market in the entire world. The major benefit of pursuing Masters in US is to gain access to the large pool of upcoming job opportunities in US. It is also one of the most mature market in analytics / data science evolution.If you’ve ever dreamed of working as a data scientist in US, this guide with take you a step closer. In this article, I’ve provided a detailed analysis of 10 good MS Programs in Analytics /Data Science in US. I’ve seen that people become clueless in choosing the best college / university for themselves. Therefore, I’ve also provided a detailed explanation of selection parameters which can be used to evaluate goodness of any university program.1. MS in Data Science, Columbia UniversityColumbia University is located in the heart of New York city. Being an Ivy League institution, there are no questions about its reputation. The MS program is being run by the Data Science Institute at Columbia. The students have access to courses from all the top programs at the institute. The general course duration is 16 months,i.e. 3 semesters of study and an internship semester.Curriculum: Courses worth 30 credits are required to be completed and most of the graduate level courses are 3 credits each. It consists of 6 core courses covering the essentials of computer science, probability, statistics and machine learning. There is a capstone project in the last semester. Remaining 3 courses can be taken as electives from across the university.Practical Training: These come in the form of an internship semester and capstone project. Additionally, the Columbia Data Science Society organizes workshops and other events where you can get ample opportunities to interact and solve problems with your peers. The city of New York has a strong data science community which will offer many opportunities to apply data science knowledge.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities: The data science institute runs 7 research centers which run some good research projects which can help students get a working knowledge of data science Since the department consists of professors from various departments including computer science, statistics, business, civil, etc. there are ample research opportunities available. Industry collaborations work in terms of sponsored research projects as well career development center which organizes career fairs, tech talks, etc.Rankings: Business: 10 Computer Science: 15 Statistics: 20 Mathematics: 9Conclusion: The program provides a good foundation in machine learning and programming along with practical experience. Moreover Columbia is ranked in top 20 in all the domains related to data science making it a good choice. One drawback of the program could be that the curriculum is a bit inclined towards programming and more technical in nature than few other programs, which are more business oriented.2.MS in Computational Data Science, Carnegie Mellon UniversityCarnegie Mellon University (CMU) is one of the topmost universities for research in computer science. It’s CS department also run few specialized masters programs.These programs focus on one core domain, have higher tuition fee and offers no assistance. They treat them as cash cow programs but students benefit from the high quality pedagogy. MSCDS is one such program. It spans over 16 months with 3 semesters of study and an internship semester.Curriculum: There are 2 concentration to choose from – Analytics or Systems. Analytics will focus on machine learning aspect and Systems will focus on big data and computational aspects. Total 8 unit-courses, 2 seminar courses and 1 capstone project is required to complete the course. Out of the 8 unit-courses, 3 are electives which can be taken from the Department of Computer Science.Practical Training: These come in the form of an internship semester, seminar courses and capstone project. The location of Pittsburg is a definite disadvantage but the brand name of CMU is too big for it to have an impact on the internship or job search. Obviously, relocation could be a potential challenge.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities: This is a coursework oriented program and the research/industrial collaboration opportunities come from sponsored capstone projects. The institute also helps in acquiring internships and job opportunities.Rankings: Business: 18 Computer Science: 1 Statistics: 9 Mathematics: 34Conclusion: This is a CS oriented program and ideal for people with some coding experience who want to get into machine learning. The drawback being that the business side of the program is weak and you should not expect getting some domain experience like finance/healthcare. It is better suited for software engineering roles rather than data scientist roles.3. MS in Analytics, North Carolina State UniversityThis program is managed by the Institute of Advanced Analytics at NCSU and is the first analytics program started way back in 2007.Most of the other programs are 2-4 years old and thus lack recognition. But NCSU is a highly reputed program in the analytics industry, even though NCSU as a whole is considered a tier 2 institution. This is a 10-month intensive program, with 3 semesters starting in the summer and ending in spring. Moreover, GRE score is not required for application, only TOEFL is required.Curriculum: The curriculum exposes students to a wide spectrum of topics which can be found here. The program ends with an industry sponsored capstone project. The curriculum focuses on mathematics and statistics and covers many statistical techniques.Practical Training: The program is a typical coursework based with 2 practical courses. There is no option of an internship. The location of North Carolina is not rick in local opportunities in data science, but the course is intensive enough to keep students exhausted during the 10 months.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities The capstone projects are in collaboration with the industry. Some guest lectures and tech talks are also organized. The program has no inclination towards research and you should not go there expecting any. The institute also helps in acquiring internships and job opportunities.Rankings: Business: 52 Computer Science: 48 Statistics: 15 Mathematics: 52Conclusion: NCSU is a well reputed program with good future prospects. It prepare candidates well for data scientist roles as it exposes them to a wide spectrum of analytics techniques. Strong mathematics and statistics fundamentals are required to get into this program and you should apply only if you are confident about the same.The masters program at TAMU is offered by the department of statistics and it’s a part-time program for working professionals. The program website is not much informative but TAMU as an institution has a decent reputation in the industry. Being a part time program, it is spread over 5 semesters.Curriculum: The curriculum consists of 12 courses, details of which can be found here. The program ends with an industry sponsored capstone project. There are only 2 elective courses. The curriculum has a focus on statistics with applications in finance and marketing.Practical Training: The program is typically coursework based with a capstone project and a seminar with oral presentation. There is focus on SAS programming which prepares you well for the industry.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities Being a part time program, there is no focus on research. The program’s advisory body is made up of industry professionals so the program runs hand-in-hand with the requirements in the industry. TAMU organizes some other events as well like the Analytics 2015 conference.Rankings: Business: 31 Computer Science: 40 Statistics: 15 Mathematics: 41Overall, it is a decent program and designed specifically for working professionals.4. MS in Business Analytics, Michigan State UniversityThis is a 1 year program which commences in the spring semester and continues in summer and fall with graduation in December. The course prepares students for data scientist roles in industries such as consulting, automotive, consumer products, retail, and financial services.Curriculum: The curriculum consists of 12 courses, details of which can be found here. There are only no elective courses as all courses are pre-defined. The summer semester has workload of only 2 courses and in addition a capstone project of a 10-12 week internship can be completed in that period.Practical Training: The program is typically coursework based with an option of capstone project or an internship.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities It’s a typical coursework based program with no attention on research. The capstone projects are conducted in collaboration with an industry partner. University organizes internship and job fairs as well.Rankings: Business: 35 Computer Science: 56 Statistics: 47 Mathematics: 46Conclusion: This is a good program and if you like the fixed curriculum, it might work out. Also, since Michigan State University is not as reputed as some other universities mentioned here, it might be easier to get in.5. MS in Business Analytics, University of CincinnatiThis is another 1 year program commencing in fall, with a more or less fixed curriculum. It prepares the candidates for business analyst and data scientist positions.Curriculum: The curriculum consists of 12 courses, details of which can be found here. The program ends with an industry sponsored capstone project. There are only 2 elective courses.Practical Training: The program is typically coursework based with a capstone project. The location of Cincinnati also doesn’t offer a vibrant data science community to take advantage from.Industrial Collaboration & Research Opportunities The program has no focus on research. List most other courses, industry collaborations are in the form of job fairs, tech talks and sponsored capstone.Rankings: Business: 63 Computer Science: 112 Statistics: – Mathematics: 115Conclusion: This is a slightly less reputed university with a decent program which should be comparatively easier to get through. But you should be comfortable with the curriculum before you think about taking it up.