• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Threegoofs said:
He still has no job. His career is a bit...embarrassing.

Climate Change: The Next Generation: Climate change critic Murry Salby loses case against Macquarie University
Click to expand...
Here is the judges decision in detail:

Salby v Macquarie University & Anor [2016] FCCA 3 (22 February 2016)

The guy misused funds, disregarded Macquarie University's Policies, took off on a 5 week holiday in the middle of teaching term without authorization, used a University credit card to pay for his unauthorised trip, didn't do what he was employed to do, then whined when they gave him the boot. Macquarie Uni should have done a better job vetting him as he was under investigation with the University of Colorado who had previously employed him and was barred by the National Science Foundation for "Deceptive Conduct". Unfortunately for Macquarie Uni, the investigation hadn't been completed before Salby left the US and took the position in Australia.

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/I06090025.pdf (case number I06090025 )

"We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years."

What a hero. :shock:
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
$360 trillion dollars are what they hope to forcibly collect from the people on this planet? I sure hope that is a misquote! :scared: :beam:
Click to expand...

Truly fascinating that Jack would post that blog article from Curry's blog about Murry Salby again. Especially without the follow up blog article on Curry's blog the next day showing how Salby's claims were completely wrong.

Quaestio said:
I was surprised even Judith Curry would post such easily refuted blatantly false claims from Murry Salby. Luckily, she has now posted an article showing how Salby's claims are completely wrong.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/...of-fossil-fuel-emissions-and-atmospheric-co2/
Click to expand...
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Quaestio said:
Here is the judges decision in detail:

Salby v Macquarie University & Anor [2016] FCCA 3 (22 February 2016)

The guy misused funds, disregarded Macquarie University's Policies, took off on a 5 week holiday in the middle of teaching term without authorization, used a University credit card to pay for his unauthorised trip, didn't do what he was employed to do, then whined when they gave him the boot. Macquarie Uni should have done a better job vetting him as he was under investigation with the University of Colorado who had previously employed him and was barred by the National Science Foundation for "Deceptive Conduct". Unfortunately for Macquarie Uni, the investigation hadn't been completed before Salby left the US and took the position in Australia.

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/I06090025.pdf (case number I06090025 )

"We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years."

What a hero. :shock:
Click to expand...

He's not a hero; he's a victim. And btw, the "5 week holiday" was a series of invited presentations of his work, with travel paid by Macquarie U.

It’s an Unsettling Climate for skeptical scientists like Murry Salby


UPDATED: The full text is now available at City Journal. Rupert Darwall is the author of Age of Global Warming (and earning excellent reviews). Darwall has a gift for converting tricky scientific concepts into a story. This month in the City Journal, he beautifully summarizes and updates the story of Murry Salby. He’s interviewed Richard Lindzen and others, and discusses Salby’s work in the context of the way heretics are marginalized. . . .


In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a professor of climate science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had canceled the return leg of his nonrefundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal.
I wrote about this extraordinary incident in July last year and asked Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?
Rupert Darwall describes Salby’s distinguished history involving work at Georgia Tech, Princeton, Hebrew, and Stockholm Universities before coming to the University of Colorado. He talks of how Salby’s work on ozone validated the science behind the 1987 Montreal Protocol.When Salby wrote a graduate textbook,it was described as “unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity,” by one reviewer. Later Salby started to examine man-made global warming but ‘what he found left him “absolutely surprised.” ‘
Salby’s recent work is so controversial because it questions the key IPCC assumption, that man-made CO2 emissions cause global levels of CO2 to rise. As I described it way back in 2011:
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
​
Salby’s trip to Europe was to present and discuss exactly this point — is humankind to blame for the CO2 levels rising, or was it a warming ocean and soil moisture changes?
In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first—and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2, with changes in soil-moisture conditions explaining most of the rest.
 
Threegoofs said:
I find it's usually with facts.
Click to expand...

Climate truthers don't cope well with facts. They seek only "The Truth" (according to their ideology and beliefs) which requires them to unskeptically accept anything that supports their beliefs no matter how ridiculous, and lie, cherry-pick, misrepresent, or just completely ignore the facts.
 
Quaestio said:
Truly fascinating that Jack would post that blog article from Curry's blog about Murry Salby again. Especially without the follow up blog article on Curry's blog the next day showing how Salby's claims were completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Because the follow up article was itself refuted in comments.

Please see the David L. Hagen post in Comments.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/12/b...mospheric-co2/

Rate Change of fossil fuel emissions vs “increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions”
Prof. Guido van der Werf. Thanks for trying to evaluate Dr. Salby’s presentation. However, please compare “Apples to Apples” and distinguish Salby’ mis-statements from his otherwise clear mathematical development, graphed units and surrounding statements.
Fallacy: Changing comparisons:
You have switched from Salby’s “change in the growth rate”
to “change in total Anthroprogenic emissions”.
You stated:

Most importantly, fossil fuel emissions have fortunately not increased by a factor 3 over the past two decades.
You further graphed: “Additional CO2 emissions: about 20% (9.7 vs 8.0).”
Your Fig. 3 appears to be a logical error misreading Salby’s graph rather than from Salby’s actual statements and his mis-statement versus his intended statement on the rate of fossil fuel growth.
Salby actually graphs “Fossil fuel emissions (GtC/yr)”
This shows fossil fuel emission growth from ~ 6.1 to 7 GtC/y from 1990 to 2003.
Salby accurately labels this period as “Average growth 1%/year”. (~17%/13 years).
Then Fossil fuel emissions grow from 7 to 9.9 GtC/y from 2003 to 2015.
Salby accurately labels this period as “Average growth 3%/year.” (~40%/12 years). . . .
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Salby whines and lies to climate truther conspiracy bloggers like Jo Nova, and the mindless climate truthers automatically and unskeptically believe it's "The Truth" because that's what they want to believe. No fact-checking. No reading the court documents and investigation reports. No facts required, just blind belief. Sad really.
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Jack Hays said:
He's not a hero; he's a victim. And btw, the "5 week holiday" was a series of invited presentations of his work, with travel paid by Macquarie U.

It’s an Unsettling Climate for skeptical scientists like Murry Salby


UPDATED: The full text is now available at City Journal. Rupert Darwall is the author of Age of Global Warming (and earning excellent reviews). Darwall has a gift for converting tricky scientific concepts into a story. This month in the City Journal, he beautifully summarizes and updates the story of Murry Salby. He’s interviewed Richard Lindzen and others, and discusses Salby’s work in the context of the way heretics are marginalized. . . .


In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a professor of climate science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had canceled the return leg of his nonrefundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal.
I wrote about this extraordinary incident in July last year and asked Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?
Rupert Darwall describes Salby’s distinguished history involving work at Georgia Tech, Princeton, Hebrew, and Stockholm Universities before coming to the University of Colorado. He talks of how Salby’s work on ozone validated the science behind the 1987 Montreal Protocol.When Salby wrote a graduate textbook,it was described as “unequalled in breadth, depth and lucidity,” by one reviewer. Later Salby started to examine man-made global warming but ‘what he found left him “absolutely surprised.” ‘
Salby’s recent work is so controversial because it questions the key IPCC assumption, that man-made CO2 emissions cause global levels of CO2 to rise. As I described it way back in 2011:
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
​
Salby’s trip to Europe was to present and discuss exactly this point — is humankind to blame for the CO2 levels rising, or was it a warming ocean and soil moisture changes?
In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first—and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2, with changes in soil-moisture conditions explaining most of the rest.
Click to expand...

Blog post from a biased denier vs. legal ruling.

I think I'll go with the legal ruling.

Now remember, this is just one tiny bit of the Gish gallop we saw a long time ago, which has now shown that one of the 'pieces of evidence' of AGW being fake has been manufactured by a discredited fraud.

The matter is concluded.
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Threegoofs said:
Blog post from a biased denier vs. legal ruling.

I think I'll go with the legal ruling.

Now remember, this is just one tiny bit of the Gish gallop we saw a long time ago, which has now shown that one of the 'pieces of evidence' of AGW being fake has been manufactured by a discredited fraud.

The matter is concluded.
Click to expand...

Withdraw if you wish.
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

Jack Hays said:
Withdraw if you wish.
Click to expand...

Well, it's clear YOU never will!

07a5d2f4f8b4f52563daa44142522d8f.jpg
 
Re: "Paradigm Protection" in Climate Research Funding

[h=1]Buckets of money are available[/h]Posted on 30 Sep 16 by PAUL MATTHEWS • 8 Comments
A regular object of ridicule at this blog is the so-called Conversation, supposedly providing “Academic rigour” and “journalistic flair” that is “free of political bias” but in fact failing to deliver any of these and instead serving up a diet of thoughtless, biased, political activism and academic groupthink. Their latest idiocy is a piece by Professor …Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom