JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Gone Feudal: Oregon State Uni (OSU) sack and target skeptics (and their children)

In an extremely worrying development, we can add Nick Drapela’s name to the list of skeptics fired for the heresy of speaking out. This email from Gordon Fulks came around today, and I want to spread the message. I have written before about the scientist of upstanding integrity and action that is Art Robinson – When he ran for Congress, three of his children doing PhD’s were targeted at OSU. The details of Joshua, Bethany and Matthews work are described on the Oregon State Outrage blog. These exemplary students were close to finishing their work towards PhD degrees in nuclear engineering when all three suddenly faced major obstacles and the likelihood of losing all their work to date. (See the Outrage blog for updates).
But the outrageous behaviour continues. Legal action may not be the answer (In Robinson’s case the Uni apparently wants them to sue, so it will be obliged to have “no comment” while OSU would get taxpayer funds to extend the case at length.) What we need is facebook, twitter, letters and emails – a campaign to let the State of Oregon (and especially university donors) know their university has regressed to a feudal religious institute — Jo

—————————————————————————————————————–

Gordon Fulks writes:

Hello Everyone,

In theory at least Oregon State University (OSU) seems to be a bastion of academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance.  A wide range of ideas are openly discussed.  The most viable rise to the top and the least viable fade away.  But it is all a fairy tale, because OSU operates under a politically correct regimen that dictates what is acceptable to say and what is not. Transgressors who dare to be different are eventually weeded out so that the campus maintains its ideological purity.

OSU is not yet as swift or efficient as the Soviet system when Joseph Stalin was trying to quash dissent among biologists who refused to go along with Trofim Lysenko.  If warnings to compromise their integrity were not followed, Stalin simply had biologists shot.  That quickly thinned the ranks of all biologists and persuaded the remaining ones to comply with Stalin’s wishes.  Of course, it also destroyed Soviet biology, because Lysenko was pedaling nonsense.  And Russian biology has never recovered.

We learned over the weekend that chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD has been summarily fired from his position as a “Senior Instructor” in the Department of Chemistry.  The department chairman Richard Carter told him that he was fired but would not provide any reason.  Subsequent attempts to extract a reason from the OSU administration have been stonewalled.  Drapela appears to have been highly competent and well-liked by his students.  Some have even taken up the fight to have him reinstated.

What could possibly have provoked the OSU administration to take precipitous action against one of their academics who has been on their staff for ten years, just bought a house in Corvallis, and has four young children (one with severe medical problems)?  Dr. Drapela is an outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, the official religion of the State of Oregon, the Oregon Democratic Party, and Governor John Kitzhaber.

Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer.  Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired.  (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA in the Obama administration.)  Under those currently in charge, OSU climate research has grown to be a huge business, reportedly $90 million per year with no real deliverables beyond solid academic support for climate hysteria.  A small army of researchers ponder the effects of Global Warming on all sorts of things from tube worms living along the Oregon Coast to butterflies inland.  When the climate refuses to warm (as it has for the last twenty years), they just study ‘warming in reverse!’  Most of us call that “cooling,” but they are very careful not to upset their Obama administration contract monitors with politically incorrect terminology.

Skeptics of Global Warming who oppose the OSU approach and oppose the politicians who make it all possible but do not work for OSU also find themselves attacked.  Dr. Art Robinson who is running against Peter DeFazio for an Oregon Congressional seat found three of his children under attack at OSU.  All were attempting to obtain advanced degrees in the Nuclear Engineering Department and were threatened with dismissal.  Because Robinson fought back, we understand that the OSU administration backed down.

As to the latest victim of political correctness at OSU, Dr. Nickolas Drapela gives us an excellent synopsis of what is going on:

“The fact of the matter is that it is now two weeks since I was fired and no one has had the cajones or the common courtesy to even tell me why.  I have spoken with the Dept. Chair (Rich Carter) who fired me, and he refused to tell me why.  I spoke to the Dean of Science (Vince Remcho) and he couldn’t tell me why.  I spoke to HR who set up a meeting with me, then cancelled it an hour before.  Then I went to the Vice President of Academic Affairs (Becky Warner) and she sent me back to Rich Carter, the chemistry chair.

It’s just a sad, sad state of affairs that an institution like OSU would fire a good employee for (ostensibly) no reason and then run around and hide from the person they fired.  I had stellar teaching evaluations, I won College of Science awards for teaching, and published textbooks.  My class sections were always full and I was well-liked by students (see ratemyprofessors.com).  I was doing my job very well.  But I guess I didn’t march in step with their philosophies.

There were quite a few student protests over this at OSU (Barometer, Facebook, etc.) but to no avail.

I was given no severance and had no warning this was about to happen.  In fact, I was lured into the chair’s office under the guise of a fallacious story before being fired.

As you know, I was probably the most visibly-outspoken critic of the Global Warming doctrine at OSU.  I gave several public talks on the topic and did research in the area which I regularly posted on the web.  I was also on a few talk radio shows in the area.  I think they finally just said, we can’t have this.

Can it be that a university whose motto is “Open minds. Open doors” cannot abide even one faculty member who disagrees with their dogma?  I suppose I am too naive, but I’m still reeling from it.  Unbelievable.

I should say that they regularly read all my email communications, which is why I am writing from this private email address.  That has been going on for quite some time now.

As far as my options at this point, like I said I haven’t even really grasped what has just happened.  I don’t know what I’m going to do, or what options I have yet.  I’m sure OSU wants their story to be tight and perfectly identical among all administration before coming out with an official reason why I was fired, hence the long wait and refusal to speak to me.

I truly thank you for your concern, and I hope there is some recourse, even just for the sake of exposing what is happening at OSU.”

In a separate e-mail Drapela went on to say:

“Thanks so much for your support and your concern.  That’s really nice.  My students were all really upset about it.  They started an email writing campaign to have me re-hired but I guess no one cares what they think.

I find that the people who want to keep things secret all the time are usually the people that have something to hide.  It is certainly ok by me for you to disseminate this story.  But I’m sure OSU would be horrified.

I’m not sure how I will support my family at this point.  We just bought a house in Corvallis.  I have four kids, one of whom has a rare, blood disorder and requires regular trips to Doernbecher’s Children’s Hospital for treatment.  Now we will be without health insurance.”

We can only speculate as to how the decision to fire Drapela was made.  Unlike the decision to force Taylor out (which came from the governor’s office), this decision was likely internal to OSU with the implicit backing of Governor Kitzhaber and NOAA administrator Lubchenco.  I would suspect that Dr. Phil Mote (Director of their Climate Change Research Institute) had a hand in the decision, because he has previously been highly intolerant of those who oppose his ideas and could potentially threaten his business empire.

Please join with me in supporting Nick Drapela.  Please join with me in supporting objective science, as well as academic freedom, diversity, and tolerance.  The issues here go far beyond just Global Warming and strike at the very heart of who we are as scientists and Americans.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

P.S. Please circulate this e-mail far and wide.  The world needs to know what is going on here.

Related Posts:

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (59 votes cast)
Gone Feudal: Oregon State Uni (OSU) sack and target skeptics (and their children), 9.5 out of 10 based on 59 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/7nwk9qp

65 comments to Gone Feudal: Oregon State Uni (OSU) sack and target skeptics (and their children)

  • #
    Winston

    I think what I wrote in my play on the topic of the entrenched bullying, the group-think of the brainwashed, and the marginalising of dissenters is germane to this sad indictment of post modern science.

    Artemidorus (Lewandowsky): If I may be so bold, Caesar, I suggest we must embark first and foremost on a concerted campaign to win the hearts and minds of these naive, yet ever so troublesome plebeians. We shall ask our friends, the Tribunes , to disseminate as much disinformation as possible through persuasive debates with like-minded patriots,in order to disarm the populace. Persuade them of the certainty of the science of the Soothsayers, frighten the masses with exaggerated tales of the catastrophes about to befall us, vilify this “Carbonis” in it’s every form no matter how innocuous it may really be! If any are so bold as to contradict our assertions, vilify and attack them without mercy, for they are traitors and must be silenced. Perhaps tattooing them with their vile conceit will suffice, to mark forever their treachery for all to see. Those who are employed must be marginalized in their place of work. Depriving them of their professional reputations and their livelihoods will cut them down to size more swiftly than any sword. Also, we must spread the creed through all the places of learning, persuading those teachers of a similar mind to present these facts to their students without question, discouraging wherever we can any abominations such as “analytical thought” or “inquiring minds”. Such thoughts and expressions of liberty are dangerous in the hands of these denizens of the lower depths! Without these measures, we cannot succeed in appeasing the wrath of the Gods. Exitus acta probat (The end justifies the means)!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Ross James

    The basis of his termination was inevitable. The scientific evidence did not support his assertions. Thereby he did not represent science as it unfolded during the 90s concerning climate change/global warming which is evolutionary not radical or quantum. Research confirmed within the 2012 periods of peer reviewed releases sunk this fellows employments prospects incapable in staying updated.

    Going over outdated science and refuted findings of the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy only aided his demise at the University.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Trish

    “When the climate refuses to warm (as it has for the last twenty years), they just study ‘warming in reverse!’ Most of us call that “cooling,”

    Wonderful piece of writing Jo. Just found you recently through the Fairdinkum Radio expose of the propagandist ABC’s phony debate show, “I can change your mind” on climate change.

    I knew it would be propaganda, so I didn’t watch.

    Another ABC propagandist piece from 2009, one of scores I’m sure http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2862588.htm

    You know we can trust Four Corners because as they tell us, it is “Investigative journalism at its very best”. If they say it, it must be true. Right ?

    The gist of that show – don’t go to anyone for counselling or mental health coaching that we don’t register (read bribe onto the Medicare gravy train….so we can control them, hah hah ! Works like a charm)

    Anyone not registered might be a psychopath, like this guy we profile here.

    Registration is how we protect the public from abuse. Keep your eye on the swinging watch now …

    Back to “I can change your mind”, we could have identified the very NWO mole had we been present in the editing room, when the majority of the 2 hour interview with your husband ended up on the cutting room floor.

    It certainly is true that “The time to test what we are made of, is here”

    Humanity is truly insane. Here we are doing a repeat of the 1930′s, doing the same thing over again, and hoping for a different outcome.

    Don’t people get it ? All it takes is everyone to look and see what is happening, then stand up all together, and end it !

    Keep up the great work,

    Trish


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    OSU is behaving like all CAGW fanatics.
    this is more in line with Agenda 21, but will post this update:

    11 June: UK Telegraph: David Millward: Airlines urge EU to ditch carbon permit scheme
    Airlines have appealed to the EU to ditch its aviation carbon trading scheme amid fears that it will trigger a trade war.
    A number of countries, including Russia, China, the US and India have reacted furiously to the scheme, which will require all airlines flying to and from the EU to buy carbon permits…
    Tony Tyler, the director general of the International Air Transport Association, described the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as an “obstacle to real progress”.
    He added: “Certainly no airline – European or otherwise – should be a target for retaliation because European Governments are acting extra-territorially.”
    The solution, he said, was for a global scheme to be agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, an arm of the United Nations.
    Rounding on the EU, he continued: “Europe seems more committed to implementing its ETS unilaterally than to sincerely negotiating a multilateral agreement.
    “For Europe’s international counterparts, it’s like being asked to negotiate with a gun to their head.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9323649/Airlines-urge-EU-to-ditch-carbon-permit-scheme.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    still making it up as they go along, with the future of the world in the hands of WWF and Greenpeace! how did this happen?

    12 June: BusinessGreen: Emissions trading scheme could be oversupplied until 2024
    Report calls for tougher emissions targets and the permanent removal of permits to boost low carbon investment
    A surplus of around 1.42 billion emission allowances is predicted by the end of the decade in a report prepared by the Oko-Insitut for campaign groups WWF and Greenpeace and published yesterday to coincide with a meeting of EU environment ministers in Luxembourg…
    “The EU carbon market was designed to reward cleaner production, [but] the reality is it won’t cut pollution for at least the next decade,” said Joris den Blanken, climate policy director at Greenpeace EU. “This report proves we simply need deeper emission cuts, not just a short-term fix, if we want to keep rewarding green investments in Europe.”
    The EU is considering plans to set aside permits from auctions in the next phase of the EU ETS, which runs from next year until 2020. However, under the proposals withheld credits would be returned at a later date and the overall emissions cap would not change…
    Jason Anderson, head of European climate and energy at WWF’s European policy office, said a short-term set aside had to be complemented by other measures if it is to drive up carbon prices.
    “The EU Commission’s upcoming proposal to backload or set-aside emission allowances must be accompanied with ideas to effectively cancel these allowances as soon as possible,” he added. “Member states must raise the overall adequacy of EU climate policies and adopt a higher target.”…
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2183454/emissions-trading-scheme-oversupplied-2024


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and this is but the tip of the carbon offset iceberg:

    5 June: UK Telegraph: Jonathan Russell: Fraudsters turn to carbon credits, according to FSA
    Carbon credits have emerged as the latest asset class being targeted by fraudsters intent on fleecing vulnerable investors
    Figures obtained from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) revealed an explosion in companies fraudulently offering to deal in carbon credits – transferable certificates that allow companies to pollute. More than 100 companies have been reported to the watchdog over the past 12 months. The figure is up from just six prior to June last year.
    The City watchdog has already published the names of 21 companies in its list of unauthorised firms. The list comes with the warning that some of the firms “knowingly run scams”.
    The companies, including Green Carbon Solutions, Global Climate Agency and Carbon Credit International, have names designed to suggest probity. In fact many of them are run by individuals who used to operate boiler room scams selling shares to unsuspecting investors.
    One company approached by The Telegraph, which does not appear on the FSA list, was offering “minimum returns” of 15pc per year and up to 30pc or 40pc returns were “quite possible”. The company was not authorised by the FSA.
    Jonathan Phelan, head of unauthorised business for the FSA, said: “There has been a massive rise in referrals about carbon credit trading between last year and this…
    The rise in scams around carbon credit is being seen by law enforcers at the FSA as proof that work they have been carrying out against boiler rooms and land-banking is paying off. However, as trading in carbon credits is not regulated by the FSA it makes cracking down on the market difficult.
    While the FSA can name and shame companies it believes are operating scams it cannot act against them unless they are trading carbon credits as part of a collective investment scheme or a futures contract.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9312063/Fraudsters-turn-to-carbon-credits-according-to-FSA.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    and the Coalition. LOL. “Australian” calls u a “moderate” if u go along with the CAGW scam!

    12 June: Australian: Joe Kelly and Sid Maher: Moderate Libs wish for ETS consensus
    KEY Liberal moderates have condemned the divisive political debate over Labor’s carbon tax, saying consensus on a lower carbon price would have served the national interest better.
    While Tony Abbott insists the looming carbon tax will damage the economy, some Liberals are concerned at the intensity of the political debate and remain open to the concept of pricing carbon…
    West Australian Liberal MP Mal Washer told The Australian the nation would have been better off if former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme had been implemented.
    “I think if it was $10 a tonne, they would have got the public more on side,” he said. “That was roughly the price that was estimated to be in the original Rudd-Turnbull agreement if it had gone through. I think that would have been good for the country.
    “But now we’ve got a price that’s more than double and that creates difficulty for everyone concerned, and that’s why my party is attacking them so strongly, because the price is just so high now.”…
    Fellow West Australian moderate Judi Moylan said it would have been better if there had been a consensus in the parliament on tackling climate change. “I think we lost that opportunity for a consensus to do something about reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and moving towards cleaner energy sources,” she said…
    Both MPs will leave parliament at the next election.
    Former Liberal MP Judith Troeth, who was one of two senators to cross the floor to vote for the Rudd government’s ETS, told Sky News yesterday the former ETS was a more agreeable option than the current scheme.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax/moderate-libs-wish-for-ets-consensus/story-fndttws1-1226391632911


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    See Agenda 21 – article below.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    more on the carbon (dioxide) credit fraudsters above, with legal threats silencing the Guardian!

    8 June: Guardian: Tony Levene: A green investment that turned hazardous
    An explosion in high-pressure selling of carbon credit schemes is exploiting green investors. Tony Levene reveals how one company has left buyers with losses of up to £50,000
    Guardian Money can reveal how one City of London firm that specialised in selling carbon credits to private investors looks set to be liquidated in the high court at the end of this month.
    The court will hear from the official receiver that the company, Tullett Brown, should be wound up on public interest grounds following the presentation of a petition by the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills. The firm is in provisional liquidation and its website has been taken down.
    It will be unclear how much was invested in Tullett Brown, or how many investors have lost money, until after the court hearing on 29 June. But with many investing £10,000 or more, the total is likely to run to seven figures. It is understood that one investor alone put £50,000 into carbon credits via the firm. But there is little hope of any substantial recovery of funds…
    ***This week an elderly Guardian Money reader in Eastbourne, East Sussex, wrote to complain about having received “several pressured telephone calls to invest in one form or another in the certificates”. Why, he wondered, has the Guardian not warned readers about these calls?
    The answer, in the case of Tullett Brown, is simple. The firm employed firms of lawyers to gag the Guardian and, subsequently, other media. One firm threatened a consumer website with “injunction proceedings” if it failed to remove a Tullett Brown story. A second threatened me (I’m a freelance journalist and former Money staffer) with personal libel proceedings for posting a warning on Twitter.
    Tullett Brown initially specialised in landbanking, where investors are persuaded to buy agricultural land at often hugely inflated prices, before moving into carbon credits. Buyers are told they will make large – and often quick – profits…
    A week later, I received a call from John Stone, who described himself as a senior spot trader at Tullett Brown. He told me the landbanking brochure was sent in error and promised me a new one. He explained how each credit was “sanctioned by a United Nations agency” and that the market was enormous. He could sell me a credit at £6.90 – undercutting, he claimed, JP Morgan, which wanted £7.50. My purchase, for some unexplained reason, would benefit indigenous people, “as a lot of energy would be sold back to the national grid”.
    The next day, a second envelope arrived. It was another landbanking brochure…
    With everyone keen to reduce their carbon footprint, carbon credit trading is a big, and legitimate, business – but small investors should steer clear, writes Rupert Jones. “Investing in carbon credits comes with great risk and is generally only suitable for the most experienced and savvy investors,” the FSA says…
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jun/08/green-investment-turned-hazardous?newsfeed=true


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jesus saves

    Well I don’t know about this, if a doctor started practising homeopathy in a hospital ordinarily devoted to using modern medical practise based on the medical science of the day then I would have thought the hospital perfectly within it’s rights to sack that person. You can’t have someone in an institution preaching their own wacky ideas that are unsupported by any research. That would be unethical surely?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Abert

    Last year some believers were suggesting the Government should medicate skeptics, this may be the next step.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Walden

    Because I regularly whip the piss out of Gordon “Faulks” in the comment sections of the newspapers her attempts to influence, I’ll delight in calling you out on your unsurprising inability to correctly spell his last name. Given the minute number of deniers you need to remain aware of, I’m astonished that you can’t get their goddamned names right, Joe.


    Thanks Jack. Fixed. I’m happy to give you such a thrill as a proof reader for the skeptics. And that’s Jo, not Joe. :-) Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MichaelC58

    Oregon has at-will employment: either party can terminate without notice and without cause. However there are draconian anti-discrimination laws, so as long as the university does not tell him the reason, he can’t sue them.

    I would apply FOI for any correspondence relating to him in the last year – may well find evidence of the real reason for dismissal and possible grounds for suing for discrimination.

    Perhaps he can also write to his Republican congressman Greg Walden.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sounds fishy

    How about they just do what Wattsup devotees advise in these situations. Grow a set of balls and deal with it. Just more on the same vein as tit for tat with death threat emails and Mann court cases. There’s no limit you can stoop to as the other side (that’s one you’re not on) is sub-human. So put the boot in and enjoy it. But don’t whinge.

    The guys PPT was a bit scepto-alarmist though wasn’t it. Shrill – hysterical in fact. World Govt – weally.

    If you can get the whole family especially when they’re crossing the road – 10 points – well they had it coming didn’t they?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    ..OSU operates under a politically correct regimen that dictates what is acceptable to say and what is not..

    Hmm.. Economical became ecological – both “ECO”.

    I’m so damn sick of these three letters..!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    So we now know how the “consensus” is policed. Ruthlessly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dennis

    Winston unfortunately I cannot provide the source however I read in recent months about a gathering of people from the green movement in the US who apparently expressed their anger that too many people were ignoring their (alarmist) climate change action campaigns. They decided that we had to be controlled and forced to change how we live in future. UN Agenda 21?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Dennis,
    My main point in reiterating the above quote was to demonstrate that this is in fact a many pronged attack across a number of fronts- Media manipulation, alarmism to invoke fear, scientific malfeasance, mass indoctrination of the young and impressionable, and ostracizing of dissenters- Agenda 21 is ultimately the “coup de grace” extension of this and the ultimate in Marxist control freak wet dreams. As far as anger is concerned, I hope to live to see them rendered apoplectic with repressed hostility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    And this has to do with his role in the Chemistry Department precisely how, Ross?

    His opinions on Climate have somehow impaired his ability to read the periodic table or impart knowledge on chemical reactions to his students?

    He has somehow forgotten that pH over 7 is alkaline? Oh wait, that would be climate scientists referring to “ocean acidification” when the pH of the oceans are 7.8 or above. I see it now, must be where he went wrong, poor fellow.

    Still it’s not like his kids have to eat or his bills have to be paid or anything.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ross,

    In a court of law, the prosecution makes its case and the defence tries to rebut it. However, the English Common Law system of trial by Jury was undermined when someone came along with “divinely inspired” knowledge that could not be cross-examined in the witness box. On this basis tens of thousands of women went to their deaths over the centuries, guilty of Witchcraft, with their deviance from someone’s view of normal often being the clinching evidence.
    In your version of “science”, the scientists make speculative hypotheses, suppress the means of rebuttal, then make underhand attacks on alternative viewpoints. To many here, there is a parallel with the feudal witchcraft trials.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Hi Ross,

    So in your opinion, a professor in chemistry who takes an opposing view on the theory of climate change deserves to be fired and have their children victimized – not on the basis of their performance as a chemistry teacher, but purely because they have expressed their opinion on an unrelated field.

    And this is your idea of an open and honest scientific debate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    tom in oregon city

    “The basis of his termination was inevitable.” (grin) It is so much fun to read such bad English structure as the first line in a rant brimming with unsupportable claims from the CAGW religion’s dogma. Nice try, Ross J. Merely saying that skeptical climate science is outdated, or that a list of scientists have been refuted, will only elicit a sigh from those who actually read the science and aren’t fed their daily bread by governments who want another excuse to take over the energy sector “for our own good.” Better read some of the good stuff, and skip the NYTimes and such.

    Here’s just one.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/a-skeptics-treasure-trove-of-peer-reviewed-science-that-challenges-the-agw-climate-change-consensus.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    Hi Ross are you really that stupid or do you practice stupidity to be perfect at it? Like every other warmist you want to close the debate because you have lost the scientific argument.AGW is a lost cause, that’s why you keep changing its name. Come on just once post a bit of science that proves man is the cause of unprecedented warming.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Ross writes,

    The basis of his termination was inevitable. The scientific evidence did not support his assertions. Thereby he did not represent science as it unfolded during the 90s concerning climate change/global warming which is evolutionary not radical or quantum. Research confirmed within the 2012 periods of peer reviewed releases sunk this fellows employments prospects incapable in staying updated.

    Going over outdated science and refuted findings of the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy only aided his demise at the University.

    Ross J.

    Point 1: Nicholas Drapela was employed as a Senior Chemistry Instuctor at which he excelled: REF 1: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=130822

    Point 2: The scientific evidence does not support the assertions of the MMGW activists parading as scientists. REF 2: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

    Point 3: You completely miss the primary point that dissenting views on MMGW in Academia are being removed – where is the room for dissent that a healthy academia would embrace? What value does your consensus (appeal to authority) of climate science have when it is enforced through unemployment. Your words above, endorse this method.

    What is your perspective on dissent – should only authorised POVs be allowed by the authorities?

    You obviously fail to understand the basics with regard to any system of control for humans. The first marker of a system of control is to render dissent and scepticism illegitimate – those who are controlled are forbidden from questioning the core tenets of belief of the system of control – this is to protect the operation of the system of control and to ensure that it continues to operate into the future.

    MMGW as you practice it – without dissent, without a legitimacy of questioning, without scepticism, without a vigourous and inquiring mind – is precisely a system of control.

    You are, without doubt, a useful idiot. REF 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

    Go read up on lysenkoism – your personal methodology of determining the truth through appeal to authority would fit in nicely with stalinist Russia. REF 4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism and from the link – the pertinent quote.

    Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.

    The way that you cling like a child to the dictates of those in Authority and your intellectual cowardice in your inability to detect oppression of dissent when it is starkly revealed to you is extremely disappointing to witness.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    I look forward to it- bring it on.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I have a rainwater tank.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    But that would lower our intelligence to their levels.

    Typical Zombie bureaucrats wanting everyone to become zombies like them


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    I’ll have some of whatever the alarmists are smoking.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Excuse me,

    I should say “just because they express their opinion on a field that is directly applicable and relevant in climate science”.

    As a chemistry professor I bet he knows a fair bit about carbon dioxide and its effects both positive and negative.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    There used to be a wonderful concept in universities called tenure. It meant that a lecturer could not be fired for anything short of moral turpitude. Why? So that universities could be free of political interference and act as the consciences of society.

    Sadly it appears that tenure in US universities has gone the same way as that in New Zealand where an Employment Court ruling in the 1990s stated that there was effectively no such thing.

    On the other hand, the reason for him being fired is a matter of conjecture; he has not been told of why he was fired. Again, in New Zealand, and in Australia I should think too, this is illegal and would lead to a ruling of ‘unfair dismissal.’ apparently Jesus doesn’t consider this to be wrong in any way.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Jesus saves,

    You have no idea. Climate change is a subject that is inherently multi-disciplinary. That means that those with expertise in physics, chemistry, earth science, engineering, statistics, meteorology etc etc etc are all relevant voices that should be heard.

    Your analogy of the opinions of a chemistry professor as the equivalent of “homeopathy” because he doesn’t believe in the yet unproven theory of catastrophic climate change is patently absurd.

    When people are being silenced and made examples of for not bowing down to authority and popular belief you know it’s not science, it’s a medieval which hunt! And you can guarantee that Jesus, who preached tolerance and love for ones fellow man, would consider this a sin!

    The fact that people like yourself actually believe it is defensible that someone should be fired for their opinion on a scientific theory shows how far we as a society have allowed our ethical standards to drop!

    Shame on you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Well Jesus saves.

    He wasn’t practicing homeopathy in a hospital – he was practicing the instruction of Chemistry and was good at it. REF 1: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=130822

    So now that, that has been dealt with, perhaps you would care to defend your appalling inability to speak up in defense of free speech in the face of direct oppression by thuggish administrators.

    I’m sure that Jesus would be proud of you siding with the Roman Empire on this one…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Mal Washer; wasn’t he the dope who bleated over the treatment accorded (rightfully so) to Craig Thomson? Bugger off, Mal; your services are no longer required.

    As for Judy Moylan, the sooner she goes as well, the better. Why are people like these two even in the Liberal Party if not to act like white-ants by destroying it from the inside? Mrs. T would have described them both as “sopping wet”.

    Tony Abbott was on Alan Jones’ show this morning. Profoundly disappointing, I have to report. Completely backtracked on his “climate change is crap” statement. He now believes that humans are warming the earth and that some form of abatement is called for.

    Pathetic.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    The word “consensus” has clearly been adopted by the “moderates”.
    How correct Orwell was about the deliberate distortion of language!

    Consensus is now an evil loaded word in the 21st century. First used by the fraudulent climate science team to invoke the illusion of overwhelming support for a theory that is not supported by evidence, now it’s being adopted into the wider lexicon of brain dead journalists and corrupt politicians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Jack, the biggest “deniers” are the empirical evidence.

    The satellites, thermometers and ocean bouys deny that the world is getting warmer, the weather balloons deny the existence of the hotspot, the ice cores deny causation between CO2 and then warming.

    Spelling?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    “witch hunt”.
    For those who consider spelling important


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Sonny

    I agree but add -

    “Love your enemy – do good to those who hate and despise you” may be called tolerance but how we should act and the company we should keep is made much clearer in “Barnabas”
    which is not found among the regular scriptures but can be found if you search for “Lost Books of the Bible”.

    There is no authority if not from God. No sane man would voluntarily make himself a slave to another man.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Forget smoking it, hook that shit up to my veins!
    I’d love to be reprogrammed to think that my government was taxing me in order to save the world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Be careful what you ask for!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    This article is a must read. It’s about the pathological sciences.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    From the wiki article on Lysenkoism:

    “In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”;[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued… Thus, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet knowledge of biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, throwing their support behind a charlatan at the expense of many human lives.”

    Cut to 2012

    “In 2012, the belief that mankind was not causing catastrophic climate change was officially declared “extremist fossil fuel funded denier misinformation”. Some Professors, scientists, engineers and other professional held this belief were fired from their jobs, ostracized and stonewalled in their respective careers. Research into real causes of climate change ceased. Thus, Warmism caused a serious failure of global leadership to find real solutions to environmental and health problems.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    Exwarmist,

    This is common fallacy of this site: Appeal to Authority claim. We have heard it ad-nauseum.

    Thereby by you defining “appeal to authority”, we have to address the question of relevance as to arguing whether or not you are being legitimate, logical and rational in the process in proving this logical fallacy. If these three criteria are NOT meant then your argument and point maybe by way of course, invalidated. At best it is questionable and without proper pinning logical precedents to justify such an assertion.

    Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is “yes”, then do so. If “no”, go to the next question:

    Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else’s. If so, proceed to the next question:

    Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on: POINT: Was the person qualified to argument against the science of climate change/global warming findings – Answer NO.

    Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority’s word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:

    Is the authority’s opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority’s opinion.

    If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then you have a committed the negative: “fallacy of appeal to misleading authority”

    This is done here on many accounts and proven by the numbers in articles appearing. It would appear that this web site is driven by IDEALOGICAL premise first and foremost. This being a citizen driven movement in the main does not justify ones argument of “appeal to authority” as invalidating my claims. It is upheld as I certainly did not fail the acid test and fall into a logical fallacy of argument by authority. Such movements as the anti-vaccine movement, the anti-global warming movement, anti government interventionists movements and anti-Marbo movements of such and sundry that are also not listed here do not and cannot validate their rationality by such circular referencing to their self MADE movement and world view construct. Those here mainly have a lack of expertise within those areas and make up their minds on fallacious argument. Making judgements of crucial importance as to humanity and its well being is then a moral issue as we embrace the future.

    Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as “appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority”, rather than the traditional name “appeal to authority”. For the same reason, I use the name “appeal to misleading authority” to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.

    My appeal to authority is then valid and sound. The case of his termination is then a valid decision by this University.

    Let then the appeals to “inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority” continue as they most certainly will.

    I for one would NOT trust the “cannon window focus” of a one named chemistry professor to make invalid the science of global warming.

    Ross J.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    The guys PPT was a bit scepto-alarmist though wasn’t it. Shrill – hysterical in fact. World Govt – weally.

    Hi Fishy, what makes you think that there isn’t a movement towards world government.

    It’s basically a good idea, get rid of war, protect the environment, rid the world of poverty – well that’s exactly how it is sold. Alternatively one could end up with a completely unaccountable world government that would allow the most perverse evils to run riot over a terrified, enslaved humanity, that would also be extremely difficult to dislodge.

    Have fun. ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #

    How about they just do what Wattsup devotees advise in these situations.

    Sure. Just post 3 examples of where upstanding scientists believing in man-made global warming were targeted and sacked because they spoke out at a university full of skeptics?

    Tit for what tat exactly?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Heywood

    Is it just me or have the warmists been recruiting more trolls recently….

    They must be getting more and more desperate…

    Shame they can’t back anything up with facts…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Warmism caused a serious failure of global leadership to find real solutions to environmental and health problems

    Excellent point, well expressed Sonny- succinct and to the heart of the outrage most skeptics feel toward futile and ineffective responses from those charged with representing us and supposedly promoting our best interests.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    it is the nature of the dissemination of this story. It is top of the google. Notice also new or very irregular contributers on the skeptic side


    Report this

    00

  • #

    NoTrickzone reports EU Climate Czar Connie Hedegaard Warns Carriers To Submit Data – Or Face Enforcement Action!

    Yes. Connie wants the lollies that she commanded others to give to her because if they don’t she’ll hold her breath until …

    … she grows up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well, maybe those words attributed to “God” were really more manipulation of man or worse of “Satan”?

    The end analysis will determine which of the above are true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Gee Aye

    I dunno… it is a lazy brain day.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sounds fishy

    That’s silly – a university of “anti-AGW style” skeptics would be too busy writing in blogs to sack anyone. Pretending they were actually changing something.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    Are you on crack ?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    So, a person with expertise in the sciences, and thus logical reasoning, is not allowed to have an opinion, and, having said opinion, is prohibited from expressing said opinion, in a way which does not impugn his employer, on his own time, and in a forum which does not reflect upon that (now former) employer?

    Why do the words ‘thought police’ keep jumping into my consciousness?

    And, just a question: are you a native speaker of English? If so, I could strongly recommend you get some assistance in the fields of rhetoric, creative writing, and basic English composition. Your writing leaves as much to be desired as your logic.

    If I may, would you be willing to apply your considerable scientific/mathematical expertise to the question of the correlation coefficient between Veizer’s paleotemperature curve and Berner’s GEOCARB III curve? It would be helpful to have another algorithm examine this question.

    Please post your result (the numerical value alone will suffice) here on JoNova’s website; just use the “Reply” button on this missive.

    I shan’t catch a wink of sleep until I know your result … … ..

    Regards,

    Mark H.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    The only part of Ross’ comment that makes sense is the part he copied’n'pasted from here.

    Firstly his original argument is that the professor was fired because scientific evidence did not support his views. He then contradicts himself by admitting that the professor was fired because the university decided to fire him.
    Or in the words of Aristotle he makes the fallacy of: “stating as cause what is not the cause”.

    When challenged, Ross tries to justify the appeal to authority.
    The source he quotes says “not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious”, which he uses to justify his appeal to an expert who themselves were committing the fallacy of argument from authority.
    All arguments from authority do not deductively follow, they are non sequiters. An argument made by a *person* who is expert may be true based upon facts known to that expert, but the secondary appeal to the expert’s conclusion is not itself logically sound because it does not reference the pertinent facts directly. This is the critical difference in meaning between an “argument from an expert” in the flesh and an “argument from authority” in philosophy.

    In making his appeal to an authority on Logic, Ross implies the Authority makes a statement relevant to his defence, but the source only states that an argument by an expert may be true, not that experts are infallible. Furthermore, that is also a red herring because it makes no claim about an “argument from authority” in the philosophical sense that ExWarmist meant.

    So the irony is that in trying to find wriggle room for his original argument from authority to be anything more than fallacious, Ross makes another argument from authority that turns out to be… fallacious! It’s an Own Goal. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Ross,

    Did you read my post in it’s entirety (as I have just read yours).

    Let me reacquaint you with what I said, and what you have apparently ignored.

    Point 3: You completely miss the primary point that dissenting views on MMGW in Academia are being removed – where is the room for dissent that a healthy academia would embrace? What value does your consensus (appeal to authority) of climate science have when it is enforced through unemployment. Your words above, endorse this method.

    Followed by a range of other material which you can easily read above – so it doesn’t need repeating here.

    So, please answer me this, what was it about the primary point above that was so upsetting for you that you completely ignored it and attempted to rhetorically shift the conversation to the straw man of the “fallacy of appeal to misleading authority”.

    REF 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    WRT the Appeal to Authority – I strongly disagree with your distinction between

    to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.

    It falls over at step 1

    Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is “yes”, then do so. If “no”, go to the next question:

    As the correct response to “no” is that you do not know, as any expert could be lying or mistaken. The chain of logic breaks at that point, and all other steps are rendered logically null, hence the distinction between the fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority is a meaningless one. This fantasy distinction is simply a rhetorical device to claim that the opposing authority is fallacious – i.e. it is an instance of the logical fallacy of the Ad-hominem attack. REF 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    Ross – looks like you have the following score,

    Use of Logic: 0.
    Intellectual Courage to engage with the primary topic of the Conversation (Crushing of Dissent by Authority) : 0

    So please address the issue – what is your position on the legitimacy of dissent on MMGW and is it moral to dissent on MMGW? Are you able to distinguish yourself from any other mind slave too Authority.

    Or are you really responding too

    consensus (appeal to authority) of climate science

    Which is kinda interesting that it should be that which captured your attention, rather than the issue of Authority Crushing Dissent. – Goes to Character.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    No they would be busy teaching physics, chemistry, mathematics science and history rather than indoctrinating students.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    So the purpose of University is to cause change?

    How about empowering students to make the most of their potential.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    He believes that saying anything else would be political suicide.
    And he is right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    So on the one hand we should be outraged that elected politicians do the opposite of what they said they believed, and on the other hand we should be pleased that politicians will do the opposite of what they say they believe.

    Trying to make excuses for Mr Rabbit gets us all precisely nowhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Hi Andrew,

    Well said – in fact, your response is more concise and better put then my own below.

    Cheers ExWarmist


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    Mark – you have a wicked sense of humour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    You know Ross, after writing the post above, I just had to sit back and play http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OnnDqH6Wj8


    Report this

    00