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

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?

Prof Murry Salby

NEWEST UPDATE #4: Both Salby and Macquarie Uni responded today. See this newer post.

UPDATED: After hours of emails and phone calls I still have not heard from Salby but have news that Christopher Monckton has spoken to him and confirms that “

“This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.” Christopher Monckton

(Thanks to John Smeed and Malcolm Roberts for passing on CM’s email).

Short of sending Murry Salby to Siberia, Macquarie University have seemingly done everything they could to sabotage and silence him and his PhD student. Is his research is so dangerous to the cash cow that is “global warming” that it had to be stopped at any cost?  Is is difficult to imagine any response they can give which would justify the behaviour described below if it is accurate. The truth will out in the end, and how will Macquarie’s reputation stand up then? I would very much like to hear what they have to say.

UPDATE #1: I have phoned and confirmed with Macquarie’s switchboard that Professor Murry Salby is no longer working there.

I have written to both Murry Salby and to several people at Macquarie University seeking their responses and confirmation. No reply so far.

UPDATE #2: I cannot find any “Australian employment tribunal” – at least the Fair work ombudsman has not heard of one. Suggestions would be welcome. UPDATE #3 (John Power suggests it is a term that includes Fair Work Australia, and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.)

 

– Jo

———————————————————————————————————
Thanks for your interest in the research presented during my recent lecture tour in Europe. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/another-nail-in-the-climate-change-coffin.php

Remarks from several make it clear that Macquarie University is comfortable with openly disclosing the state of affairs, if not distorting them to its convenience. So be it. Macquarie’s liberal disclosure makes continued reticence unfeasible. In response to queries is the following, a matter of record:
1. In 2008, I was recruited from the US by “Macquarie University”, with appointment as Professor, under a national employment contract with regulatory oversight, and with written agreement that Macquarie would provide specified resources to enable me to rebuild my research program in Australia. Included was technical support to convert several hundred thousand lines of computer code, comprising numerical models and analyses (the tools of my research), to enable those computer programs to operate in Australia.

2. With those contractual arrangements, I relocated to Australia. Upon attempting to rebuild my research program, Macquarie advised that the resources it had agreed to provide were unavailable. I was given an excuse for why. Half a year later, I was given another excuse. Then another. Requests to release the committed resources were ignored.

3. Three years passed before Macquarie produced even the first major component of the resources it had agreed to provide. After five years of cat-and-mouse, Macquarie has continued to withhold the resources that it had committed. As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.

4. A bright student from Russia came to Macquarie to work with me. Macquarie required her to abandon her PhD scholarship in Russia. Her PhD research, approved by Macquarie, relied upon the same computer models and analyses, which Macquarie agreed to have converted but did not.

5. To remedy the situation, I petitioned Macquarie through several avenues provided in my contract. Like other contractual provisions, those requests were ignored. The provisions then required the discrepancy to be forwarded to the Australian employment tribunal, the government body with regulatory oversight.

The tribunal then informed me that Macquarie had not even registered my contract. Regulatory oversight, a statutory protection that Macquarie advised would govern my appointment, was thereby circumvented. Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.

6. During the protracted delay of resources, I eventually undertook the production of a new book – all I could do without the committed resources to rebuild my research program. The endeavor compelled me to gain a better understanding of greenhouse gases and how they evolve. Preliminary findings from this study are familiar to many.

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/speaker/murry-salby/ Refer to the vodcast of July 24, 2012.

Insight from this research contradicts many of the reckless claims surrounding greenhouse gases. More than a few originate from staff at Macquarie, who benefits from such claims.

7. The preliminary findings seeded a comprehensive study of greenhouse gases. Despite adverse circumstances, the wider study was recently completed. It indicates:

(i) Modern changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane are (contrary to popular belief) not unprecedented.

(ii) The same physical law that governs ancient changes of atmospheric CO2 and methane also governs modern changes.

These new findings are entirely consistent with the preliminary findings, which evaluated the increase of 20th century CO2 from changes in native emission.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/02/swedish-scientist-replicates-dr-murry-salbys-work-finding-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

8. Under the resources Macquarie had agreed to provide, arrangements were made to present this new research at a scientific conference and in a lecture series at research centers in Europe.

9. Forms for research travel that were lodged with Macquarie included a description of the findings. Presentation of our research was then blocked by Macquarie. The obstruction was imposed after arrangements had been made at several venues (arranged then to conform to other restrictions imposed by Macquarie). Macquarie’s intervention would have silenced the release of our research.

10. Following the obstruction of research communication, as well as my earlier efforts to obtain compliance with my contract, Macquarie modified my professional duties. My role was then reduced to that of a student teaching assistant: Marking student papers for other staff – junior staff. I objected, pursuant to my appointment and provisions of my contract.

11. In February 2013, Macquarie then accused me of “misconduct”, cancelling my salary. It blocked access to my office, computer resources, even to personal equipment I had transferred from the US.

My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.

12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.

13. In April, The Australian (the national newspaper), published an article which grounded reckless claims by the so-called Australian Climate Commission:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/last-summer-was-not-actually-angrier-than-other-summers/story-e6frgd0x-1226611988057 (Open access via Google News)

To promote the Climate Commission’s newest report is the latest sobering claim:

“one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/if-you-want-to-know-about-climate-ask-the-right-questions/story-fni0ffxg-1226666505528

Two of the six-member Australian Climate Commission are Macquarie staff. Included is its Chief Commissioner.

14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.

15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled. The latest chapter in a pattern, this action left me stranded in Europe, with no arrangements for lodging or return travel. The ticket that had been cancelled was non-refundable.

16. The action ensured my absence during Macquarie’s misconduct proceedings.

17. When I eventually returned to Australia, I lodged a complaint with the Australian employment tribunal, under statutes that prohibit retaliatory conduct.

18. In May 2013, while the matter was pending before the employment tribunal, Macquarie terminated my appointment.

19. Like the Australian Climate Commission, Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.

20. The recent events come with curious timing, disrupting publication of our research on greenhouse gases. With correspondence, files, and computer equipment confiscated, that research will now have to be pursued by Macquarie University’s “Climate Experts”.

http://www.science.mq.edu.au/news_and_events/news/climate_change_commision

Murry Salby

 

* Post edited while I wait for a response from Macquarie university.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (141 votes cast)
Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?, 9.2 out of 10 based on 141 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m78mgqb

460 comments to Did Macquarie University sabotage, exile, blackban, strand and abandon Murry Salby?

  • #
    ATheoK

    “…“one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet’…”

    A claim made self evident by Macquarie’s exemplary example of how elitist alarmists act against fellow humans. Return to the law of the jungle looks better every time those elitists perform another anti-human garroting of science.


    Report this

    570

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      I think they are probably going to make a pitch for Stephen Emmott and then they can just have one science faculty called… Consensus Science…..lol


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Shevva

      Post Modern Science – it’s not about the scale but the maximum, screaming like everyones going to die = good science (Interesting mind set but is it scientific?).


      Report this

      22

  • #

    Absolutely shocking – from reading the article, Macquarie appear to have lied, stolen equipment, sabotaged research – and our tax money pays for all this?

    Time for Universities to solicit their own funding, based on merit, rather than suckling at the public teat.


    Report this

    691

    • #
      Sean

      This “university” should have its public funding pulled and their charter as a university revoked.

      Its president should be fired, along with the department head who colluded in this.

      Salby should sue for breach of contract, seeking special damages for what was clearly not a good faith contract negotiation and rather intended only to deprive him of his voice and career; he should also file criminal complaints with the police for the thefts and harassment.


      Report this

      200

    • #
      University insider

      Similar cases are happening with other staff at Macquarie University and also in other Australian universities. (one of the recent cases: Professor Kim Walker at University of Sydney http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/plagiarism-at-university-of-sydney-dean-accused-four-times-20130214-2eemo.html)

      At Macquarie University, the current governance (labor and union officials) and HR management (i.e. HR Director and Employee Relationship Unit) are the most nasty with ‘doggy’ practices. It is a ‘doggy culture’ workplace. Murry Salby is one of the many cases that I know. I am not surprised at all.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Stuart Ritchie

    This looks like a very messy dispute between employer and employee, and it would be likely that there are a whole raft of claims and counter claims to be dealt with (likely a very stressful time for all involved).

    However, if the circumstances of the matter are as laid out, I feel sorry that this is from my old alma mater. I thought the whole idea of science was a critical and fearless review and investigation of the physical world, not some specific adherence to a particular view. After all, how else can the merits of a theory be tested, if not for comparison with opposing viewpoints? If they thought his research was flawed, or, didnt meet the terms of his employment, there are other mechanisms, within the peer review process, to address such concerns.

    This, sadly, is possibly the end result of a system that requires money from a government purse. There is an inevitable compulsion to view research proposals though the prism of required funding. Questions of impartiality between science and government have always been problematic, no more so than in todays financial and political conditions.

    He may or may not be correct in his theory or inquiry. Thats not the point. I hope that he is not found out to be correct, when its too late.


    Report this

    270

    • #
      cohenite

      I too have a degree from Macquarie and will be letting them know.

      In the meantime all I can offer is the names of some lawyers who specialise in employment law and possibly defamation because this termination is so egregious it arguably impacts on Salby’s reputation.

      If Jo wants to contact Salby with my details I will put him in touch with employment lawyers and a defamation expert.

      First Carter, now Salby.

      What swine the agw crew are.
      —-

      Thanks Cohenite. Email sent to Murry – Jo


      Report this

      621

      • #
        Bob Massey

        Cohenite, it goes even further. There is a disease in our universities and our society, which I believe, is as attested by the fracas with Prof. Drew Fraser in 2005 and Macquarie University concerning his multicultural reasoning and a letter to a Parramatta paper at the time. The university treated him then with equal disdain by

        In effect, Professor Fraser said, the University is offering him the academic equivalent of a dishonourable discharge.

        as referenced in http://www.ironbarkresources.com/defendingfreespeech/dfs01freespeech.htm

        Tooo much offence taken and not enough thought about what he had to say.

        This is a deliberate act by academics to restrict society’s criticism of subjects which they believe are beyond the scope of the mean. Such arrogance is embodied in the the AGW debate as well.

        This behaviour by Macquarie University and others such as James Cook, UWA and ANU is disgusting.

        There is no such thing as “free speech” it comes with a very high cost and those opposed to this freedom should clearly understand this.

        If the univesities of the world start aligning their research to follow only the luminary political correct doctrines of the academics we are in serious trouble.


        Report this

        70

    • #

      Ike said much the same thing in his farewell address.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Wait a sec I thought only “private” funds came with strings attached. Isnt Government funding “independent” ?


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Mark D.

    Only one way to fight this and that is through law suits.

    Would it be paranoid to suggest that this was planned in advance? That Macquarie never intended to fulfill the contracts but instead intended to disrupt Salby in his research?


    Report this

    350

    • #
      Backslider

      Would it be paranoid to suggest that this was planned in advance? That Macquarie never intended to fulfill the contracts but instead intended to disrupt Salby in his research?

      That also was my feeling while reading all this. Professor Salby had problems right from the start, they have clearly set out to hobble him. Who would be surprised, considering this is home base for that lunatic Flannery and all his cronies.


      Report this

      330

    • #

      Would it be paranoid to suggest that this was planned in advance? That Macquarie never intended to fulfill the contracts but instead intended to disrupt Salby in his research?

      Before you decide, first look at the evidence from Jo Nova’s posting on Salby’s claims two years ago. When Macquarie University hired Salby’s CV included
      - “Salby was once an IPCC reviewer
      - “He’s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia.
      In appointing Murray Salby as Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University, the authorities thought they would get a prestigious believer in the AGW theory, who would enlarge the department through attracting more funding and prestige to the climatology department. Instead they were lumbered with a maverick, who fundamentally undermined their funding by becoming an apostate. As Jo said

      According to Salby, science is about discourse and questioning. He emphasized the importance of debate: “Excluding discourse is not science”.

      What were Macquarie University to do?
      A couple of more examples of prestigious institutions being lumbered with mavericks might help them with their plight.
      In the early 1980s, the Royal Perth Hospital (in Jo Nova’s home city experienced a couple of mavericks doctors who challenged the scientific consensus on bacteria in the gut, called Barry Marshall and Robin Warren. Embarrassingly for the hospital, they received the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2005. To continue the embarrassment, Nobelprize.org seem to have a photo of these mavericks backing their link to the “Announcements of the 2013 Nobel Prizes”. Naturally, The Royal Perth Hospital tries to hide this.
      In my home city of Manchester UK, a couple of Russian mavericks were awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics. Their maverick credentials were confirmed in the citation:-

      Geim and Novoselov extracted the graphene from a piece of graphite such as is found in ordinary pencils. Using regular adhesive tape they managed to obtain a flake of carbon with a thickness of just one atom. This at a time when many believed it was impossible for such thin crystalline materials to be stable.

      They used adhesive tape to challenge well-established beliefs! The audacity of the fellows! That graphene may replace silicone in computer chips is besides the point. Further, my children’s high school backs onto the main Manchester University Campus. For two years running at the annual school awards, my wife, my little babes and I, have had to listen to speeches trying to inspire the youth of today to follow the lead of these people. My favorite quote is from Professor Martin Rees, then president of the UK’s Royal Society

      “It would be hard to envisage better exemplars of the value of enabling outstanding individuals to pursue ‘open-ended’ research projects whose outcome is unpredictable.”

      That would be the same Royal Society who will, no doubt, deeply sympathize and support Macquarie University’s predicament with their maverick scientist.


      Report this

      100

      • #

        Manic, it’s not a University any more although it’s too ignorant to realize the fact. It’s a political party with a campus.


        Report this

        101

        • #
          Steve Jones

          Your comment will go down in history – it’s brilliant.

          “It’s not a university any more, it’s a political party with a campus.”

          That sums up just about ALL universities in the Western world – all sickeningly Marxist, all totalitarian regimes where no dissent is allowed. Nothing ‘universal’ about them at all.


          Report this

          61

  • #
    Heywood

    I sense a change in the air. First the blackballing of Bob Carter, and now the disgusting treatment of Professor Salby.

    I do wonder if these institutions are being strong-armed by someone who doesn’t like what these esteemed professors have to say.

    I strongly suspect that we will hear nothing of this from the Science Minister. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the pressure on Macquarie uni to give Salby the arse originated from the minister’s office, maybe with a threat to withhold funding. Salby’s research could potentially threaten billions of dollars in tax income for the government.

    It is becoming a typical tactic of the left side of politics and environmental loons to censor any inconvenient truth. Don’t like the message? Shoot the messenger.

    A bastard act by Macquarie University. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I am sure the warmist cheer squad will be on here celebrating their little “victory”, without realising that it is another nail in the coffin for objectivity in science.


    Report this

    502

    • #

      I do wonder if these institutions are being strong-armed by someone who doesn’t like what these esteemed professors have to say.

      If that was the case, one word of this to the press about such tactics would blow the scheme wide open.

      No I think the evidence I’ve seen so far suggests that this horrible process has the full support of many if not most of the University academics.


      Report this

      281

      • #
        Peter Lang

        Eric Worral,

        See comments #7 and #7.1

        BTW I think Senator Carr was minister for CSIRO in 2009 (and I think it was for “Science and Innovation”).


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Ian

        Universities gain prestige and students and thus power by attracting grant money, preferably from ARC and NHMRC as these, government funded, sources have the greatest prestige. These days grants which include global warming/climate change/extreme weather events in their title are very likely to get funding. Thus a study to see” If the use of plastic shopping bags increases global warming and thus extreme weather events, due to increased reflect of the sun’s rays” is much more likely to get funded than a study designed “to show that use of plastic shopping bags cannot possibly have any effect on the global climate or on the weather” or “A study to show global temperature increases owe more to increased numbers of brick buildings than to increased CO2 concentrations”. Macquarie knows perfectly well which side its bread is buttered and it isn’t going to allow anyone to rock the boat. The same goes for virtually all universities. It would in fact be instructive to calculate the percentage of successful ARC grants that contain some reference to global warming/climate change/extreme weather for each year over the past 15 or so years. My bet is that percentage has markedly increased. Still, I guess you can’t blame the Unis or the academics for grabbing the cash and kudos before the whole edifice of AGW is shown to be based on little more than the output from computer models based on human programming.


        Report this

        31

  • #

    I am not a lawyer but if Murry Salby has signed what he believed to be a contract and the other contracting party hasn’t fulfilled its obligations under that contract, then Macquarie “University” seems to be in violation of Australian contract law; perhaps deceptive trade practices and given that Murry Salby residency and employment in Australia may have been tied to the contract; immigration law.

    Visa conditions may have been violated by the “University” if it altered the basis of the original contract or “nullified” it after application. Depending on the type of visa and the contract, the Immigration department may be interested.


    Report this

    381

    • #
      Bulldust

      Always amusing to see the values of such institutions:

      http://www.mq.edu.au/about_us/university_profile/core_values/

      They even have “ethics” listed first along with a link to a major ethics review:

      http://www.mq.edu.au/ethics/

      Seems to me that Macquarie did gladly teche Murry a thing or two about not conforming to the party line…


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Bulldust

      BTW you are a dangerous man Mr Felsche … at least as H.L. Mencken would describe such:

      The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.
      Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken

      Had he been around today I think he might have been a CAGW sceptic.


      Report this

      140

      • #

        All proper Engineers and physical scientists are then dangerous.

        Which may be why Australian universities have been trying to convert them into quasi-sociologists since the 1980′s. I spilt the Cool Aid down the front of my shirt during the Engineering & Society “tutorials” in my final year at UWA. I got a “B” from the Trotskyite seconded from Social “Sciences”.

        It was all part of my strategy to make sure that I passed; making them fear my return to repeat the year. ;-)


        Report this

        80

    • #

      Upon reflection, if the “University” received funding from the ARC for funding research by Salby, then they should also have questions to answer about the use of research funds. But, given the current political situation, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Sean

      Agreed – there seem to be a whole host of laws this university is guilty of being in breach of – more than enough to justify some terminations for cause of some top level academics and administrators.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Peter Lang

    The Federal Minister for Higher Education, Kim Carr, has form on this. Leading up to the Copenhagen Conference he caused CSIRO to force a leading academic to resign from CSIRO because he had written a paper which implicitly criticized the economic analyses behind the Labor (‘Progressive’) government’s climate change policies.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-expert-clive-spash-heavied-by-csiro-management/story-e6frg8gf-1225793717744

    Climate expert Clive Spash ‘heavied’ by CSIRO management

    A CSIRO economist whose research criticising emissions trading schemes was banned from publication said last night he had been subjected to harassment by the senior agency management.

    Clive Spash also accused the agency of hindering public debate and trampling on his civil liberties by preventing the research being published in British journal New Political Economy.

    Dr Spash defended the paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, saying it was a dispassionate analysis of ETS policies and was not politically partisan.

    He was told in February he could publish the work if it were peer reviewed. But in July, CSIRO management said it could not be published after it was cleared for publication.

    This month, he was informed he could not publish it even in his private capacity, because it was “politically sensitive”. Within 24 hours, he also received a letter outlining a list of trivial instances in which he was accused of breaching CSIRO policy, for example not completing a leave form properly.

    Dr Spash said he believed the letter was intended to, and did, intimidate him and denied him due process. None of the matters were raised with him prior to the letter being sent and each of the alleged misdemeanours could be explained.

    “We are not members of the Defence Department, we are scientists who are supposed to be discussing research in an open forum. How do you advance knowledge if you stop people from publishing their work?

    “I am totally happy to have my work criticised and debated but I’m not happy to have it suppressed.”

    Dr Spash said it was impossible to publish research in his field that did not have an impact on government policy. “The idea that you cannot discuss something like ETS policy when you’re working on climate change as a political economist seems ridiculous,” he said.

    The gagging of Dr Spash’s work is embarrassing for Science Minister Kim Carr, who defended academic freedoms in opposition and last year trumpeted a new CSIRO charter he said would give scientists the right to speak publicly about their findings.

    Yesterday, Senator Carr told The Australian he supported the publication of peer-reviewed research, even if it had negative implications for government policy. He said he had not tried to gag the research.

    Last night CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark said the organisation would work with Dr Spash on his paper.

    “There is some important science in the paper and we will now work with Dr Spash to ensure the paper meets CSIRO internal review standards and the guidelines of the Public Research Agency Charter between the CSIRO and the federal government,” she said.

    “I encourage CSIRO scientists to communicate the outcomes and implications of their work and one of the underlying core values of CSIRO is the integrity of our excellent science.”


    Report this

    270

    • #
      Peter Lang

      And a month later, Dr. Clive Spash was forced to resign from CSIRO.
      http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742

      Clive Spash resigns from CSIRO after climate report ‘censorship’

      SCIENTIST Clive Spash has resigned from the CSIRO and called for a Senate inquiry into the science body following the censorship of his controversial report into emissions trading.

      Dr Spash has lashed out at the organisation which he said promoted self-censorship among its scientists with its unfair publication guidelines.

      He said he was stunned at the treatment he received at the hands of CSIRO management, including boss Megan Clark, and believed he was not alone.

      “I’ve been treated extremely poorly,” he said. “There needs to be a Senate inquiry.

      “The way the publication policy and the charter are being interpreted will encourage self-censorship.

      “It’s obviously happened before at the CSIRO – and there’s issues currently.”

      Last month, Dr Spash accused the organisation of gagging him and his report – The Brave New World of Carbon Trading – and restricting its publication.

      The report is critical of cap and trade schemes, like the one the federal government is seeking to introduce, as well as big compensation to polluters.

      Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.

      The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

      But it provoked accusations the CSIRO was censoring research harmful to the Government.

      Under intense pressure, Dr Clark publicly released the report on November 26 but warned Dr Spash would be punished for his behaviour and his refusal to amend it.

      “I believe that internationally peer-reviewed science should be published or, if Dr Clark wishes to have her own opinion, then she should publish her own opinion,” Dr Spash said, who has been on sick leave.
      “I’ve been to the doctor under extreme stress.”

      He had been ordered not to speak to the media while working for the CSIRO, which originally headhunted him for the job.


      Report this

      200

    • #
      Maverick

      Here is a cost saving idea, get rid of the CSIRO. They may have stumbles across some wireless technology many years ago, but they have simply become a collection of back-stabbing, lying, self interested fiefdoms.


      Report this

      110

  • #

    Why don’t scientists who have been mistreated by publicly funded science institutes band together, set up their own privately funded institutes?

    There are plenty of groups who would happily contribute to such an effort. And we’d soon see which produced the better quality research.


    Report this

    240

    • #

      I’ve been thinking the self same thing. That’s exactly what’s needed. I think quite a few would jump across, too, finding – at last – a place of true science again. The remaining universities would empty rapidly, or pull their act together if they found their professors and students jumping ship!

      It’s time for fresh blood and new establishments.


      Report this

      140

  • #
    Ross

    I think you have right Bernd.

    I don’t mean to criticise the Prof but it is a pity he has let the contractual issues drag so long.

    But which ever way you look at it a number of people need to be dragged through the courts. I hope there are a few lawyers around who could do abit of pro bono work for him.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Bulldust

    All is not lost – there are still genuine skeptical scientists out there. As I have mentioned before, I frequently watch TED talks as I find them quite interesting, inspirational, etc … even if at times somewhat too naive. This morning I saw one that I thought most here would enjoy. A doctor explains how he shrugged off the shackles of orthodoxy to look skeptically at the problem of type 2 diabetes and obesity – his name is Peter Attia (surgeon):

    http://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_attia.html

    This is his talk – I highly recommend it, if only to demonstrate the humility of a true seeker of truth:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_attia_what_if_we_re_wrong_about_diabetes.html

    You may need a hanky at the end.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Allen Ford

    This is appalling. Seems like MacU has joined that illustrious band of third rate degree factories such as James Cook, UWA, UEA, Penn State and doubtless many others.

    Joolya had the right idea in stripping them of funding in favour of Gonski, not that that would have made any difference to the academic standards of schools.

    Universites will never recover until they can get rid of the manic bean counting administrators and the pimply faced high school students masquerading as senior academics.


    Report this

    120

    • #

      Oi!

      “Manic” beancounters look at the evidence from various angles and perspectives. The ordinary beancounters look at just the narrow current view, and fail to see the alternatives, nor anything outside of the current trend.
      Their lack of imagination in preserving the status quo means that ordinary beancounters are only capable of managed decline and eventual closure.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    John Brookes

    I remember Murray Salby giving a talk about how the currently increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere was not caused by us burning fossil fuels. It seemed a very “interesting” thesis.

    Did anything concrete come of it?


    Report this

    336

    • #
      Heywood

      No comment on the treatment he received by Macquarie university? That is the subject of this thread after all…


      Report this

      294

    • #
      Backslider

      Did anything concrete come of it?

      Did you actually read this blog post?…. seems pretty clear that SOMETHING came of it.

      Tell us what you think about that John…?


      Report this

      121

    • #
      Carbon500

      John Brookes: Murray Salby is quite right to raise questions about CO2 in the atmosphere. I’d be interested to know his views.
      Have a look at Ernst-Georg Beck’s assessment of the thousands of CO2 assays done by the so-called ‘wet methods’ in use prior to Mauna Loa. It appears that current values are not unprecedented, anthropogenic or not.
      Then there’s the matter of air bubbles in ice cores. Go down a coal mine and you’ll see that the immense pressures on the tunnels cause huge supporting girders to buckle with time. For what happens to air bubbles in ice cores, read Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski’s paper entitled ‘Climate Change: Incorrect Information on Pre-Industrial CO2′. He concludes that the much touted 280ppm from ice cores is too low.
      Finally, meteorologist William James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ points out that ‘a closer examination of the Mauna Loa data shows that the rate of growth has fluctuated appreciably with marked peaks and troughs on a steady increase. These fluctuations have not been explained but suggest complicated feedback mechanisms between short-term climatic variations (e.g. the ENSO) and the uptake of carbon in the biosphere.’


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Louis Hissink

        In addition the layering in the snow, (as is in lake sediments or varies) represent snow fall events, (flood events in lakes), of which many might occur during a year. So one layer of ice marked by lamination comprised of particulates does not mean one year, but one snowstorm.

        Gerry Pollack’s work on polywater (EZ water) also suggests that when firn converts to ice, substantial removal of particulates in the firn occurs since those particulates cannot fit into the ice molecular structure – Hence you end up with layers of particulate free ice, and intervening layers of particulates. This means that depending on how thick the last deposit of firn was, on recrystallisation to ice, it could have transformed itself into many thinner layers separated by the particulate layers.

        So there are some interesting problems still to be sorted out in using ice chronology based on the counting of layers to represent a yearly event.


        Report this

        80

    • #
      Bill

      John,

      Yes, he has just published a revised edition of his influential text book on Atmospheric Science. I have a colleague who does research in this area and while I do not discuss AGW with her, when I mentioned his name she said that his was one of the commonly used texts in this field.

      He gave his initial talks a few years ago and then significantly improved it in talks this Spring which you can find links to easily. (There is one in his e-mail) He said he was working on 3 peer reviewed manuscripts based on these talks. Real science can not be masked forever, so if he is indeed correct, then eventually the truth will out. I have no idea of the validity of the e-mail or his comments in it. It is only one side. But, it would be disturbing if political considerations got in the way of the truth. I’m sure you would agree with that. We’ll know more in 5-10 years I would say. Hopefully sooner but these things take time to unravel.


      Report this

      80

      • #

        @John “it would be disturbing if political considerations got in the way of the truth” – Politics is by enlarge an emotional and subjective endeavor, truth is not. They don’t give a flying frack for truth.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Did anything concrete come of it?

      Pun intended? ….. concrete production is a co2 contributor.
      Yes a hardback book was published.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Murray Salby, who is Murray Salby? Must be a cousin of Murry Salby.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Sean

      john, don’t you have some climate skeptic in your university’s physics department to go harass and otherwise not do your job of making photocopies for him?


      Report this

      21

      • #
        AndyG55

        He’s at UWA, their resident sceptic was in the Psychology dept, and left to go to England rather than avoid being tipped out for malpractice

        What was his name again……… Loo –something !


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Thinly veiled “Ad Hominem” on cue, nice, love your work.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    turnedoutnice

    Lysenkoism or, its new form, Hnsenkoism, is the imposition by the State of official science.

    Salby, Plimer are amongst many to suffer the demands of this political creed as it defends itself against reality.

    The next step will be to execute persistent offenders. Look back into Russian History in the 1960s, at the end of the Lysenko period.

    The response is Samizdat with unofficial science.

    BTW there can be no CO2-AGW in a water world – there is a mechanism which uses CO2 to control temperature independently of [CO2]. Its beauty is that it also regulates against other changes, methane, tsi etc.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    realist

    The example of Prof. Salby exemplifies the necessity for a Royal Commission with a wide scope of charter to investigate, among other issues, the outright fraud (expenditure of public monies) enacted under the AGW doctrine. Here is another example (remember Prof. Bob Carter, now ex-JCU) of people’s personal and professional lives being deliberately abused, one assumes, as a deliberate tactic used by those who agree with the use of tyrannical politics to silence their critics, lest the truth come out and they be exposed for fraud and misconduct, and to be shown up as faux “scientists”.

    Well, history illustrates the truth does surface, inevitably, and the apparent acts of deliberate abuse of common and other law needs to be pursued and the perpetrators held to full public account. Should politicians and others in public office, also paid by the public purse, condone such examples of obvious misconduct (by staff and bureaucrats in the University) indicates they are party to an even larger problem the nation faces – the deliberate incremental loss of freedom and liberty.


    Report this

    110

  • #

    After several hours of emails and phone calls I have been unable to confirm anything other than Prof Murry is no longer working at Macquarie. This is frustrating. I have left messages at Macquarie – the dean of science is away. The science enquiries officer has not responded. The Phd student I think worked with Salby did not answer and the phone line was connected to someone of a different name on the answering machine. Salby’s phone rings out unanswered. His emails have not been returned. I’ve rung Fairwork Ombudsman, and they have not heard of an australian employment tribunal but think he may be referring to the Fair work commission.

    I need confirmation.


    Report this

    232

    • #
      janama

      Jo – Universities have extensive appeal channels in the case of unjust dismissal. It’s extremely hard to terminate someone’s employment if there is an original employment contract.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        janama

        Bob Carter’s was a simple non renewal of a contract, a rightful option a University has as Bob pointed out before interviews – this appears to be different,


        Report this

        20

    • #

      I find it interesting that people are conveniently absent or not replying. The response so far sounds suspicious.


      Report this

      50

      • #

        Me too. But it is holiday time in Australia at university is it not? It’s only the two week winter break but perhaps people are away?

        I don’t know if Salby is in Australia? But I need to hear from him. I have emailed him my phone number.

        The email was sent to a sizeably large group of skeptics, which would be difficult but not impossible to fake. I appreciate anyone who got the original email leaving a note here.

        Is there anyone who contacted Murry in the last two years to express interest in his work who did not get an email from him? That would be useful to know.


        Report this

        122

    • #
      ianl8888


      I need confirmation

      McU will give you no substantive response


      Report this

      11

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        There only recourse is silence. Anything they say will be damning to their case, so by remaining silent, they can hope it dies down. I suspect there is pressure on the ABC to not say anything about it either. The less publicity the faster it will die. Anthony Watt and Joanne Nova are their worst nightmare and all they can hope for is no one will pay attention to them.


        Report this

        110

    • #
      Sean

      You should have asked instead for the dean of junk science – he is always in…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Anon_sci

    FYI I heard through the science grapevine a couple of years ago that Macquarie had over-hired and was attempting to push out a large number of academic staff. I had no idea that such a high profile overseas star as Prof Murray Salby was affected. I had naturally assumed that the Uni was trying to drop ‘inferior’ performers and dead wood and replace them with high flyers. Still ethically objectionable but more understandable.

    Prof Salby’s recent work on greenhouse gases obviously makes him a target, but I suspect he may not be the only person in this situation.

    The universities are panicking because two big funding duds from the Gillard government have put them well in the red, even if they were nominally budget neutral a few years ago. They are not going to be behaving well from here on in; but Macquarie University’s behaviour seems absolutely atrocious.

    I am embarrassed on behalf of Australia and Australian academia.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    I agree with Mark D at #4. This whole thing smells like a fit up, right from the original offer for Professor Salby to relocate to Macquarie in the first place. I would not be surprised to learn, somewhere down the track, that there was an “international” element to all this.

    .
    Regardless, the Salby and the Spash cases provide an excellent opportunity for those of you who believe anything much is going to change under a Coalition government, to prove your point to us heathen unbelievers who are planning to vote for Themm this election.

    All you have to do is email Christopher Pyne, Opposition Spokesperson for Education, drawing his attention to the above article, and asking him to comment here on precisely what, if anything, he intends to do about it once in government.

    Ditto for Sophie Mirabella, Opposition Spokesperson for Science and Innovation (responsible for the CSIRO), drawing her attention to the case of Clive Spash, formerly of the CSIRO, detailed in comments #7 and #7.1.

    I note with interest that the entire sordid Spash affair, including his call for a Senate Inquiry, was met with a wall of deafening silence from the “Opposition” at the time. Similarly, I have never heard anybody officially speaking on behalf of the “Opposition”, criticise the continued airing of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” to our primary school children as a “science documentary”.

    .
    If they want “conservatives” to vote for them, (and not for Themm) then it is time for these people to start spelling out what, if anything, they intend to do about all this.

    To make it simple, here are the contact details for both:

    Christopher Pyne

    Sophie Mirabella


    Report this

    212

  • #

    To me it seems a modern day version of Deutsche Physik – the lunatic parody of science set up in the 1930s by a country which couldn’t accept that the world’s greatest living physicist was a Jew. A systematic attempt to eliminate academic dissent, by removing academics whose views deviate from the accepted groupthink.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik


    Report this

    91

  • #
    Peter C

    Shocking, just Shocking!

    John Brookes says:

    I remember Murray Salby giving a talk about how the currently increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere was not caused by us burning fossil fuels. It seemed a very “interesting” thesis.

    Did anything concrete come of it?

    Well yes is seems it did. Macquaire University seems to have run a concerted campaign of harassment and intimidation against him, finally dismissing him and leaving him stranded in a foreign country.

    He may recover some compensation against them in civil proceedings but there ought to be an investigation to expose the truth and pin the blame. How far up the system will it go?

    ——————————————————————————–


    Report this

    261

    • #
      John Brookes

      You’ve got to be joking. The type of “skepticism” Salby displays seems to be a variation on emeritus disease. This sort of thing might be contagious, and if he had a shred of decency, Salby would voluntarily quarantine himself.


      Report this

      551

      • #
        Bill

        That is about the stupidest thing I have ever
        seen you write, John. Although I am not here
        all that frequently so I’m sure you have said
        plenty of stupid things.

        Salby had a very interesting, convincing, and
        more IMPORTANTLY testable hypothesis. I say this
        as a PhD research chemist. If he was wrong, this
        could be shown with real data. This is the way
        science works. Perhaps his firing had more to
        do with the university being short of money and
        him not bringing in big grant money but here
        in US with tenure, this would be much harder to do.


        Report this

        280

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Physician heal thyself.

        When you quarantine yourself, we will think about calling for others to do it.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Bulldust

        Perhaps JB would find it useful to label such scientists. Maybe they should be made to wear a badge… a yellow star (representing the sun?) and they could be sent to camps to quarantine them from the rest of ‘civil’ society.

        Does your brand of thinking sound familiar?


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Sonny

        John I would hate to have you on my soccer team – always kicking own goals.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Michael

      Did anything concrete come of it?

      Not that I am aware of. I remember it was supposed to be peer reviewed years ago but it never happened.


      Report this

      05

      • #
        Heywood

        Given the alleged treatment he received at Macquarie Uni I am not surprised it hasn’t happened.

        As Winston said above, “Even if Salby is completely wrong, he deserves to be openly refuted and disproved, not silenced or marginalised. End of story.”


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Michael

        How much time is one supposed to give him? From my reading of the explanation above there is a good case that he went off on his pet project on Macquaries time and money for a long time before termination. I assume that denying the numerous lines of evidence that virtually conclusively point to us as the cause for rising CO2, was not what they hired him for.


        Report this

        010

        • #
          Heywood

          “I assume that denying the numerous lines of evidence that virtually conclusively point to us as the cause for rising CO2 , was not what they hired him for”

          Translation – He didn’t toe the party line so they sacked him.

          Salby had an alternative theory, which he was researching. Nobody knows why his work didn’t make it to peer review. He mentions in the comment that he was hindered in his efforts to analyse his data due to the withholding of resources. It is entirely possible that he was unable to complete his work because of this.

          You can spout “denial” as much as you like, but you seem like a smart guy and would know that science is advanced by exploring alternate hypotheses, and proving or disproving these alternate theories.

          A couple of questions if I may. Do you advocate the sacking of academics who research and hold theories other than the status quo? Should we remove funding from those who “deny” your consensus position?


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Dave

          Michael you say:

          I assume that denying the numerous lines of evidence that virtually conclusively point to us as the cause for rising CO2, was not what they hired him for.

          But the Macquarie Uni cannot dismiss him for disagreeing with any of the Uni’s views as per their Agreement with Academic Staff here:

          2.10.1 The University is committed to act in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of intellectual freedom within the University and in accordance with the University’s Academic Freedom policy and Code of Conduct.
          2.10.2 Intellectual freedom includes:
          (a) the rights of all Staff to express opinions about the operation of the University and higher education policy more generally;
          (b) the rights of Staff to pursue critical open enquiry and to discuss freely, teach, assess, develop curricula, publish and research within the limits of their professional competence and professional standards;
          (c) the right to participate in public debates and express opinions about issues and ideas related to their discipline area;
          (d) the right of all Staff to participate in professional and representative bodies and to engage in community service without fear of harassment, intimidation or unfair treatment; and
          (e) the right to express unpopular or controversial views, although this does not mean the right to vilify, harass or intimidate.
          2.10.3 In the exercise of intellectual freedom, Staff will act in a professional and ethical manner and will not harass, vilify or defame the University or its Staff.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Michael

          It does depend on what he was hired for and what research he was supposed to be completing. No he should not be sacked for having an alternative theory, but if that was not what he was hired for, and he was spending uni time and money on a pet project that they thought hurt their reputation by being associated with it then that might be sufficient reason. The uni has a reputation, Salby’s work was less controversial than it was ridiculed in mainstream science. Virtually everybody accepts that our CO2 emissions are what is causing the increase in CO2. I mean despite all the other lines of scientific evidence you have the basic mass balance approach. We emit CO2 (approx 30 billion tonnes py). CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere by about half that amount. Measurements allow us to estimate that the majority of the rest is going into the oceans by making them less alkaline. So the question becomes from where is the natural CO2 coming from and to where is mans emissions going? To me it seems like a fools errand. Hence, if anything he was wasting uni time and money on embarrassing research.


          Report this

          110

          • #
            Heywood

            So I take that verbose response as a yes, if his theory is hurting the “reputation” of the institution by conducting “embarrassing research”, you believe he should be sacked. I do wonder who is the arbiter of what is “embarrassing” and what isn’t though. Is it emabarassing because it does not confirm to the opinions of “mainstream scinece”? Could it be that his research may have threatened university funding because of the political ramifications of his work?

            John Cook’s piss poor effort at proving a consensus has hurt the reputation of James Cook University due to his embarrassing paper (IMO). Should he be now sacked as well? I doubt it would happen since he supports the consensus position.

            There is more politics in the Salby issue than science.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            crakar24

            Michael,

            Salby would not be allowed to research any topic that he was not employed for without the express permission of his employer, i assume you work, if so does your employer allow you to behave in such a way?

            Regarding the fools errand, lets look at the facts.

            MWP 950 to 1250
            Co2 lag over temp ~ 800 years
            Co2 began to rise ~ 1750 (950 plus 800 = 1750)
            1250 plus 800 = 2050 therefore i predict co2 levels will continue to rise until 2050 where they will drop as per the LIA temps dropped.

            Now i may be incorrect in my prediction so maybe i should undertake further research into this timing coincedence………ones fools errand is another mans search for truth.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Michael

            Heywood I do agree that their is more politics than science in Salbys work.

            Craker24. Well if he did not have permission then would not that be grounds? I think that was my point.

            You have not produced any science. What is the mechanism? Where did you get those times from? The climate does not occur by magic, there are forcings at work. For instance the ice ages are caused by orbital cycles called the Milankovitch cycles, which cause a slight warming which is amplified by greenhouse gases in the NH. As the oceans warm they release CO2 in the SH which causes the SH to warm. These are not the factors at work here, and before even looking for a natural source of CO2 you have to say where is mans emissions going, that so closely match the increasing CO2 in the land and oceans.

            “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm

            Carbon Cycle

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php


            Report this

            010

            • #
              Heywood

              “Heywood I do agree that their(sic)is more politics than science in Salbys work.”

              Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what I said?

              What I ACTUALLY said was “There is more politics in the Salby issue than science.”. By that, I am referring to his exlusion from Macquarie University, but I guess you knew that, and chose to sneak in a stealthy ad hom on Salby.

              For someone who seems so sure of the science, you are doing an lot of astroturfing on this blog trying to convince us mere bloggers that we are wrong. Why is that? You are the 97% remember, why bother with the “pesky” 3%?


              Report this

              60

              • #
                Michael

                why bother with the “pesky” 3%?

                Because the pesky 3% have a lot of financial backing and political power and are giving the wrong impression there is a scientific debate, when all there is is misrepresentations and excuses to muddy the issue and delay action for the sake of profits. The longer action is delayed the more fossil fuels get dug up.


                Report this

                08

              • #
                Heywood

                Ahhhh. Out comes Michael the activist. Starting to reveal the true intentions of being here.

                Here on your own will are you or part of an organisation? GetUp? WWF? The Greens?


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Heywood

                ..and you still didn’t explain why you deliberately misrepresented what I said. But I have come to expect that from activists.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Michael

                Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what I said?

                Because I accept the science and from what I can tell attempts to discredit the science are funded by fossil fuel industries funnelling money to think tanks, opinion bloggers and facebook pages in an effort to influence the political process. So I consider Salbys efforts to be political in effect, though his motives may be ideological or for the fame. Thousands of cientists that go on about their job and do research and publish do not have the fame and stardom status of scientists that support the ‘anything but man’ side of the argument.

                Here on your own will are you or part of an organisation? GetUp? WWF? The Greens?

                I am here on behalf of my kids, grankids and future generations. I am not a member of any political group, and I am a swinging voter, having voted for both major parties depending on policy.


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Heywood

                “attempts to discredit the science are funded by fossil fuel industries funnelling money to think tanks, opinion bloggers and facebook pages in an effort to influence the political process”

                Wow… Nice conspiracy theory.

                Got any evidence?

                I wonder of our host can let us know just how much money she gets from “fossil fuel industries”.

                Do you honestly believe that big oil is funding skeptics anywhere near on the scale that big green and governments are funding compliant scientists?
                Stupid question, of course you believe that!


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                “I am here on behalf of my kids, grankids and future generations. “

                Oh!!! Won’t somebody PLEEEEEAASSSE think of the children…

                So how is spending your time on this particular blog going to benefit them?

                I have been reading/posting here for years and haven’t seen any fossil fuel representatives here. I am sure Jo hasn’t received a single cheque or payment of any kind, apart from small donations from the regulars here.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Michael

                Heywood, there is plenty of evidence of direct support from fossil fuel industries to now more covert support, due to worries of how it will look. Similar to the funding and actual direct attempts to deny the science by tobacco companies. Well documented and where they refined their methods to delay action on many scientific warnings from acid rain to cfc’s.

                Not sure how happy link on that would be taken here, but you asked.

                Governments and education institutions fund science, yes, thats where a lot of our breakthroughs and new science come from, they do not have to please a profit motivated company. Greens whole purpose is to protect the environment, so where else is there money going to go?

                http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1389 How the fossil fuel industry outspent greens.
                http://www.sourcewatch.org Good source for info on funding for orgs and scientists
                http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php Specifically exxon
                http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html

                I will stop there as it is likely to be to much, but I have lots more…


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Michael

                Oh!!! Won’t somebody PLEEEEEAASSSE think of the children…

                Well they are the whole point, aren’t they. If all the science is correct then the people that will most directly be affected are our children and future generations. Basically if you were only worried about money and personal comforts then you don’t care about the future and depending on age and location will get through climate change with only small inconvenience. But if you are worried about future generations then you want to do something because the science is telling us they are likely to face unneccessary suffering and hardship as the climate increases getting worse.

                As to why I am here, I do multiple things on an individual level, this is merely one. Educating enough people so that change stops being blocked is a crucial endeavour, as well as my solar panels, catching the bus to work and much more.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Heywood

                All you have done is refer me to blogs. I asked for evidence, not opinion….

                A bit hypocritical of you isn’t it??

                To quote someone here “You pointed to a blog site, please find some actual peer reviewed science. I do not comment on opinion blog claims.”

                A quick look at them reveals – One of them is Greenpeace – I am sure they are impartial…
                Two of them are flogging books, and uses wikipedia as a reference.
                and the other one is blowing sunshine up Julian Assange’s arse, so safe to assume it is a leftards paradise.


                Report this

                10

              • #
            • #
              crakar24

              Craker24. Well if he did not have permission then would not that be grounds? I think that was my point.

              Possibly so Michael or at least in part we may never know.

              You have not produced any science

              The MWP did actually exist, not just in my mind and is supported by science.

              The 800 year lag is also supported by science

              The increase in CO2 which began around 1750 is also supported by scie…..well the IPCC so you may have a point there :-) .

              Seriously Michael, every point above is supported by science and the numbers add up. You are supporting a theory that all increases in co2 are from man and i have offered you a plausible (scientifically supported) alternative. For you to maintain your support of your theory you must now prove my alternative wrong.

              There are a number of flaws in your theory for example:

              “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans………

              The abstract you reference mentions nothing about under sea volcanos, can you state the total amount of Co2 released into the oceans via this mechanism (+/- 1 Gigaton)?

              Not sure why you reference ice agaes but anyway can you describe the mechanism as to why ice ages have either occured or in fact not occured in defiance of the Milankovitch cycles theory?

              Are Michael science is truly a wonderful thing.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Michael

                Are Michael science is truly a wonderful thing.

                Yes it is. and like always, I provide the actual scientific sources and you give mere opinions.

                You are making the claim about undersea volcanos, I cannot prove something I don’t believe for you. There is zero evidence that an increase in undersea volcanos are causing the constant trend in CO2 that matches the emissions of mans CO2. You guys are so desperate to point at anything and everything but man that you make up vague hypothesis to throw the blame anywhere else, rather than answer the fairly simple question, where is mans emissions going that match the increase in the atmosphere and the oceans?

                I have also never claimed the MWP did not exist. You still have not produced any science or mechanism to support your theory, just personal opinion and a vague hypothesis without a mechanism. I was explaining the Milankovitch cycles as that was where I was inferring you were getting your incorrect hypothesis from. I f I am wrong please provide the sources for the science that your theory is supported by.


                Report this

                15

            • #
              crakar24

              Here you go Michael,

              http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ice-age-sediments.html

              In the paper in Science, the researchers compared the geological record to the climactic cycles that would result from their theory and to that of the competing theory, first published in 1912 by Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch. Using a geological fingerprinting technique, Muller and MacDonald found that the climactic changes recorded in the rocks matched their theory but not that of Milankovitch.

              There you go, today you have learnt something new.

              Cheers


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Michael

                Firstly, it is better practice to link to the actual peer reviewed paper rather than an interpretation of it. Secondly, their main finding was that the ice ages were still due to an orbital tilt (each theory just had different tilts). So everything I said still applies. You still have not provided any evidence or peer reviewed science to support any of your claims. Interesting about the debris though.

                I would point out that Muller now accepts that our emissions have caused the majority of the warming we have seen since industrialisation.


                Report this

                23

            • #
              timg56

              Michael,

              RE your pesky 3% having a lot of financial backing.

              Have you forgotten it is supposed to be skeptics and deniers who believe in conspiracy theories? The amount of money in play regarding climate change is into the trillons and most of it comes from governments.

              As for money coming from industry (Dr mann’s Big Oil hobgoblin) or private individuals (here is where the Koch brothers get mentioned), you should check yourself. As one example here in the US, the Sierra Club recently acknowledged receiving $26 million from the gas industry. The Heartland Institute would consider 1% of that amount as a rather large windfall.

              Seriously, if you want to identify yourself as a person who argues from ignorance, you certainly did a good job with your 3% comment.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Heywood

                And of course he just swallowed the 3% figure. We all know that the %97 was only out of 70 odd scientists and/or the debunked Cook et al paper.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            cohenite

            Virtually everybody accepts that our CO2 emissions are what is causing the increase in CO2. I mean despite all the other lines of scientific evidence you have the basic mass balance approach.

            Again with the nonsense; the mass balance argument is confounded by a constant Airborne Fraction for a start as Knorr found and as is explained here.

            This is a core issue; if the CO2 increase is not due to human emissions either in part or at all then AGW is dead; that is why Salby’s work was relevant; it also has important implications for how the climate cycle works.

            There is increasing interest in this line of enquiry and for Macquarie to get rid of Salby shows how far they have been taken over by the AGW meme.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Michael

              as is explained here.

              You pointed to a blog site, please find some actual peer reviewed science. I do not comment on opinion blog claims.

              So how about you tell me where mans emissions are going? taking into account that they match the amount of steady increase in the atmosphere and oceans. There is no point inventing a non existent source when it is basic fact that man emits CO2. Denying that is beyond my comprehension.


              Report this

              26

              • #
                Heywood

                “I do not comment on opinion blog claims”

                And yet, here you are on a blog commenting. Why don’t you go and right a paper and get it peer reviewed and avoid these unscientific blogs altogether?

                I also find it interesting that you make the big assumption that everyone here completely denies CO2 causation, and/or anthropogenic factors causing warming.

                There are many varying degrees of opinion on the subject, even on this blog.


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Michael

                I also find it interesting that you make the big assumption that everyone here completely denies CO2 causation, and/or anthropogenic factors causing warming.

                Good, I was surprised that a science blog such as this would deny everything. I would point out that I did not initially bring it up, I responded to posters querying the state of the research.


                Report this

                14

            • #
              cohenite

              What a nuisance you are Michael; Gösta Pettersson is an eminent professor in biochemistry specialising on the fixation of carbon dioxide by plants and the carbon cycle research carried out by climatologists and others. What more qualified person to discuss the issue?

              I also mentioned Knorr and the constant AF, to which we can add the Gloor et al paper which also finds a constant AF.

              Perhaps you can explain how a constant AF is inconsistent with human emissions of CO2 being solely responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 as the mass balance argument suggests?


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Michael

                Oh I should have looked closer, I am aware of that research. This is what happens when you link to a blog instead of the actual research. Sorry but you have been hoodwinked by your opinion blog. Knorr is saying that the proportion of mans emissions that are being absorbed by carbon sinks are remaining constant, which means that if we reduce emissions then nature will reduce how much it absorbs to match. Long story short, it is more important to stop emissions than to create forrests etc. In other words carbon taxes and renewables are more important than direct action on planting trees and soil sequestration.

                Try and understand the science rather than just believing an opinion blog.

                From Knorr himself
                ‘One message from this research is that it could be even more important than we thought to curb CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, as opposed to stopping deforestation and other changes in land use,’ Knorr says.

                He argues that more work is now needed to understand why the fraction of carbon that’s absorbed from the atmosphere has stayed so steady for so long. Without this, we will never be able to predict how this fraction may change in future.”
                http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=599&cookieConsent=A


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Dave

                Michael you say,

                In other words carbon taxes and renewables are more important than direct action on planting trees and soil sequestration.

                So deep sea mining of rare earths for EV batteries, solar panels, bird killing windmills, pollution by heavy metals, reduction of arable land by renewables is of no concern to you as long as we have a CO2 TAX and produce useless sources of energy.

                You are a typical GREEN VANDAL.


                Report this

                22

              • #
                cohenite

                Knorr is saying that the proportion of mans emissions that are being absorbed by carbon sinks are remaining constant, which means that if we reduce emissions then nature will reduce how much it absorbs to match.

                That sounds suspiciously like a manifestation of gaia. The AF is defined as the fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions which remain in the atmosphere after natural processes have absorbed some of them;

                AF=ΔCO2/E

                The relevance of this is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is often above the AF as Quirk’s graph shows. The fact that the AF is below the increase in atmospheric CO2 is also seen if Figure 1 from Knorr.

                If the AF is below the increase in CO2 then the human emissions cannot by definition be causing all the increase in CO2.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                So deep sea mining of rare earths for EV batteries, solar panels, bird killing windmills, pollution by heavy metals, reduction of arable land by renewables is of no concern to you as long as we have a CO2 TAX and produce useless sources of energy. You are a typical GREEN VANDAL.

                Wow, how twisted is that. All I did was quote what Knorr said, which everyone here is typically misrepresenting. First we need to stop arguing about the science, and come together to find solutions. What Knorr was saying that becuase the proportion that the planet takes up adjusts to the increase it is likely that as you reduce then the amount that nature takes up will also reduce, meaning you will not get the full value out of devreasing CO2. Long story short the most cost effective and practical way of reducing CO2 is not to put it up there in the first place. That is our most urgnet problem at the moment, but we are wasting our time arguing about stuff like this, which is scientifically a non question. WE are the ones emitting CO2 and causing it to rise in the atmosphere. When we stop going around in circles on nonsense like this we can come together and discuss solutions.

                So I do not accept anything that you said as you were basically having a conversation with yourself, I never said any of it.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Michael

                Cohenite. The planet is a vast interrelated system, as most natural processes are, considering they have evolved that way to work together. Fact.

                I think one thing that Knorr was saying that is worrying in the current data coming out now is indications that the natural sinks may becoming saturated. Which means that they have been protecting us by soaking up around a half of what we emit but they may not be able to do that in the future. You need to follow the conclusions of the science rather than trying to make it up as you go.


                Report this

                22

              • #
                cohenite

                I’m not making anything up; I merely pointed out that the AF, which is the measure of human CO2 left over, is BELOW the increase in CO2. What’s responsible for the remainder of the increase?

                If Macquarie hadn’t fired Salby maybe we would have found out.

                Sinks will not be saturated; the good thing about trees is that they will take as much CO2 as they can get.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Mark D.

                You need to follow the conclusions of the science rather than trying to make it up as you go.

                Really? “follow the conclusions of the science”? What a positively daft thing to say!

                I could imagine a Warmist Cult believer, like you, might say “follow the Religion of Climate Science” and “the end is near! repent repent, save the children, repent!

                Wait that pretty much IS what you say……


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                current data coming out now is indications that the natural sinks may becoming saturated.

                Again, what absolute rot! How in the World can you believe such nonsense?

                If you wish to talk about saturation, how about you take a look at CO2 saturation of the very narrow bands of IR its able to absorb? What does that tell you?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Again, what absolute rot! How in the World can you believe such nonsense?

                Yes science pointing to saturation of natural sinks is contradictory, this is developing science, facts are that by Knorrs own paper (that you guys pointed to) it is imperative that we stop CO2 from going into the atmosphere as, once we do reduce it natural proceeses will be slower to get it down than thought.

                As to your CO2 saturation claims, if you have any peer reveiwed science that supports your opinion please provide it. I have provided the peer reveiwed science (lots of it), that says your wrong. Your opinion is barely opinion, mostly desperate attempts to create doubt.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                crakar24

                Now you see Michael this is what i am talking about, you do not respond to another commentator its like you have a cage full of monkees with typewriters and some times they produce something of interest.

                The CSIRO recently published a study which shows the Australian continent is greening due to the increase in CO2 levels now if this is the characteristics of a saturated carbon sink then i am a monkees (pun intended)uncle.

                Please, please, please respond by telling me how a satuarted carbon sink can allow the greening of Australia and not with more trash from your monkees.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Backslider

                if you have any peer reveiwed science that supports your opinion

                Dear oh dear Michael…. why do you insist in “peer reviewed science” when we are talking kindergarten stuff that you should be able to work out with your own mind?

                You are aware of course that CO2 is only able to absorb and emit a very narrow band of infra red radiation? Do do you that, don’t you? Or do you insist on “peer review science” for that also? Well, trust me, its true.

                Now, for the kindergarten lesson:

                Imagine that we have a one litre jug of water that represents all of the IR being emitted from the earth that CO2 is able to absorb. Then imagine that we have twenty 200ml glasses representing CO2.

                How many glasses can you fill?

                Ok, once you have managed to comprehend that you can add time to the equation, so that you may think of it as something constantly happening. Its still the same, but just has another dimension.

                CO2 does not retain the IR – it either collides with another molecule or emits it instantly.

                There you go sonny, now you can see that once we reach saturation point (before industrialisation) adding more CO2 does nothing…. at least not in the lower atmosphere, which is what you insist on only talking about. I shall leave you to think about what may happen in the upper atmosphere……


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Now, for the kindergarten lesson:

                Sorry backslider, I don’t accept kindergarten science. Being an adult I go to the real science and see what that says. Specifically peer reviewed science, since that science has been reviewed by experts and then published in a scientific journal and subjected to critisism and review of all the experts in the field.

                Ever wonder why you have to resort to such ‘kindergarten science’? Because the real science does not support you and you have to try to cover that fact up.

                Lol, I will leave opinion and kindergarten science to you.


                Report this

                11

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Michael,

            You need to read, “The Science Delusion”, by Rupert Sheldrake.

            You should also read about the “consensus” surrounding medical specialisation of Phrenology in the early 19th Century. You will find a lot of parallels with Climate Science.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Richard Hill

    It is worth noting that the subject University is not alone. Many people are very disappointed by Melbourne University’s treatment of Geoffrey Blainey. GB is perhaps the best known Historian in Australia, noted for his books such as “The Triumph of the Nomads” about the wonderful success of Aboriginal culture surviving in a harsh land. The chief organiser of GB’s hounding out is currently in charge of a major section of the Australian National school curriculum. As a graduate of MU I put on record that they will never get a donation from me or anyone that I can influence.


    Report this

    270

    • #
      John Brookes

      GB is a revisionist historian who tried very hard to prove that the Australian aborigines happily handed their land over to the invaders.


      Report this

      226

      • #
        Bill

        So what matters is not the truth but what you “feel”
        is the way it should be presented? I have never heard
        of the debate about aboriginal loss of land (not Australian)
        so I am not saying that what he wrote is true. I am just concerned
        that you seem to be yet another person (like religious fundamentalists)
        that cares more for doctrine than truth.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          John Brookes

          Naah. It is GB who cares more for doctrine than truth. He insisted on constructing his history only from official records. In one case it was obvious that a massacre of local aborigines had occurred, but since no one was charged, Blainey didn’t include it. Actually, I am relying on memory here, and the details are probably wrong. But I do remember being flabbergasted at the time.


          Report this

          19

      • #
        Bill

        P.S. Anyone can call any historian or economist, etc. revisionist.

        Does not mean anything. The truth is never complete and I’m sure
        the old fashioned racist egyptologists called the newer ones “revisionist”
        as well.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Winston

        What rubbish, John. Perhaps you would care to examine some of the contemporaneous accounts of the treatment of women in Aboriginal society when Europeans first came into contact with them, and then reconcile this with your naive belief in some sort of indigenous nirvana. The only revisionist historians I see are those trying to refashion a myth around some sort of ideal primitivism in indigenous cultures. The truth is no doubt far more complex, and even handed than that. Blainey would be far more dispassionate and less deceptive than many of these historians writing in this area, although I’m equally certain that all of his opinions are not necessarily correct in their entirety either. Hardly reason to cast aspersions on his credentials, given your rather obvious lack of comprehension of the subject, or demonstrable analytical skills.

        Almost everything you believe, John, is either a falsehood, a misconception, an assumption or an exaggeration. If you have a genius for anything, John, it is a complete and utter lack of intuition for the truth. In fact, I warrant you’d run a mile, in your Lycra bike gear no doubt, just to avoid it. It’s lucky you don’t embarrass easily, otherwise you wouldn’t say anything at all.


        Report this

        210

      • #

        John, FFS tell that to the Saxons you silly revisionist plonker!!!. We may or may not agree with the actions of our forbears but we are are product of their actions for better or worse. Do any of you people actually think in a straight line or does everything have a sharp upward curve?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Niff

    Utterly machiavelian. I have been thinking for some time now that the funding of universities has got to the point where the whole festering mass needs to be scrapped and restarted with a view to preventing the power structures, fiefdoms, pal review networks, and selection processes that perpetuate exactly what we funded them NOT to do. IOW search for truth and discovery, not politics.


    Report this

    140

  • #

    Oh dear, this is very disturbing. A taste of things to come no doubt. One can only hope that it somehow brings about a quicker end to the madness.

    I notice the house troll has little to offer about the tactics involved, tactics reminiscent of Stalin’s finest.

    We need more names, the names of the people who were obstructing the professor and pulling the decision making strings.


    Report this

    131

  • #
    bobl

    Jo, when I worked long ago for a university the contracts were governed as a state government employee by the administrative appeals tribunal

    i don’t know about NSW but I’d suspect it’s similar, he is a state government employee, it will be a state government body that would hear his case.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    bobl

    By the way, this also suggest the right place to send your emails of complaint is to the state government education minister


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Just another case of someone daring to speak the truth and the inevitable reaction of the Carbon Inquisition.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Catamon

    Perhaps a little reality check would be in order here. Going from the timeline in the OP it looks to be a classic case of a researcher being given undertakings by a University, relocating on the basis of those undertakings, and them not being followed up by the University.

    I can tell you from personal experience that this is a sad, unacceptable, but not highly unusual situation in the University system, and most likely has nothing to do with the particular line of research being undertaken. ie, it happens to some people regardless of their research area.


    Report this

    514

    • #
      Heywood

      Fair comment, but I do wonder what he meant by “Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia”

      I am curious as to what the “misconduct” actually was.

      I would put a six pack of beer on it being related to his line of research.


      Report this

      110

      • #

        If an academic in a university is sacked on those grounds then it’s very worrying indeed. It implies quite absurdly that any research of a scientific nature must conform to a politically mandated narrative, on YOUR dollar. Time for some action my Aussie cuzzies.


        Report this

        111

      • #
        Catamon

        I am curious as to what the “misconduct” actually was.

        Would be interesting to know. I have seen it where Academics in a similar situation have gotten bloody minded and confused what they “should” be able to do with what they are actually authorised to do. In some of the old individual agreements under Serfchoices you could be “deemed” to have been engaged in misconduct for “bringing the University into disrepute” in some way. Nasty stuff. From the OP it appears that this is an unpleasant situation that has developed over 5 years. Probably a lot of GRRRR on both sides of the argument by now with actual root causes lost in the history and he said she said crap.

        Macquarie’s failure to register rendered my contract under the national employment system null and void.

        This is curious?? If he was a union member i’m sure he would have had their support in following that up as that sort of process failing could i think leave Macquarie vulnerable to action. If not he would have to get his own bottom dwelling detritus feeder to follow it up legally at his expense.


        Report this

        216

    • #
      MemoryVault

      . . . but not highly unusual situation in the University system . . .

      Yeah, right, Cat.

      After all, one reads almost every other day about respectable academics being deliberately stranded overseas as a result of their university cancelling their return air tickets.

      I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that DFAT has a diplomatic desk in every overseas embassy to deal with the problem, it’s so common.


      Report this

      121

      • #
        Catamon

        deliberately stranded overseas as a result of their university cancelling their return air tickets.

        It may be that he was not actually authorised to book the travel on his University account. That’s certainly something i have seen happen. Without knowing all the history of his interactions with the University management over a period of years its a bit silly to speculate on the the why’s of it.

        Ahh, yes, its MV though isnt it. :) xxx


        Report this

        117

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Catamon,

          Go back and re-read (or maybe read for the first time) points 14 to 18 in the original post.
          Pay particular attention to points 14, 15 and 16.

          Now go back and read your own idiotic comment above:

          Without knowing all the history of his interactions with the University management over a period of years . . .

          If there was anything in the “history of his interactions with the university management over a period of years”, that justified cancelling his return flight tickets, logic dictates it would have precluded the university from paying for the tickets in the first place.

          But, of course, there just HAS to be some explanation other than the obvious one, doesn’t there, Cat?

          .
          You just go on polishing that turd – I’m sure you will get it to shine eventually.


          Report this

          152

          • #
            Catamon

            logic dictates it would have precluded the university from paying for the tickets in the first place.

            MV, having a first hand perspective on these matters and some experience of the way Universities are run, i can assure you that its quite plausible that someone could have paid for tickets, left, come back, done another trip as well and then had someone in admin decide they weren’t authorized to do it who was keen enough to cancel the tickets asap. Neither of us knows the history of this specific matter, but i have seen some pretty bizarre behavior in Academic / Admin interactions over the years.

            14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases, Macquarie undertook its misconduct proceedings – with me in absentia. Macquarie was well informed of the circumstances. It was more than informed.

            Which brings up the question of whether he knew the proceedings were scheduled for then and may have chosen to be OS while they were on. That is not spoken to here.

            there just HAS to be some explanation other than the obvious one

            I’m sure your more comfortable with the idea it is an evil conspiracy against all True Disbelievers MV, since after all, isn’t everything??.

            Be happy in your world grasshopper. But be aware it may be less black and white than you would like. :) xxx


            Report this

            221

            • #
              MemoryVault

              . . . i can assure you that its quite plausible . . .

              It is truly marvelous how often that word – “plausible” – crops up with you climate cult believers, Cat. You know, it’s “plausible” that space aliens stole Phil Jones climate records from the CRU; it’s “plausible” that global warming causes global cooling, and I suppose now it’s “plausible” that Murray Salby got caught in a wormhole warp in the space-time continuum, and arrived overseas before he left when his travel arrangements were cancelled retrospectively.

              “Plausibly”, anything is plausible. Now how about we now deal with the real world? Assuming that Murray Salby was overseas on business originally approved by the university, then cancelling out his return flight amounted to a gross failure of the university to provide him with a safe system of work, prosecutable in every state of Australia, under both state and federal OHS legislation.

              I’m not simply stating an opinion on this. Following the slavery laws commonly known as “workchoices”, I was involved as a witness in four such cases where employers, empowered by the Howard legislation, thought they could not only fire long-standing employees and force them to accept new terms of employment, but could leave them stranded in remote locations.

              In all four cases, the employer lost out, despite “workchoices” giving them the right to otherwise treat employees like sh*t. For those of you who don’t know it, OHS legislation now transcends all laws other than those deemed “capital” offences – murder, rape, sedition, treason and the like.

              .
              This remains the case. Even if Salby had been discovered to be running a pedophile sex ring off his university computer. Even in such a drastic example, the university would have a duty of care, under OHS legislation, to bring him home, prior to dispensing with his services. One is left with one of two choices:

              1) – Either the university is staffed by idiots, or

              2) – - The university knew exactly what it was letting itself in for, and considered the cost in future litigation worth it (remembering that it is we, the taxpayers who will pay for it), to hide a truth that would derail the CAGW gravy train.

              .
              Meanwhile, you go on polishing that turd, Cat.


              Report this

              191

        • #
          Heywood

          “It may be that he was not actually authorised to book the travel on his University account. ”

          Perhaps, but anyone with any morals at Mac.U. wouldn’t leave him stranded. They would fund his return and discipline him after the fact.

          Leaving him stranded is a bastard act of the highest order, regardless of his entitlement.


          Report this

          160

          • #
            Catamon

            Perhaps, but anyone with any morals at Mac.U. wouldn’t leave him stranded. They would fund his return and discipline him after the fact.

            I agree with you Heywood, but i would qualify that agreement on the basis that none of us actually know if there was any history betwixt him and admin that may have led them to consider what seems an extreme course of action to be justifiable in and of its self.

            I have seen situations where Academics can be rather bloody minded about what they think they have a right to do as employees of an institution with the resources of that institution. Sometimes they push things too far and get slapped down.


            Report this

            013

  • #
    true asit is

    Macquarie University is a university with problems! Ethics are a problem there – I was treated abysmally myself contrary to its own ethics policies (which seem to mean nothing at all!). What is the real story though. I am sure there is more to this. At the end of the day its a useless university, full of useless scientists (now), just a degree factory for a world which soon won’t want them anyway! He is well rid of the place…….


    Report this

    160

  • #

    Thanks for running this, Jo. People should know about this and complain long and loud. Yes, I accept it should be confirmed, however going by what some have said, this sort of thing has happened before.

    It’s about time people started complaining and/or pulling out funding AND students AND professors. Seriously, at some point, people from all levels will have to stand up and be counted. Silence is killing our nation, just as it is nations overseas.


    Report this

    101

    • #
      MemoryVault

      People should know about this and complain long and loud.

      At the end of the day, A.D.E, this is a political problem, which has to be dealt with politically. There is stuff-all students and professors can do from within the corrupt system. We have politicians to deal with political problems.

      Here in Australia, realistically, we get to “complain” about political problems once every three years, on election day. Despite the KRudd’s attempts to delay the inevitable, we get that chance sometime in the next few months.

      Now we know that nobody in LABOR is going to address these issues. Ditto for the Greens. That leaves the Coalition. Are the Coalition going to address these issues, or not? If they are, then they are worthy of your vote. If they are not going to address these issues, then I’m sorry, I can’t see much point in voting for them, either.

      I laid out how people could register their complaint with the only people it could count with, in comment #17 above, complete with contact details.

      I have little doubt that anybody from the Coalition Chorus will even bother contacting Pyne or Mirabella, because deep down, in their heart of hearts, they know what the result will be.

      These people prefer to live with the illusion that there is some discernible difference between the major parties, rather than confront the reality that there is not.


      Report this

      101

      • #

        I’m not interested in how you want to scatter the votes. I don’t think people should tiptoe around outside the university itself. Certainly, complains should go to the science minister and anywhere that might actually do something about it, but it ought to land on the doorstep as well.

        Students and professors can do plenty about it. They can complain, loudly and publically, or better still, quit. A university with students and professors protesting and draining away will wake up to itself. It is, after all, all about prestige and funding.

        I know it won’t happen. Each and every one of those souls, be it student or professor, will bite their tongue and fear for their own skin, and that’s their shame. And ours. It’s going to take backbone to get out of this mess. Sooner or later, someone will show it but it’s going to have to come in large numbers all at once instead of one by one.

        Hopefully, it won’t involve pitchforks.


        Report this

        70

  • #

    Jo is right – there are a few red flags on this article, the most damning is the “Australian Employment Tribunal”. Goodness knows there are enough obscure quangos for that to be plausible, but the fact such a body is named, but it isn’t listed, is suspicious.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Manfred

    This, if confirmed, appears to be an utterly nauseating example of institutionalised green corruption. As Eric Worrall remarked earlier, this is a re-run of the 1930′s and science policy in Nazi Germany.

    Jewish scientists quickly found themselves demoted and then out of a job. Less qualified German scientists in The Party rose quickly above their capabilities to fill the intellectual vacuum. This in hind sight was described as ‘Hitler’s Gift to the World’. Until this point German science led the world, with the greatest number of Nobel prizes (when they actually meant something).

    What are the unintended consequences of this greenist policy? A policy driven dumbing down of science leading to a new generation of intellectually impoverished adherents of post modernism ‘science’, all policy apparachiks, little more than goose step impersonators masquerading as ‘scientists’.

    We will rid ourselves of this grotesque, impoverishing scourge, of that I have no doubt. The battle is really beginning now. We move beyond ‘Sitzkreig’.


    Report this

    91

    • #

      Someone once said (can’t remember who so I’ll paraphrase) that those who don’t learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes made by those who failed to learn the lessons of history who…and so on. Too many of us are a sort of “educated stupid class”. Tons of knowledge but not a skerrick of wisdom.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    janama

    It’s pretty well explained in the Macquarie University Profile on their website where they state:

    “All our hard work is paying off: since 2007 we have consistently moved up the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Rankings of World Universities. In the recent Excellence in Research for Australia exercise performed by the Australian Government, five of our research areas – Earth Sciences, Physical Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Psychology and Cognitive Sciences – were noted for their “outstanding performance well above world standard”. Macquarie was also recently named as the top university in Australia for research in environmental science and ecology based on the number of citations per researcher. “


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Some aspects of this might work in the professor’s favour, the fact that his contract was not registered, that his salary was cancelled before the disciplinary hearing – his post being cancelled later and the University doesn’t appear to have been helpful, truthful or communicative at any stage of the matter. Therefore they University seems to be in breach of it’s obligations before the disciplinary action, but we need to know what the disciplinary action was all about.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Backslider

    I cannot find any “Australian employment tribunal” – Joanne Nova

    This is the Fair Work Commission, sometimes referred to as “the national employment tribunal”


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

    Jo, the employment tribunal is FWA:

    “An employee has been unfairly dismissed if the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) finds that:

    they were dismissed
    the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable
    the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

    It’s not an unfair dismissal if the employer is a small business employer and they followed the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. A small business employer is an employer who employs less than 15 employees. The headcount includes casuals employed on a regular and systematic basis, employees of associated entities and the employee(s) being dismissed.

    If you think you’ve been unfairly dismissed, visit the Commission’s website for information about eligibility and making an application.”

    http://www.fairwork.gov.au/termination/unfair-dismissal/pages/default.aspx


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Sounds like a good man’s time wasted by agenda driven buffoons, now to be honest I have only set foot on a University for either sports related business or the odd err let’s say social visit.
    However over the last few years in part of my work (construction) some of the people holding Uni Degree’s have been the biggest waste of O2 in the work (real world) environment, and after seeing the attitude of these institutions towards their true asset’s I am not surprised at some of their end results.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    handjive

    The tax payer funded partisan Government persecution against those who disagree with “climate consensus” started with Ian Plimer:

    IN late 2011, Professor Ian Plimer—a geology professor and expert mineralogist with no background in climate science—released his latest book: How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.
    .
    Looking for Tim Flannery’s background in climate science.
    It could be hiding in the oceans, along with the missing heat.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    “My Russian student was prohibited from speaking with me. She was isolated – left without competent supervision and the resources necessary to complete her PhD investigation, research that Macquarie approved when it lured her from Russia.”
    That is outrageous, Orwellian behaviour.


    Report this

    30

    • #

      How can a University impose a ban on communications between individuals; especially when one of them isn’t actually bound by an employement contract because that contract hadn’t been registered?

      Does the University employ persons to monitor individuals under such communications bans? What powers would those monitors have to trespass upon the privacy of the private home; personal emails and electronic communications?

      Is the PhD student also banned from reading any of Salby’s publications?


      Report this

      20

      • #

        Well exactly Bernd, I believe they truly crossed a line here since it may be construed as a sanction on not just an individual (employment issue) but a group however tenuous that may seem. They rather foolishly upped the ante.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Nice One

    As a result, my computer models and analyses remain inoperative.

    Did they ever work?


    Report this

    221

  • #
    Dean

    Just a note re: “Australian employment tribunal.” Mr Salby appears to believe he was employed under federal employment law – “national employment contract with regulatory oversight.” He is American and our employment laws would confuse a Vogon. Under the current FWA it appears most remedies are in a Federal Court, but you only get there after going through the “Fair Work Commission.” I think he has simply described it in generic terms.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Just purchased his book Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
    hope it can help in some way.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    bobl

    Folks, bear in mind we have no real knowledge of what went on and it’s only supposition that it’s related to the AGW debate. I think dismissing someone for misconduct is pretty serious stuff and the University would want to be pretty sure they could get away with it.

    However, if I was VC there would be no way that I would strand an employee or even an ex employee overseas, it would be unsafe, the university placed him at quite some risk. I’d expect that if true that action alone would be actionable.

    It sounds to me like there is two sides to this story, and I’d like to hear both sides before I draw a conclusion.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Ian H

    Why did he need to rewrite his code in order to have it run in Australia and why did this apparently take so long. Computer languages are the same in Australia and in the US. No translation would seem to be needed. It should be a simple matter of copying stuff across, compiling a few things – installing a few libraries maybe. It shouldn’t be a big deal to copy data over and get his code all set up and running again on a new machine.

    The only explanation I can think of is that the programs may have been written for him in the US by a research assistant and that Salby himself was unable to figure them out and get them to run. In Australia most researchers are expected to write their own code because the money for this kind of assistance is seldom available. This is pure speculation and it would be best to wait for facts. But there does seem to me to be something missing from Salby’s explanation of the reasons why he was unable to successfully transplant his research program.

    When Universities decide to try to get rid of someone it is always ugly. This seems uglier than usual. In particular the business about stranding him in Europe by cancelling his ticket appears outright malicious.


    Report this

    91

    • #
      AndyG55

      That’s right, its pure UGLY speculation.

      So why bother speculation when you DON”T ******G know !!!

      There are plenty of possible reason for needing to rewrite code.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Come on Andy, everyone else here is speculating!

        Sacking someone from a uni is a lot of hard work. You wouldn’t do it if you didn’t have to. Anyway, maybe some super sleuth can get one of Salby’s colleagues at Macquarie to anonymously spill the beans?


        Report this

        320

    • #

      Does seem like the professor stuffed up and couldn’t work without lots of assistance.

      Only way plants could increase atmospheric CO2 is if carbon sinks like forests, the seabed are being destroyed. Guess what, they are!

      That Russian student was told she couldn’t work on her original thesis according to Jo so no wonder she couldn’t work on it.

      The happiest Kingdom of them all—Conspiracy Land. Take a couple halfbaked “facts” say the “victim” was one of “us” and 200+ posts get generated by those that know nothing about what/how/why something happened.

      Plimer and Carter are not climate scientists, more like obvious humbugs taking money from shady sources so any Uni would do well to superannuate them off!


      Report this

      113

      • #
        Heywood

        “Plimer and Carter are not climate scientists”

        Ahhh, straight to argumentum ad auctoritatem and argumentum ad hominem.

        What have either Plimer or Carter claimed that is incorrect, other than what you have read in the Guardian or Green Left Weekly?

        Flannery and Cook aren’t climate scientists either, but you worship everything they say, even though most of what they have said hasn’t turned out to be quite true.


        Report this

        110

      • #

        Maxine, not one iota of incredulity?. Screeds of info here yet you are quite in conscience and calm in your right to sling mud at the “200″ minds that find this important enough to comment on?. I sincerely hope you do NOT teach in any capacity at all.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Why did he need to rewrite his code in order to have it run in Australia and why did this apparently take so long. Computer languages are the same in Australia and in the US.

    Or more likely, the program was written in an older language and he was seeking to update it. How many Cobol programmers do you personally know? Kind of hard to maintain code when the language is no longer supported.

    Time to think in IT terms. Programs are only designed to run a few years. 10 is ancient in computer language time.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      bobl

      My guess is its probably written for a supercomputer – in all liklihood it needed to be ported to another OS.

      One big point is that Macquarie has no right to deprive this author of his prior intellectual property unless it was specifically assigned to them in writing exclusively. To do so would be a violation of copyright law, punishable under the criminal code. This must be returned to him and all copies of this code and its derivatives expunged from university computer systems.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      Cobol? More like Fortran. Unless the program was really old it could have been run OK, maybe his model wasn’t supporting what he was saying?


      Report this

      17

      • #

        Which Fortran??

        Fortran was, for a long time, pretty machine specific. Computer manufacturers provided their own compilers and libraries to maximise the performance of the system. It requires lots of expertise to competently port Fortran software from one platform to another because one has to understand the source and the target environments.

        Wikipedia

        Download some of the code used by climate modellers. A lot of it has obvious roots in Fortran 77 and some even earlier. Novice porting in the climate models produces data artifacts. Regression testing probably never happened.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “maybe his model wasn’t supporting what he was saying?’

        Better than reality not supporting what the AGW models or AGW goons have been saying.

        Seems that AGW models are diametrically opposed to reality, as are Flannery’s predictions and Cook’s mentality.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        The language is not the issue. The issue is languages going out of use. There are millions of Cobol programmers around, but not many compilers running on any mainframes. Same with Fortran.

        I did not say the program was written in any particular language. I merely used a famous one as an example of my point. You would do well to learn to read our common tongue.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Tim

    A reminder that Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the church and the Inquisition found him “gravely suspect of heresy,” sentencing him to indefinite house arrest.

    They subsequently later actually discovered that the earth really does move around the sun and that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth; among many other truths. No shit.

    Political oligarchs will not tolerate dissent, no matter how valid.


    Report this

    81

    • #
      John Brookes

      Oh FFS! Is there no law against comparing any sort of possible persecution to Galileo? There should be.


      Report this

      631

    • #
      Michael

      The difference was that Gallileo stood by the evidence and what the science was telling him. He would not be looking for excuses and denying all the science for ideological beliefs. Therefore he would accept the peer reviewed science of AGW and the fact that mans emissions are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Like the church back in the 1700′s trying to deny what the science was telling them due to their beliefs the anti science crowd are continuously denying what the current science is telling them as it is to inconvenient.


      Report this

      16

  • #
    Ace

    what this guy should do is find a TV / Movie writer / producer. Im not being sarky. Its a waste of time epcting the Stasi to policfe themselvs. He has to go outside their arena of control and shame them by telling the story. Through TV / movie dramas is the way its done in the modern world.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Catamon

    12. Obligations to present our new research on greenhouse gases (previously arranged), had to be fulfilled at personal expense.

    14. While I was in Europe presenting our new research on greenhouse gases,

    15. Upon arriving at Paris airport for my return to Australia, I was advised that my return ticket (among the resources Macquarie agreed to provide) had been cancelled.

    Ok, so @12 he’s stating that obligations “had to be fulfilled at personal expense.”

    So how did Macquarie cancel a ticket he bought “at personal expense”???

    Curious.


    Report this

    414

    • #
      Ian Wilson

      This is speculation but maybe Prof. Salby was given assurances [by Macquarie Uni] that a return ticket would be paid for by the University. There are more expenses to a trip than simply the cost of the ticket e.g. accommodation, travel expenses in Europe, food etc.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      crosspatch

      15 might be an explanation of 12. 15 explains why it had to be done at personal expense, because they cancelled a ticket they had originally provided.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    crosspatch

    Interesting way to sabotage the careers of those who oppose the party line. First you hire them, then you frustrate them for years preventing any completion of research / publication (long term career implications). Then you blackball them. “Hold your friends close, hold your enemies closer”.


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #

    Christopher gave me permission to post his full response:

    “This case is outrageous. I shall be finding out further details from Professor Salby and shall then arrange for powerful backers to assist him in fighting the university, which – if his side of the story is in all material respects true – has committed multiple criminal offenses. This needs to be a high-profile case.”

    Some offers of donations have already come in before he asked.


    Report this

    271

  • #
    Reed Coray

    In support of Mr. Salby, I just sent the following Email to Ms Deidre Anderson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students and Registrar), Macquarie University.

    Dear Ms. Anderson,

    There’s an old saying to the effect that “Any press is good press.” To the degree the saying pertains to Macquarie University’s treatment of Murry Salby, you’d better hope the saying is accurate. Here I am, an obscure non-Australian citizen living in a foreign country (USA), sending an Email to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Students and Registrar) of Macquarie University questioning the University’s treatment of one of its employees (now ex-employee?). I can only imagine the response you might be getting from citizens of Australia and people closer to the University.

    I recently read a thread, http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/#comments, on Joanne Nova’s blog, That thread discusses Macquarie University’s treatment of Mr. Salby to include a list of items that Mr. Salby claims are “a matter of record.” It’s a truism that there are two sides to any argument; and I haven’t seen any discussion of your side of the issue. However, if half of what Mr. Salby claims is true, Macquarie University should at a minimum be ashamed, and at a maximum actively pursuing an internal investigation. Your treatment of Mr. Salby exhibits all the characteristics of “monetary fear” in that you seem to be living in mortal fear of offending some of your benefactors–specifically the members of the Australian government who (a) fund your university, and (b) have bought hook-line-and-sinker into the meme of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Liberal Arts Universities used to vocally and proudly proclaim tolerance and diversity, which as judged by your treatment of Mr. Salby no longer apply at Macquarie University. Your treatment of Mr. Salby brings to mind two other old sayings: (a) “Do as I say, not as I do”, and (b) a modification of the Golden Rule: “Those that have the gold, make the rules.” Since the modified Golden Rule seems to perfectly describe your university’s behavior, you might consider adopting it as Macquarie University’s motto.

    Reed Coray


    Report this

    142

    • #
      Ace

      Good letter man. Now someone, translate that Golden Rule into Latin and design a nice emblem based upon it that can be disseminated online. some parody version of their actual emblem whatever that is. I wouldnt know, its a “university” in Australia…huh?


      Report this

      30

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Excellent strike!


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Terry R

    With statements like “one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet’ it is clear that we have gone beyond Politicized Science, Prostituted Science is now closer to the mark.


    Report this

    100

    • #

      Terry, I was posting about this on the 19th and 20th June, here’s what I wrote.

      ["There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet"]

      In a sane world, a friend or concerned person would have called an ambulance, the men in white coats or at least a mental health advisory service.

      But no.

      Instead, the gathered audience listened obediently.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      John Silver

      More like nutty nazi science.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      ““one in two chance that by 2100…. ….. …”

      and a better than 1 in 2 chance that the climate commission with not exist by 2014 :-)


      Report this

      30

      • #

        Obviously you haven’t seen the latest polls—Ruddy’s high approvals means there is more upside in Labor PV.


        Report this

        014

        • #
          Heywood

          “Ruddy’s high approvals means there is more upside in Labor PV”

          No. Ruddy’s high approvals means that we let idiots like you vote. How’s your blog going? Got more than 20 contributors yet?


          Report this

          70

        • #
          Sonny

          The dog is back!


          Report this

          30

        • #
          AndyG55

          If you believe that, then he better call an election soon, because its only downhill for him from here.

          If he waits until November, he’ll be back around Gillard’s numbers. ! :-)


          Report this

          40

        • #

          @ Maxine. Re: Rudd -Thats because you lefties are a truly stupid gullible lot. You clutch at fairy dust and pipe dreams and convince yourselves that history never truly happened. You vote for a face or favour promised usually at someone else’s expense and more often than not, on a lie. You are part of a protection racket, a gang of likeminded hoods for whom no sacred ground exists and no expression of individuality is sanctioned unless it surrenders itself to your pluralist mediocrity. What evidence has anyone to suggest that Rudd is not some perverse form of Gillard in drag. None. Whats changed?. One autocrat for another. So all the part time thinkers breath a sigh of relief in the steadfast knowledge that this changes everything. I’ve been to Aus and in most respects you are lucky. When it comes to your pollies and many of your academics I’m afraid press gangs would give you better outcomes.


          Report this

          30

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I’ll assume his sacking is mainly due to his anti-CAGW stance scientifically.
    Well I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying this but I won’t shy away from it…

    On the one hand, maybe Macquarie only want professors who can add and subtract. Salby was incorrect to say that most CO2 rise has been natural, because simple arithmetic proves industry has been the source of CO2 rise. See this comment on NoTricksZone for my most recent expression of the argument, rather than rehashing it here. (I convinced one person on NTZ that he was wrong, but strangely I’ve never convinced anyone here that “industry dunnit”.)

    On the other hand it is entirely reprehensible of Macquarie to dump any scientist in this manner instead of simply allowing his hypothesis and his student’s work to proceed normally through peer review, publication, the scrutiny of other related scientific disciplines, and the formal contest of scientific debate.

    I personally may think Salby is talking claptrap about the CO2 origin, but he must have the right to talk without retaliation. If not for him, then where will we draw the line and who will be silenced next? Macquarie Uni has done wrong.


    Report this

    26

    • #
      bobl

      Andrew, it’s not so much the fact of his sacking but rather the manner of it. On the face of it Macquarie has committed multiple legal offences including breaches of the OHS act, copyright offences, and possibly fraud (misrepresentation). They would also appear to be in breach of contract, which by the way doesn’t rely on registration to be valid – it just isn’t an AWA if not registered. It still constitutes a common law contract.

      On the face of it then the Prof. has multiple grounds for prosecuting Macquarie. Having said that we do know why the University took the action.

      If this is all true then the VC aught to be fronting the NSW parliament ethics committee, real soon now! A complaint to the ethics committee from the Prof. is probably warranted.


      Report this

      30

    • #

      Andrew McRae I gave that an up vote because I respect your position. You don’t have to agree with Salby to see that, on the basis of our current evidence, Macquarie University has behaved in a shabby and unprofessional manner, and quite possibly breached several employment and contract laws.

      I would feel similarly about a University which sacked an alarmist, because of his or her views.

      Science advances when scientists question something everyone always assumed to be true. Most of the time those who question are wrong – but science can only progress so long as such questions are allowed.

      This is why the NAZIs were so bad at science. This is why the Soviets had to resort to stealing American technology secrets. It is *not* because Russia didn’t have enough clever people – FFS, we’re talking about a country which considers chess to be a spectator sport. It is because in the Soviet Union, people weren’t allowed to question the beliefs of their superiors, even in an academic setting.

      And now it looks like this is happening to Australia – question the theories of your academic seniors, at least in Macquarie University, and you get fired.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Backslider

      simple arithmetic proves industry has been the source of CO2 rise

      I don’t think so. In the big scheme of things with the carbon cycle the human contribution is miniscule.


      Report this

      32

      • #
        Michael

        I don’t think so. In the big scheme of things with the carbon cycle the human contribution is miniscule.

        Wrong. Going on the carbon cycle the natural processes are in rough balance, or if anything, absorb more than they emit. Therefore mans emissions are adding fossil fuel CO2 to the carbon cycle that has not been there for millions of years. Therefore CO2 increasing in atmospheric concentration. Basic math.

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

        “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html


        Report this

        28

        • #
          crakar24

          Michael you must have missed my comment 19.2.2.3.2 here is a cut and paste

          Regarding the fools errand, lets look at the facts.

          MWP 950 to 1250
          Co2 lag over temp ~ 800 years
          Co2 began to rise ~ 1750 (950 plus 800 = 1750)
          1250 plus 800 = 2050 therefore i predict co2 levels will continue to rise until 2050 where they will drop as per the LIA temps dropped.

          Now i may be incorrect in my prediction so maybe i should undertake further research into this timing coincedence………ones fools errand is another mans search for truth.

          For you to have such high confidence in your CO2 sequestration theory you must certainly have looked at the 800 year coincedence i highlight above and no doubt have a plausible theory to explain (as any good scientist would have).

          I would be very interested in hearing said explanation.

          TIA

          Crakar24


          Report this

          41

          • #
            Michael

            No I did not. I asked for some proof. It is merely opinion on your part, and fairly vague opinion at that. There is no science and mechanism for that. Considering that we were in a global cooling cycle until industrialisation hit your hypothesis does not seem likely. Do you understand the concept of ‘science’.

            I also quite clearly explained the Milankovitch cycles to you, do any of you guys actually read before you respond? So everything asked and answered.

            Now what you did not answer was where does the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 that man emits goes and where is the natural CO2 coming from? Notice I provided links to information on the carbon cycle and calculations of the carbon balance (unlike you with your unsupported claims. Please go read and learn something.


            Report this

            16

        • #

          Is this carbon cycle the one where we don’t actually know all the sources and sinks, let alone how they behave over time? How much carbon is being locked up in the extra green plant growth? That carbon cycle?
          I’d be astonished if in the giant exchanges going on all the time, all the sources and sinks were in rough balance over time.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Michael

            We know quite a lot more than you think we do.

            Carbon budget

            “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm

            Carbon Cycle
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

            So do tell? Where does mans emissions go that match the amount increasing in the atmosphere and ocean?


            Report this

            16

            • #
              Richard

              The statement that only 55% of human CO2 emissions have been removed by the biosphere/biosphere is something you’ll have to prove, which is hard because as far as I’m aware human CO2 does not posses an isotopic signature that can be easily differentiated from natural sources – the arguments you often hear on Skeptical Science are measurements in changes of the C12/C13/C14 atmospheric mass, not individual CO2 molecules, which can be misleading. I think CO2’s short atmospheric residence time coupled with Henry’s law of solubility, which loosely says more CO2 must be dissolved in water than in the air, about 50:1 respectively, contradicting the Revelle Factor, is relevant.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Michael

                Richard if humans emit 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases by roughly 15 billion tonnes per year (consistently year by year), then I think logic dictates you would have to say where is mans emissions going if the increase is not from man. CO2 does have a short atmospheric lifetime in basic physics (5 years) but due to the carbon cycle being a cycle the actual effect of any extra CO2 added to the atmosphere is in the order of 100 years plus. The extra CO2 gets ADDED to the carbon cycle, the processes that permanently remove that CO2 from the cycle are quite slow.

                So your comment about needing to account for individual CO2 molecules are not scientifically valid and the C12/C13/C14 proportions as well as the oxygen concentration issue are still valid and correct. You are misunderstanding the process, and the concept of the carbon cycle. Apart from the fact that due to the ocean becoming less alkaline due to it absorbing more CO2 shows the extra CO2 cannot be coming from the oceans. So again somebody needs to explain with science where Mans emissions are going and where the extra CO2 is coming from before entertaining wild theories.


                Report this

                13

              • #
                Richard

                Sorry Mike, but as I pointed out above, you’re ignoring the fast-equilibrium of Henry’s law, which sets a fixed partitioning ratio of 1:50 for how much CO2 resides in the atmosphere and oceans respectively at the current mean surface temperature of 15C. Measurements of atmospheric isotopes such as C12/C13 cannot prove anything either because CO2′s residence time based on the IPCC’s figures in 2007-AR4 is 3.8 years meaning the C12/C13 ratio cannot change substantially because human CO2 is rapidly absorbed by natural sinks. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could be explained by ocenic warming. The oceans to a depth of 2000m we are told have warmed by almost 0.01C between 1955-2010 (CO2 level increased by about 65ppmv) enough to change CO2′s solubility by almost 0.3%, thereby altering the partitioning ratio and adding an extra 28.7ppmv to the CO2-greenhouse as a permanant addition. Hypothetically speaking, if the entire oceans warmed by 0.01C the increase in CO2 comes out at 53ppmv and is almost enough to explain the observed 65ppmv rise. But we don’t have comprehensive measurements below 2000m. So there can be no doubt that the warming oceans have been contributing significanly to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. Unless Henry’s law is wrong.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Richard

                Note: That 65ppmv figure is an approximation fron a cursory glance at the Keeling Curve, it msy be slightly higher


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Oh Richard, you have done the typical anti science thing of only taking into account one side of the equation. Henrys law goes both ways and by taking into account Daltons law of partial pressures, the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is pushing the CO2 into the oceans and not out of them. The temperatures of the oceans have not increased anywhere near enough to account for the 40% increase in CO2. According to calculations in the appendix here the oceans will need to have heated by about 10 deg for that amount of CO2.

                You have also forgotten the big elephant in the room. MAN DOES EMIT CO2 (or are you denying that), we are emitting CO2 with virtually perfect match to the increasing CO2 as per the proportion of roughly 50%. The rest is estimated to go into natural processes, mostly the oceans and the oceans have been measured to be DECREASING IN ALKALINITY (ie CO2 is going INTO THE OCEANS). So massive fail and very desperate on your part. You cannot ignore mans CO2, you MUST say where mans emissions are disappearing to before you try and find something else to blame for the increase. The ratios all match as they should including reducing oxygen in the atmosphere, which is what would be expected from burning carbon (as the oxygen is needed in the CO2).

                Really your desperation for your team is admirable, but how about putting science first for the sake of future generations. Before you go on another rant about henrys law please explain where mans CO2 is going, considering that natural processes are absorbing half of it let alone the source of it.

                One further issue you need to explain is why CO2 is still increasing in virtually perfect correlation with mans emissions even though you guys argue that heating has stopped for 15/16 years. No period of warming matches in correlation with mans emissions the rise in CO2. Also what is the mechanism for the warming. The climate is not magic, cause and effect. We have a cause and effect, you just have an effect, what is making things warm up?

                There are so many holes in Salbys theory it is hard to know where to finish.

                http://oceanrep.geomar.de/2294/1/683_Takahashi_2009_ClimatologicalMeanAndDecadalChange_Artzeit_pubid12055.pdf


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Backslider

                Michael….. you are cruising for me to label you a SPAMMER.

                I have asked you numerous pertinent question which you have failed to answer… so quit with your ad hominem “fail” toward others.

                Now, tell us all:

                What is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere which is emitted by humans?

                How many tons in total of CO2 in the atmosphere?

                If you cannot answer these simple questions then we know for sure that you are just a copy and paste know nothing.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                BTW…. I know Michael that you are avoiding these questions because you can see that I will expose the fallacy of your numbers.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Richard

                That’s a distorted picture of the situation, I’m afraid. Dalton’s law is not relevant when considering the solubility and dissolution of CO2 in water – that is governed by Henry’s law and that’s what we’re concerned with here. As I’ve said three times now (and you’ve ignored) Henry’s law determines a fixed partitioning ratio between the atmosphere and oceans of 1:50 at equilibrium meaning that when equilibrium between PCO2(g) and PCO2(aq) is reached the oceans must contain about 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. This partitioning ratio is temperature-dependent, meaning that if you warm the ocean it changes, albeit slightly. So warming the ocean does not preclude it from absorbing any extra CO2 from the atmosphere, all it does is change the partitioning ratio. So the idea of their ceasing to be a net sink this century is straight out of cloud cuckoo-land. It is a scientific fallacy that contradicts a well-tried and tested law of physical chemistry. See Segalstad 1998. But what do climate modellers care for such real-world scientific laws? Also, Wikipedia’s value of 10C is too high. Watts posted an interesting graph of CO2′s solubility showing that a 1C increase would triple CO2 levels. I calculated mine independently and it’s straightfoward enough. Oh, and the claims of pH decreasing are largely based on computer models. You know, the same ones that ‘prove’ there is a tropical troposheric hotspot. Sorry for the huge wall of text guys, blame my 360.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Richard

                There is a near-perfect correlation between SST and the increase in CO2 as well. Not to be ignored.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Backslider

                But what do climate modellers care for such real-world scientific laws?

                Excellent point Richard – I suspect this is one of the core reasons that Professor Salby is being vilified >>> he uses known scientific laws and math to explain and to debunk all the rot…. not “peer reviewed” quotes.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Michael

                Not models Richard, actual measurements and observations. Again Henrys Law goes both ways, if the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year then the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has disturbed the equilibrium and CO2 will move into the oceans. If you have ANY PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE to support your back of the handkerchief calculations then provide it. I am not interested in your opinion, they are irrelevent. This is an area under intense research, there would be evidence to support your view then the research would support it. There does not, all the actual evidence (not mere words) point the other way. I notice you cannot answer my questions.

                http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series


                Report this

                25

              • #
                Michael

                Richard how about displaying some common sense and logic.
                1. MAN EMITS CO2, at virtually perfect correlation to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
                2. The amount of the increase in the atmosphere is half of what is emitted by man plus increasing acidification (decreasing alkalinity) has been measured in the oceans that account for most of whats left.
                3. It is a carbon cycle so the CO2 cycles around the atmosphere, land and oceans. Processes that remove CO2 permanently from the cycle are slow.

                Therefore the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from man. This matches the increase, the carbon isotope ratios, the declining oxygen etc etc.

                Again please expain where mans emissions are going that match the increase, it needs to disappear from the carbon cycle before you can point to another source. So presumably on emission little black holes appear and transport them to another galaxy. Your theory and Salbys theory are clear nonsense. You have not been able to answer this one crucial, relevent question, that without an answer the rest is irrelevent. Do you understand the concept of scientific proof?

                “The oceans may be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to scientists”
                http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123324&org=NSF


                Report this

                23

              • #
                Michael

                I have provided mobs of science and measurements to support my case, The way science is supposed to be explained. Not by personal and bloggers opinion. Here is some more based on observations.

                “One affected species, foraminifera, a sand grain-sized plankton, is responsible for the sequestration of 25 to 50 percent of the carbon the oceans absorb and thus plays a major role in keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations at much lower levels than they would be otherwise. Now scientists have learned that foraminifera (forams) shells are much thinner in oceans made more acidic by the enormous volumes of CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels.”
                http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/03/climate-change-acid-oceans-altering-marine-life/

                “Until recently, we really didn’t think that having fewer carbonate ions would affect sea creatures for a century or more. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

                Late in 2012, it was reported that one particular sea creature was actually having its shell dissolved by the increasing acidity of the ocean. It’s the pteropod — a free-swimming sea snail that moves about thanks to wings like a butterfly. It lives for two years or longer and grows to have a shell about 1 centimetre in diameter.

                Down in the Antarctic, it is the main sea creature that makes calcium carbonate. In fact, over the whole planet, these sea butterflies account for some 12 per cent of the entire flux of carbonate on our whole planet.”
                http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/11/3650065.htm


                Report this

                22

              • #
                crakar24

                Michael,

                Your theory “fits like a glove” in relation to observable evidence as long as you ignore the following:

                1, The MWP did not exist
                2, The LIA did not exist
                3, The 800 year lag does not exist
                4, The planet is greening and crop yields are increasing due to increasing carbon sink capability

                You embrace the following:

                1, The smallest of small lowering of alkalinity at selected sites around the globe in a weird bazzaro world kind of way now means the oceans are becoming more acidic

                2, A 0.0125% decrease in oxygen levels could be measured and also be directly attributed to the exact same increase of CO2 (why only oxygen, why not some nitrogen?)

                3, We can measure ocean PH from 300 million years ago as accurately as we can today

                4, The carbon cycle is very slow and yet half of mans emissions immediately go into the oceans to increase acidity (read less alkaline).

                Regarding scientific proof.

                You state with utmost certainty that half of mans CO2 emissions are going into the ocean in order to establish this fact you would need to know how much CO2 is produced by undersea volcanos and vents can you tell me to the nearest gigaton (very generous here) what that total is? After all we really should keep our discussion limited to the scientif proofs do you agree?


                Report this

                32

              • #
                Michael

                I know Michael that you are avoiding these questions because you can see that I will expose the fallacy of your numbers.

                The questions are nonsense questions designed to trick and decieve. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not relevent, it is the change in CO2 that is relevent.

                CO2 has increased in the atmosphere by a whopping 40% since industrialisation and in near perfect correlation to mans emissions. The amount matches the amount of increase in the atmosphere and estimated other natural processes. Therefore about half of mans CO2 goes into the atmosphere, nature has a slight protecting effect by absorbing the other half for us, but this is damaging the chemistry of the oceans. So if the atmosphere is increasing by half of mans emissions the oceans cannot be the source of CO2, otherwise the atmosphere would be higher than mans emissions not less. Simple logical reasoning. How do you explain where mans emissions are going? So stop this nonsense, the discussion on this page shows how deceptive, desperate and incorrect the side that denies the science of AGW is.


                Report this

                23

              • #
                Michael

                Your theory “fits like a glove” in relation to observable evidence as long as you ignore the following:

                Oh Craker24 I have never said any such thing in regards to most of your points. In fact I have directly agreed with some of them. So stop lieing and stick to the science (feel free to actually provide some every now and again). I have provided scientific proof for the vast majority of my claims, your opinions are of no relevence.

                Feel free to answer the question I put above in regards to where mans emissions are going. You guys are running around in circles trying to avoid the bleeding obvious that relegates most of your nonsense to the junk heap.


                Report this

                23

              • #
                crakar24

                Michael,

                Do not take what i say next as personal as it is not but………..i have met many people that debate (for want of a better word) just like you. You seem to either ignore what others post and simply forge ahead with a well rehearsed speech or you simply do not understand what others are asking for.

                Lets put it to the test OK, i will ask a straight forward question and i would like you to answer it….just answer the question no more no less OK?

                Q, If a warmer ocean releases CO2 and a cooler ocean absorbs CO2 and if the oceans are warming ergo releasing CO2 then how could they also be absorbing CO2? Lets assume it can do both in different parts of the world

                A, How much CO2 has the oceans released since industrial times compared with how much of mans emissions have they absorbed?

                Take your time………


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Dave

                Michael,

                You say:

                Here is some more based on observations.

                But it’s NOT more, you just keep regurgitating the same old stuff by cutting & pasting. What about something new, like penguin and polar bear populations.

                You’re on the wrong thread – you cut and pasted this from 5 days ago from here on witchcraft and it’s identical.

                Michael
                July 7, 2013 at 4:00 pm · Reply
                Some more sources and information on acidification for you. Argue on the evidence and the science, if you have any.

                “One affected species, foraminifera, a sand grain-sized plankton, is responsible for the sequestration of 25 to 50 percent of the carbon the oceans absorb and thus plays a major role in keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations at much lower levels than they would be otherwise. Now scientists have learned that foraminifera (forams) shells are much thinner in oceans made more acidic by the enormous volumes of CO2 released in the burning of fossil fuels.”

                http://www.ipsnews.net/2009/03/climate-change-acid-oceans-altering-marine-life/

                “Until recently, we really didn’t think that having fewer carbonate ions would affect sea creatures for a century or more. Unfortunately, we were wrong.

                Late in 2012, it was reported that one particular sea creature was actually having its shell dissolved by the increasing acidity of the ocean. It’s the pteropod — a free-swimming sea snail that moves about thanks to wings like a butterfly. It lives for two years or longer and grows to have a shell about 1 centimetre in diameter.

                Down in the Antarctic, it is the main sea creature that makes calcium carbonate. In fact, over the whole planet, these sea butterflies account for some 12 per cent of the entire flux of carbonate on our whole planet.”

                http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/11/3650065.htm

                You’re repeating yourself constantly, and this comment was answered.

                Now you’re just a waste of space.


                Report this

                31

              • #
                crakar24

                Michael,

                This is not true

                remember?

                crakar24
                July 10, 2013 at 12:51 pm · Reply
                Michael,

                Salby would not be allowed to research any topic that he was not employed for without the express permission of his employer, i assume you work, if so does your employer allow you to behave in such a way?

                Regarding the fools errand, lets look at the facts.

                MWP 950 to 1250
                Co2 lag over temp ~ 800 years
                Co2 began to rise ~ 1750 (950 plus 800 = 1750)
                1250 plus 800 = 2050 therefore i predict co2 levels will continue to rise until 2050 where they will drop as per the LIA temps dropped.

                Now i may be incorrect in my prediction so maybe i should undertake further research into this timing coincedence………ones fools errand is another mans search for truth.

                And your response?

                Michael
                July 10, 2013 at 2:27 pm · Reply
                Heywood I do agree that their is more politics than science in Salbys work.

                Craker24. Well if he did not have permission then would not that be grounds? I think that was my point.

                You have not produced any science. What is the mechanism? Where did you get those times from? The climate does not occur by magic, there are forcings at work. For instance the ice ages are caused by orbital cycles called the Milankovitch cycles, which cause a slight warming which is amplified by greenhouse gases in the NH. As the oceans warm they release CO2 in the SH which causes the SH to warm. These are not the factors at work here, and before even looking for a natural source of CO2 you have to say where is mans emissions going, that so closely match the increasing CO2 in the land and oceans.

                “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html

                http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm

                Carbon Cycle

                http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

                So in order for you to maintain your theory you *MUST* ignore many scientific proofs.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Michael

                Craker I have asked the same question since the increasing CO2 by the oceans have come up. Not one person has been able to answer it. Until you answer it your questions are meaningless. You have also not supplied any peer reviewed science to support your claims, I have. SO answer the question, If mans emissions match in near perfect corelation (and amount of half) with the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, then the question is closed unless you can say where mans emissions are going. Please note, it cannot be added to anywhere in the carbon cycle, as it is a cycle and that is my point. It will not be permanently removed from the cycle for hundreds of years.

                You’re repeating yourself constantly,

                The question here is in relation to where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from. Salbys and posters here are arguing that it is coming from the oceans. Science saying that the oceans have been a net absorber of CO2 and not a net source are entirly relevent and does not change just because the same question was asked elsewhere. You are the guys that are ignoring the science provided many times and forcing me to repeat myself. Hopefully you have learnt from all the science I have presented, admit it is coming from mans emissions and we can finish this pointless argument. It is tiring that people refuse to learn when the proof is provided.


                Report this

                22

              • #
                crakar24

                Craker I have asked the same question since the increasing CO2 by the oceans have come up. Not one person has been able to answer it. Until you answer it your questions are meaningless.

                BWAHHHHAAAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHHHAHH…………catches breath……….BWWWAHHAHAHAHHAWWHAHAHHAH……..about to pass out due to lack of oxygen HHHHHHHAHHWWHAHAHWHAHHWHHAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
                passed out lying on the floor.

                Michael let me enlighten you on the dying art of logic and reasoning.

                1, Assume the co2 content of the ocean was X in 1750
                2, Assume the co2 content of the ocean was X +1 in 2013
                3, Find +1 and its source

                So first question is how much has the oceans CO2 content increased?

                Lets assume we can determine this by taking the average PH decrease over the years…..do we know what the exact PH of the ocean was in 1750? Do we know what it is now?

                Second question is where did it come from?

                How much co2 came from undersea volcanos?

                Problem here Micheal as we dont even know how many volcanos there are let alone how much CO2 they have released.

                How much Co2 have the oceans absorbed since 1750, also how much of that Co2 was from man or is of a natural origin?

                How much Co2 have the oceans released since 1750, how much is natural and how much is from man?

                How much Co2 has been absorbed by plant life since 1750?

                How much CO2 has been released by plant life since 1750?

                How much CO2 has been removed from the atmosphere by precipitation since 1750?

                Do you know the answer to all these questions Michael if so please share this information with us so we can all try and figure out where all the Co2 has gone.


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Backslider

                The questions are nonsense questions designed to trick and decieve. The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not relevent, it is the change in CO2 that is relevent.

                As I suspected. You simply do not know.

                My questions are not designed to “trick and deceive”, but rather to expose the fact that you simply don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

                How can you come here harping on about human emissions into the atmosphere, stating that its such and such an amount or percentage, yet you are unable to tell us how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.

                You are, purely and simply, just a cut and paste TROLL.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Do you know the answer to all these questions Michael

                No I don’t, and neither do you. This is why it is meaningless. You are making up stuff as you go and ignoring the obvious. Clearly the reason is because you are trying to flood the page with irrelevances because you know you are wrong.

                dying art of logic and reasoning.

                So your idea of logic and reasoning is to make up a set of unanswerable questions and call it science. Newsflash clueless, you have not produced any logic or science that casts doubt on mans emissions being the source of the CO2.
                I may do this wrong but I will try and put this forward in a way you will understand.

                Lets start with the hypothesis that man is causing the increase in CO2. To develop this into a theory we will have to think of ways to test this. Lets see, we can calculate how much man emits?
                Done: currently about 30 billion tonnes of CO2 py
                Then we can check if this matches the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere
                Done: The atmosphere is increasing by roughly 15 billion tonnes
                Do mans emissions and increasing CO2 correlate strongly
                Done: Virtually exactly http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_seas_adj_ff.pdf
                So where is the rest going?
                Done: Through regional measurements and calculations we can estimate with reasonable accuracy that the rest is going into natural sinks, especially the oceans.
                Can we verify this in other ways?
                Done: The carbon ratios are changing in a way that verifies increasing CO2 by man.
                Declining c14 ratios indicate a strong likelihood of fossilised carbon
                Declining c13/c12 ratio so source fossilised plant life (as plants prefer c12, so not likely volcanos)
                Done: The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is reducing in a manner consistent with it being used in the burning of fossil fuels

                Any other likely source not considered above and with any evidence:
                Done: None

                Hypothesis proved! Very strong theory, no other contenders. There is actually more evidence I could add, but not necessary.

                Remember that as well as all the above I have also provided measurements and peer reviewed observations of CO2 increasing into the oceans.

                As you have proved, all you have is a fairly feeble, non scientific attempt to cast doubt in other directions by throwing up questions that do not have answers and fail to cover the basic most important one…

                Where is mans emissions going if not into the atmosphere?

                Are you not embarrassed to still be arguing this with such overwhelming and scientific, evidence, logic and reason? I am not trying to be smug, but seriously this is a non issue that has been settled a long time ago.


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Backslider

                Then next up Michael, once you have completed the kindergarten experiment, I want you to consider and think about the following question. I know that you won’t answer me, because thus far you have not answered even one of my very simple questions, however do it for yourself:

                How many tons of water are in the atmosphere? Or, what is the ratio between water and CO2 in the atmosphere?

                Why should you think about that? Well, its like this:

                Water molecule: “Anything you can do, I can do better”

                CO2 molecule: “Really??”

                Water molecule: “You betcha sonny…. now go and play”.

                Once you have considered all of that you may return and retract all you have said about CO2.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Richard

                Mike

                Again Henrys Law goes both ways, if the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year then the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has disturbed the equilibrium and CO2 will move into the oceans

                Your post already confirms the merit of mine. Yes when you increase the partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 you consequently force more CO2 down to the oceans to restore equilibrium in the 1:50 partitioning ratio. Therefore Henry’s law of gas-dissolution implies that at least 98% of human CO2 emissions will end up in the oceans and only 2% at most will be left behind in the atmosphere as permanent additions to the CO2 greenhouse. And as pointed out above, increasing the temperature of the oceans causing CO2 to outgas would not stop them from absorbing human CO2 since it just alters the partitioning ratio.

                I notice you cannot answer my questions.

                Only in your delusional dream-world.

                I am not interested in your opinion, they are irrelevent. This is an area under intense research, there would be evidence to support your view then the research would support it

                Contrary to your delusions, I do not rely on my opinions to substantiate my assertions. Nor do I rely on other people’s opinions to substantiate them for me. I rely on knowable facts as I demonstrated when I gave you the reference to Henry’s law. When are you going to demonstrate the merit and validity of the so-called ‘climate science’ with which you keep bashing us over the head and for which you guys insultingly call us ‘deniers’ for not accepting?

                MAN EMITS CO2, at virtually perfect correlation to the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere

                None of this purported evidence distinguishes between natural and man-made CO2. Sorry, but ambivalent data of this kind does not, and cannot prove your claim. Also there is the small matter that the correlation between the observed increase in CO2 and the sea-surface temperature (SST) is essentially perfect at 0.9959 as has been demonstrated by Prof Lance Endersbee

                Not models Richard, actual measurements and observations.

                My thanks for the peer-reviewed reference-graph for ‘ocean acidification’. But please take the time to Google ‘Chicken Little of the Sea Visits Station ALOHA’. This is some ‘climate science’! What’s the next sneaky warmist try-on going to be, I wonder?

                Therefore the extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes from man. This matches the increase, the carbon isotope ratios, the declining oxygen etc etc.

                But I haven’t ignored isotopes. On the contrary, I have considered it objectively and shown above the maximum amount of human CO2 that the atmosphere possess, based on the IPCC’s own data. The IPCC’s figures in AR4-2007: CO2 sequestration = 788 gigatonnes/year. Total atmospheric CO2 mass = 3000 gigatonnes. Human CO2 emissions/year = 29 gigatonnes/year. Therefore the average residence time for an individual CO2 molecule (be it natural or human) is 3.8 years. This implies, with mathematical certainty, that human CO2 can only accumulate in the atmosphere for an average of 3.8 years before being sequestrated. So, the isotopes apparently proving we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% are a complete red-herring, since CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere very long.

                Do you understand the concept of scientific proof?

                No, I don’t find it at all strange when it is patently obvious that the so-called ‘scientific proof’ is being manufactured to suit a predetermined political agenda.

                “The oceans may be acidifying faster today than they did in the last 300 million years, according to scientists”

                You mean to say that an ostensible pH decrease of 0.1 units has never happened for 300 million years in a 150 time-frame? Really? So, how many measurements have scientists done within that 300 million time-frame I wonder? Pray tell me, if you can, what is the average measurement-spacing? Can you answer that question? Also, no-one was measuring pH values 300 million years ago. Therefore that is not a known fact, but speculative conjecture based on intrinsically uncertain paleo-climate data.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Mark D.

                Nicely done Richard.

                Now Michael, one very annoying habit of irrational warmists is to use a propaganda twist on numbers. To wit, you’ve several times here, used the “40% increase” of atmospheric co2 propaganda angle (even exaggerating that by adding “whopping”). Please explain why a 40% increase of a very number still yields a very small number?

                Wouldn’t you be less worried if you consider that your point on mans co2 input (which is in doubt but even if correct), represents only about .00012 of the atmosphere?

                Wouldn’t you feel better about not scaring people (like your grand children) with big sounding percentages instead of really small numbers?

                Or are you going to stick to your irrational fears?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                [Replaced post. Please avoid rude and personal attacks, short and succinct posts rather than thread bombing. Censoring science? No, peer review. ] ED

                Notwithstanding that you have still failed to provide any peer reviewed science for your incorrect and back of the envelope science and calculations, I will respond to your opinions.
                Therefore Henry’s law of gas-dissolution implies that at least 98% of human CO2 emissions will end up in the oceans and only 2% at most will be left behind in the atmosphere as permanent additions to the CO2 greenhouse. And as pointed out above, increasing the temperature of the oceans causing CO2 to outgas would not stop them from absorbing human CO2
                You have incorrectly and dishonestly attempted to have it both ways. If I understand you correctly, the ocean both absorbs all the human CO2 and is the source of the atmospheric CO2, a nice bit of smoke and mirrors. This demonstrates your complete misrepresentation of the carbon cycle. The ocean is part of the cycle, the carbon in the ocean is cycled into and out of the atmosphere, it is not new CO2 to the cycle. The only new CO2 is fossilised CO2 from man. If the ocean is becoming less alkaline, as I have proved with ,measurements, peer reviewed science and observations, it is a net absorber of CO2 and so cannot be the source for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. Please learn how it works before you pump out this rubbish again. Ignorance is no excuse when you are attempting to sway peoples opinion. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
                None of this purported evidence distinguishes between natural and man-made CO2
                It doesn’t need to, this is another one of your fallacies due to your misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Mans CO2 is ADDED to the carbon cycle. It is new CO2 that was sequestered millions of years ago through natural processes and has not been part of the carbon cycle. Once in the cycle it acts just like all of the other carbon in the cycle, gets mixed in and cycled around. The fact that it is added to the cycle is the issue. May I point you to the ‘slow carbon cycle’ in the link above.
                Therefore the average residence time for an individual CO2 molecule (be it natural or human) is 3.8 years.
                Again a mangling of the carbon cycle. In evidence I have provided earlier, the effect of the CO2 being added to the carbon cycle is on the order of 100′s to thousands of years due to the very slow nature of the slow carbon cycle. It is added and then keeps cycling around keeping the concentrations high. Obviously logic is not your strong point. The atmosphere would not be INCREASING year by year if it was being removed as fast as it was being added. It would go up a bit and then remain fairly constant. It is being added and is staying as part of the carbon cycle.
                You mean to say that an ostensible pH decrease of 0.1 units has never happened for 300 million years in a 150 time-frame?
                ph is logarithmic, that represents a massive 30% increase in acidification (or decreasing alkilinity). Because you don’t understand the processes, proxies and measurements displayed, does not mean it is wrong or that your games with big and small numbers have any scientific validity.
                So overall a complete mangling of science and the carbon cycle. Your opinion is not only wrong, but your enthusiasm for it is dangerous as you speak with authority so people listen. Shame on you.


                Report this

                23

              • #
                Michael

                abide by the rules of this blog, notwithstanding your refusal to answer questions posed.

                I have asked many questions that have never been answered. I spent a lot of time on that post, can you be more specific about what is wrong with it, and what question you find that I haven’t answered such a big issue. If it is the silly question about how much CO2 in the atmosphere then that has been concluded below with backsliders incorrect calculations. Samll or big numbers are not science, it is the effect that counts, and this should be supported by science. Making up a list of unanswerable questions that are not relevent to the topic is not mine to find answers for. The correct way like me is to find the answers in the science themselves, present it and then ask for comment or rebuttal.

                I proved that mans emissions using a hypothesis/theory scenario. Nobody has come up with a plausable explanation of wheres mans emissions go if they are not the cause of the increase. All explanations display a gross misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. My post addresses that and by censoring it you are censoring science.

                [The post has been restored. Some notes at the top. You've pushed the limit on several rules, the use of "Denier" in a variety of ways, off topic thread bombing, and more. Be respectful of the venue-you don't own it. The "moderation" was a reminder that we are watching.] ED


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Richard

                You have incorrectly and dishonestly attempted to have it both ways. If I understand you correctly, the ocean both absorbs all the human CO2 and is the source of the atmospheric CO2, a nice bit of smoke and mirrors

                What ‘smoke and mirriors’? I think your failure to specify my error suggests rather that you can’t spot one! Well, Mike, you still haven’t produced any refutation of my arguments. And you have used a lot of spiteful and derogatory words to not produce it with too. No idea why you have dismissed Henry’s law as ‘smoke and mirrors’. For a more in-depth explanation of the implications of Henry’s law regarding AGW I would recommend seeing Segalstad 1998.

                If the ocean is becoming less alkaline, as I have proved with ,measurements, peer reviewed science and observations, it is a net absorber of CO2 and so cannot be the source for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere

                You haven’t really ‘proven’ anything, I’m afraid. Oceanic pH is never constant and various continually in accordance with a host of environmental parameters, such as eutrophication, salinity and land-based-effluents, etc, and so you cannot lay the blame on CO2 without first eliminating the possibility that a change in pH was not due to some other factor. Also, increasing PCO2 would not necessarily lead to a decrease in oceanic pH due to calcium carbonate, which exists in a state of chemical equilibrium with CO2(aq). In this state any change in pH from CO2(aq) will be arrested automatically by the precipitation of calcium carbonate so that the default pH of the system is maintained within relatively narrow bounds. According to Tom Segalstad in his paper “Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review – 2nd revised edition” the IPCC have ignored this important chemical pH-buffering reaction. This reaction, Segalstad shows, on his website here (http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm) takes place almost instantly, contradicting the IPCC’s claim that it takes 200 years.

                Hisdal explains this buffering reaction in more detail below:

                A buffer can be defined as a reaction system which modifies or controls the value of an intensive (i.e. mass independent) thermodynamic variable (pressure, temperature, concentration, pH, etc.). Our carbonate system above will act as a pH buffer, by the presence of a weak acid (H2CO3) and a salt of the acid (CaCO3). The concentration of CO2 (g) and of Ca2+ (aq) will in the equilibrium Earth system also be buffered by the presence of CaCO3, at a given temperature. If the partial pressure of CO2 (g) is increased, the net reaction will go towards the right because of the Law of Mass Action. If the temperature changes, the chemical equilibrium constant will change, and move the equilibrium to the left or right. The result is that the partial pressure of CO2 (g) will increase or decrease. The equilibrium will mainly be governed by Henry’s Law: the partial pressure of CO2 (g) in the air will be proportional to the concentration of CO2 (aq) dissolved in water. The proportional constant is the Henry’s Law Constant, which is strongly temperature dependent, and lesser dependent on total pressure and salinity (Drummond, 1981).

                Questions have been raised about how strong this buffer is. It has been postulated (Bolin & Keeling, 1963) that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will be balanced when only approximately one tenth of this is dissolved in the ocean. This postulate fails for a number of reasons. An increase in atmospheric CO2 will namely increase the buffer capacity of ocean water, and thereby strengthen the ocean’s capacity to moderate an increase of atmospheric CO2; maximum buffer capacity for the system CO2 – H2O is reached at 2.5 to 6 times the present atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, depending on temperature and alkalinity (Butler, 1982). According to Maier-Reimer & Hasselmann (1987) the borate system also increases the ocean storage capacity for CO2 by more than 20% over an ocean with the carbonate-system alone.

                Furthermore, this carbonate buffer is not the only buffer active in the atmosphere / hydrosphere / lithosphere system. The Earth has a set of other buffering mineral reactions. The geochemical equilibrium system anorthite CaAl2Si2O8 – kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 has by the pH of ocean water a buffer capacity which is thousand times larger than a 0.001 M carbonate solution (Stumm & Morgan, 1970). In addition we have clay mineral buffers, and a calcium silicate + CO2 ø calcium carbonate + SiO2 buffer (MacIntyre, 1970; Krauskopf, 1979). These buffers all act as a “security net” under the most important buffer: CO2 (g) ø HCO3- (aq) ø CaCO3 (s). All together these buffers give in principle an infinite buffer capacity (Stumm & Morgan, 1970)

                Even if you were correct about pH decreasing from CO2(aq) though, ironically, it would still be consistent with Henry’s law. Humans have emitted about 1200 gigatonnes of CO2 since 1850 (or about 156ppmv). Assuming that about 98% has absorbed by the oceans (153ppmv) and assuming that the oceans have released about 120ppmv since 1850 due to warming, then PCO2(aq) would have still increased, because proportionately more CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans than has been outgassed.

                The fact that it is added to the cycle is the issue

                No, that ‘fact’ is not known at all by you. You have only surmised them to fit the requirements of your hypothetical models and you have neglected to check your surmises against directly observed reality.

                The atmosphere would not be INCREASING year by year if it was being removed as fast as it was being added.

                Again, you don’t understand Henry’s law.

                ‘Because you don’t understand the processes, proxies and measurements displayed, does not mean it is wrong or that your games with big and small numbers have any scientific validity.’

                We’re talking about accurately measuring a pH change of 0.1 some 300 million years ago – it’s difficult enough measuring a similar change today. Nevertheless, according to observations by Liu et al. (2009) the pH in the South China Sea over the last 8000 years has fluctuated between 7.90 to 8.30 and marine life appeared to have had no trouble surviving. Such as empirically-based estimates of pH over the last 300 million years would need to be done comprehensively for every transitional epoch, for us to be able to say, with enough certainty, that the current change in pH is unprecedented, and as far as I am aware that gargantuan work has not yet been done. The measurement-spacing is important.

                The reason I asked about the measurement-spacing (a question you appear to have ignored), is that one of the astonishing discoveries I have made when investigating the ‘unprecedented’ claims, such as the claim that CO2 has not been higher in 650,000 years, is that the measurement-spacing has often been rather sparse. For instance the Vostok ice-core data over 415,000 years has an average measurement-spacing of 756 years, meaning that the likelihood of measuring an increase in atmospheric CO2 as the one measured at Mauna Loa over the last 50 years, if one existed in the Vostok ice-core samples, amounts to 6.6% (i.e. 50/756). It implies mathematically, that we can only say with a 6.6% confidence that the current atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented. Similar considerations would apply to the pH measurements.

                Again a mangling of the carbon cycle. In evidence I have provided earlier, the effect of the CO2 being added to the carbon cycle is on the order of 100′s to thousands of years due to the very slow nature of the slow carbon cycle. It is added and then keeps cycling around keeping the concentrations high.

                I find it amazing that you should still be misconstruing my argument at this late stage in the discussion. Evidently you have not taken the trouble to find out what my argument actually is before commencing to criticise and denounce it. I’m aware of the difference between ‘residence time’ and ‘adjustment time’, and I am not using CO2’s short residence time to argue against adjustment time, as you appear to be thinking. What I am saying is that CO2’s short residence time means that human CO2 cannot accumulate in the atmosphere for very long, meaning we cannot use atmospheric carbon isotope measurements to prove that humans have increased the CO2 content by 40% since 1850, as Skeptical Science claims. It’s simply not possible, because human CO2 is absorbed so rapidly, primarily by the oceans. The 3.8 year residence time, implies that the current amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere is about 115 gigatonnes corresponding to about 15ppmv. This actually has been confirmed by isotope measurements, as Tom Segalstad explains (see here: http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1345952.html)

                Interestingly, if you go to Wikipedia’s Henry’s law page, there’s an equation for calculating CO2’s solubility at different water-temperatures. I personally have found the equation useful myself. It implies that a temperature-change of 0.1C alters CO2’s solubility by 0.3%. According to Levitus et al 2012 the oceans to a depth of 2000 meters have warmed by about 0.1C between 1955–2010. The average depth of the ocean is about 3,800 meters. The IPCC’s own figures in AR4-2007 for carbon in the oceans give us 37,000 gigatonnes (or about 17680ppmv if it were all outgassed into the atmosphere). So, a change in CO2’s solubility by 0.3% would be enough to release about 27.5ppmv of CO2 into the atmosphere between 1955-2010. This implies that some of the increase must be coming from the oceans. We don’t know if the oceans have warmed below 2000 metres though – we have don’t have the proper measurements – but if they have done, they could explain for the total increase in atmospheric CO2. It’s a straightforward enough calculation. What do you make it out as? Using the equation, I found that a temperature-change of 1C reduces CO2’s solubility by about 3%. I came across a graph on ‘Watts Up With That’ recently implying that a 10C temperature-change would be enough to decrease the dissolved CO2 concentration by about 30%, or 1C by 3%, nicely correlating with my result from the equation on Wikipedia (see here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/basic-geology-part-2-co2-in-the-atmosphere-and-ocean/)

                Obviously logic is not your strong point. Shame on you.

                Keep it up with the arrogant putdowns Mike. It’s all you’ve got left and I’ve no doubt that it’s doing a great job of putting off potential members from your crackpot movement.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Richard

                Sorry, that should read: ‘Varies accordingly’


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Firstly I never dismissed Henrys Law, I said you have used it wrong, in that it goes both ways and due to the increase in CO2 from mans emissions CO2 is going into the oceans.

                Secondly, CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere and regardless of the cycling that occurs the ratios would still change.

                Thirdly, that is irrelevant to my main point that man emits CO2, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere in direct proportion to mans emissions and because it is new CO2 from fossil fuels the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle has increased by the same amount.

                Really you have not produced anything that can dispute that, all your smokes and mirrors and circular arguments cannot change that fact, and us repeating our comments ad nauseum isn’t going to change anything. In regards to ocean acidifiction, because it is logarithmnic the increase represents 30% and you are playing the small numbers game by dismissing it. Science does not work by small or large numbers. It is pretty good at measuring both and both can have an effect.

                Apart from that I don’t have anymore to add except that I have produced mobs of peer reviewed science and data from major scientific organisations and you cannot, still focussing on blog sites and wikipedia.

                I will leave it up to readers to hopefully use a skeptical mind, examine the actual evidence from both of us and make up their own mind.


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Michael

              Please explain why a 40% increase of a very number still yields a very small number?

              Oh dear, the old science of big and small numbers. The amount is not relevent, it is the effect. In nature a very small amount of things can have huge effects, just because something is small does not mean it is ineffective. How pathetic.

              For instance
              You are considered unfit to drive if you have more than 500ppm of alcohol in your system.
              Iron is only 4.4ppm but you are considered in big trouble if you have to much or to little.
              3ppm of ibuprofen can get rid of your headache.
              0.01ppm of arsenic is considered the safe limit.
              Ozone is about .000006 ppm of the atmosphere but protects us from dangerous uv radiation.

              By the way your figure for CO2 is incorrect, it is .04% or 400ppm
              So for goodness sake this is a disgusting attempt to play science by numbers. Any real science anyone?

              Here is something new for you. (ie not posted before)
              “Over that time CO2 in atmosphere grew by 174PgC (81.5ppmv)
              This demonstrates that 40% of the CO2 caused by man has stayed in the atmosphere and 60% has gone into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
              40% of 441.5 = 174 PgC
              60% of 441.5 = 265.9 PgC”
              http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7

              Also yourself and richard may find this interesting. It has atmospheric lifetime figures as well as global warming potentials for different elements of the atmosphere.
              “Because the decay curve depends on the model used and the assumptions incorporated therein, it is difficult to specify an exact atmospheric lifetime for CO2. Accepted values range around 100 years. Amounts of an instantaneous injection of CO2 remaining after 20, 100, and 500 years, used in the calculation of the GWPs in IPCC (2007), may be calculated from the formula given in footnote a on page 213 of that document.”
              http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

              Also I realise why you guys hate me quoting from actual science sources so much, you don’t have any. Again, any ACTUAL science anyone?


              Report this

              02

              • #
                Brian G Valentine

                Again, any ACTUAL science anyone?

                Yes, indeed. The consensus view around here is that you a pathetic know-nothing troll with little competence for anything but regurgitation.

                Since this is the consensus, it is established as scientific fact


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Mark D.

                This could be fun:

                By the way your figure for CO2 is incorrect, it is .04% or 400ppm

                Oh, so you believe the entire quantity of atmospheric co2 is human caused?

                Dumbass, my figure was for what you attribute to mans input not the total percentage. The difference from 150 years ago to what is measured today, you know?. A tiny number: .00012 of the atmosphere.

                So for goodness sake this is a disgusting attempt to play science by numbers. Any real science anyone?

                Yes, I’m sure you know nothing about science and certainly nothing about numbers.

                So it is you that present a disgusting failure to comprehend. Good luck in your AGW career. With talent like this you’ll go far, especially interpreting papers and understanding “Peer review”.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                That I misunderstood your question does not change the fact that you consider small numbers science. That is not science. Try and find some actual science for your claim. Clearly as can be seen in my post the world revolves around the effect of small amounts. Silly meaningless argument.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Mark D.

                You didn’t answer either of my questions, they relate to why you resort to propaganda (40%) rather than “small numbers”. Your whole team uses propaganda very predictably. Reliance on propaganda is a certain indicator of politics over science. Shameful really. You indoctrinate children with fear for their lives over .00012. SHAMEFUL!

                “Silly meaningless argument”

                No, very telling because you misunderstood an easy point and avoided answering my questions. How many others do you miss? You accuse me of meaningless argument right after you type a list of absolutely unrelated “small numbers”? By the way you really should give credit to wherever you cut and pasted that from. (I’m guessing a back room at Craptical Seance?)

                The elephant in the room, THE REALLY LARGE NUMBER is water in all forms. Your team has completely failed to demonstrate how .00012 of co2 could overwhelm a natural cycle that is responsible for transporting huge amounts of energy. They can’t even quantify the amount of energy moved by water.

                Idiotic really.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                they relate to why you resort to propaganda (40%) rather than “small numbers”.

                I don’t think you quite understand the term ‘propoganda’. Propoganda is when you present only one side of an argument. Thats what you guys do when you misrepresent the carbon cycle by only taking into account what the planet emits and not what it absorbs. This is why your argument of .00012 is the one that is propoganda and shameful. I present children with science, and let them decide, unlike what you are doing for your pocket while you throw your kids and future generations under the bus of deteriorating climate.

                Let me explain. For the thousandth time, there is a CARBON CYCLE (open your ears this time), which means that carbon is cycled through the oceans, terrestrial biosphere and atmosphere and stays in rough balance with what is absorbed and emitted. THEREFORE WHAT WE EMIT is on top of and in addition to the natural carbon cycle and adds to it. This is why the 40% that we have increased a crucial greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is a huge number. It is also huge that as a race we have been able to change a global parameter by 40%. Also considering that in science small numbers are irrelevant, it is the size of the effect that counts your misuse of .00012 is propaganda, as you ignore the effect.

                As to my sources, maybe you should read some, I almost always quote from actual peer reviewed science (obviously foreign to you since you think sizes of numbers is science), like this one that says that long lived greenhouse gases are the control knob and that water vapor (with its lifetime of a couple of weeks) just reacts to changes.

                “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide(CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperaturestructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”
                http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf
                http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6002/356/DC1

                “CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

                “Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceed-ingly long, being measured in thousands of years.”


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Backslider

                I don’t think you quite understand the term ‘propoganda’.

                Well, he can actually spell it, so that’s a start… you can’t and you wish to lecture on it?

                We only present one side? Where is YOUR null hypothesis for CAGW??


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                So sad, I have proved my point beyond a shadow of a doubt, and so you are trying to change the argument. Nice try. Are you happy to admit now that the reason the CO2 has increased by 40% in the atmosphere due to mans emissions?


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Mark D.

                You have proven nothing. Your links do not quantify how much energy is moved by water.

                You quote:

                Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

                Own goal there dumbass, right in front of your nose: “highly active” doesn’t that make you think?

                Naw you don’t think, just parrot

                Your understanding of propAganda is severely lacking as well.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                “highly active” doesn’t that make you think?

                Yes, it means it reacts quickly to changes in temperature in ways that don’t last long, that was the whole point, or didn’t you get it? Seriously if you are not willing to read and understand the peer reveiwed science then you really should not comment on it.


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Mark D.

                Michael, you are the one not getting the point. Water actually MOVES huge amounts of heat. It moves it from the surface (that would be cools to stupid people like you) to the upper atmosphere. Last long? Tell me how the heat lifted vertically (by water) returns to the surface? Tell me the formula used by your warmist Gods to quantify the total effect on a global scale?

                Go ahead find some links……


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Water actually MOVES huge amounts of heat. It moves it from the surface (that would be cools to stupid people like you) to the upper atmosphere

                Actually I provide peer reviewed science links or links to scientific sites for the majority of my claims. How about you PROVE YOUR statements on what effect on energy and the greenhouse effect water vapor has.

                Apart from that I agree that water has a huge effect, the point all the science is saying is that water REACTS to temperature, on short lifetimes which is caused by increasing CO2. The point you keep missing is that WAter VApor, is a feedback, an effect, not the cause.


                Report this

                21

        • #
          Backslider

          Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere

          How many tonnes of CO2 are in the atmosphere… do tell.

          By the way, its CO2, not “carbon”.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Heywood

            “By the way, its CO2, not “carbon”.”

            350 billion tonnes of carbon would be a lot of soot!


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Backslider

              Yeah… these warmist freaks always like to conjure up images of that “awful black stuff”… *choke* *choke*


              Report this

              40

            • #
              crakar24

              Nice if it was a lot of diamonds


              Report this

              40

            • #

              No Heywood, the cycle is the carbon (the element) cycle and when talking about the carbon cycle it is not incorrect to talk about where the carbon is located: whether that be dissolved in water, as part of a large carbon based life form or in a gaseous atmospheric compound. It may not be emitted into the air in the form of pure carbon, but nonetheless the compound called carbon dioxide contains the element C and it is one of the main ways by which carbon cycles through the atmosphere.


              Report this

              15

              • #
                Heywood

                Thanks Gee, but I do know that. Maybe, just for you, next time I’ll add a disclaimer stating that my comment was tongue in cheek…


                Report this

                60

              • #
                Backslider

                it is not incorrect to talk about where the carbon is located

                Bullshit. Its correct to be accurate, which Michael happens to nag others about. The fact is that warmists deliberately say “carbon” because of the images it conjures in people’s minds.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                crakar24

                Its interesting

                A search of “Hydrologic cycle” gives us

                ▸ noun: the branch of geology that studies water on the earth and in the atmosphere: its distribution and uses and conservation

                So here we have the name of the molecule not one of the two atoms that make up the molecule.

                However a search of “Carbon dioxide cycle” we get (see carbon cycle)
                and a search of carbon cycle gives us

                ▸ noun: a thermonuclear reaction in the interior of stars
                ▸ noun: the organic circulation of carbon from the atmosphere into organisms and back again

                The two are the same thing but only “carbon” which is the name of one of the two atoms that make up the molecule therefore a misnomer gives us the desired result.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Michael

                Bullshit. Its correct to be accurate, which Michael happens to nag others about. The fact is that warmists deliberately say “carbon” because of the images it conjures in people’s minds.

                Actually I was the one who said CO2, YOU WERE THE ONE INSISTING I call it carbon.


                Report this

                25

              • #
                Heywood

                Comprehension issue Michael??

                Backslider was responding to Gee Aye, but pointed out that you were nagging to others about being accurate.

                He never said you called it “carbon”.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Heywood, not only that but maybe admitting you are wrong as well. I’d like to see how your comment was tongue in cheek especially since you were implying a serious response to someone you disagreed with. Tongue in cheek does not fit with your response but maybe you have a way of explaining it away? I think you are writing crap here.


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Michael

                Comprehension issue Michael??

                No worries, I am happy to accept it either way. In the atmosphere it is CO2 but the cycle IS the carbon cycle. Thanks Gee Aye, I see your point and I agree that sticking to carbon is more scientifically correct as in the cycle it takes on many forms.


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Heywood

                ” I think you are writing crap here”

                From you Gee… Really?

                That’s what you do here all the time..


                Report this

                31

          • #
            Michael

            How many tonnes of CO2 are in the atmosphere… do tell.

            By the way, its CO2, not “carbon”.

            Go learn for your self backslider

            Carbon budget
            “Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans. Thus, identifying the mechanisms and locations responsible for increasing global carbon uptake remains a critical challenge in constraining the modern global carbon budget and predicting future carbon–climate interactions.” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm

            Carbon Cycle
            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php


            Report this

            16

            • #
              Backslider

              Go learn for your self backslider

              Why am I not surprised that you do not actually know? How then can be sure that your figures are correct?.


              Report this

              21

            • #
              Backslider

              Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere,

              There you go again, repeating yourself… so I shall also:

              How many tonnes of CO2 are in the atmosphere… do tell.

              Do you know?….. no, I thought not.


              Report this

              41

        • #
          Carbon500

          The amount of human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere at present is a question to which I sought an answer some time ago.
          From what I’ve read (one or two slight variations depending on the author), about 7.8 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 correspond to 1ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, so in total there are about 3000Gt (3000 billion tonnes) of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on a current atmospheric CO2 concentration of 392ppm.
          I haven’t seen anything to contradict these figures.
          Trying to find out what percentage is currently attributable to fossil fuel burning hasn’t however been quite so straightforward.
          Norwegian geochemist Tom Segalstad, quoted by Robert Carter in ‘Climate – the Counter Consensus’ (p82) has estimated that 4% is due to human and fossil sources.
          So, 4% of 392ppm = approx 16 molecules of CO2 per million of other gases are anthropogenic (i.e. about 125Gt).
          Does anyone have any other sources or up to date figures for this value?


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Michael

            You are probably not looking at it right. CO2 is part of a carbon cycle that is constantly recycled through the atmosphere, land and oceans. natural sources are in rough balance with the amount it emits matching what it absorbs. Fossil fuel CO2 is added to the cycle, and since the processes that remove CO2 permanently from the cycle are quite slow, the CO2′s effect is pretty much stuck in there on human time scales. Around 100 years, but some proportion will still be in the cycle for thousands of years. So mans emissions of CO2 are what is increasing the atmospheric concentration, 40% since pre industrial figures of around 280ppm(now around 400ppm).

            This is taking our planet back to where it was several millions of years ago where the palnet was not as friendly to humans as it is now (or was).


            Report this

            14

            • #
              Backslider

              So mans emissions of CO2 are what is increasing the atmospheric concentration, 40% since pre industrial figures

              Michael. Michael, Michael, Michael… think on that one please.

              Answer this question, for yourself as much as for anybody else:

              What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is from human emissions?

              Have you ever seen a satellite CO2 map?


              Report this

              21

            • #
              Backslider

              This is taking our planet back to where it was several millions of years ago where the palnet was not as friendly to humans

              Really? What proof do you have of that??

              Recent studies show that the biosphere is LOVING the extra CO2, whether human or naturally induced. They also show that food production is significantly up, while the amount of land used for food has gone down.

              I think Michael that you should be far more worried if temperatures start to go down… which some studies show is exactly what we are in for…. and it won’t be anywhere near as pretty as a little warming. THEN you will see the increase in bad weather events you harp on about.


              Report this

              21

            • #
              Backslider

              where the palnet was not as friendly to humans

              Oh hang on…. did I misinterpret what you said (I thought it was “planet”).

              So, this unfriendly “palnet”, is that these peer review guys, or just rank warmists in general?


              Report this

              11

            • #
              J Martin

              By “unfriendly planet”, I assume you mean warming planet. Firstly, periods in history where it was warmer, Roman and Medieval times, human society flourished, certainly in Europe. Secondly during the Ordovician period when co2 was at 7,000ppm the planet entered a glaciation (or ice age, as most people would say).

              In short you assume that warming is harmful though historical evidence shows the opposite, and you assume that co2 has some miraculous warming power able to overrule natural cycles, even though history shows the opposite.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          Richard

          The statement that only 55% of human CO2 emissions have been removed by the biosphere/biosphere is something you’ll have to prove, which is hard because as far as I’m aware human CO2 does not posses an isotopic signature that can be easily differentiated from natural sources – the arguments you often hear on Skeptical Science are measurements in changes of the C12/C13/C14 atmospheric mass, not individual CO2 molecules, which can be misleading. I think CO2’s short atmospheric residence time coupled with Henry’s law of solubility, which loosely says more CO2 must be dissolved in water than in the air, about 50:1 respectively, contradicting the Revelle Factor, is relevant, and disproves the IPCC’s assumptions.


          Report this

          20

          • #
            Michael

            This is a repeat, so I will repeat my response. I suggest you have another look at the carbon cycle and read it for understanding. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

            Richard if humans emit 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases by roughly 15 billion tonnes per year (consistently year by year), then I think logic dictates you would have to say where is mans emissions going if the increase is not from man. CO2 does have a short atmospheric lifetime in basic physics (5 years) but due to the carbon cycle being a cycle the actual effect of any extra CO2 added to the atmosphere is in the order of 100 years plus. The extra CO2 gets ADDED to the carbon cycle, the processes that permanently remove that CO2 from the cycle are quite slow.

            So your comment about needing to account for individual CO2 molecules are not scientifically valid and the C12/C13/C14 proportions as well as the oxygen concentration issue are still valid and correct. You are misunderstanding the process, and the concept of the carbon cycle. Apart from the fact that due to the ocean becoming less alkaline due to it absorbing more CO2 shows the extra CO2 cannot be coming from the oceans. So again somebody needs to explain with science where Mans emissions are going and where the extra CO2 is coming from before entertaining wild theories.


            Report this

            13

          • #
            Michael

            This may also help.

            “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide(CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperaturestructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf

            http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6002/356/DC1

            “CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

            “Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceed-ingly long, being measured in thousands of years.”


            Report this

            14

            • #
              Mark D.

              Michael quotes:

              “CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

              So he must be ignoring the fact that water (especially cold water) precipitation strips co2 out of the atmosphere?

              And:

              “Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceed-ingly long, being measured in thousands of years.”

              Well that is just bullshit.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Backslider

              Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide(CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere

              That’s just total bullshit – water vapor is.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Michael

              Well that is just bullshit.

              and Backslider

              That’s just total bullshit – water vapor is.

              Well I explained the mechanism and the peer reviewed science. Your opinion is off no relevence. If you have any science to back up your ignorance then provide it. By the way, you are both wrong. Typical anti science response. I provide peer reviewed evidence and explain the mechanism and you provide bullshit :-)

              So basically I am very comfortable in my knowledge based on science.


              Report this

              13

              • #
                Carbon500

                Regarding the roles of CO2 and water:
                The IPCC give this view (Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis).
                ‘Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas’ (page 2)
                ‘Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere’ (page 135).


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Totally agree Carbon500. I think that was what my peer reviewed science said.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Backslider

                Totally agree Carbon500

                You totally agree with a clear contradiction…. why am I not surprised?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Backslider says…

                You totally agree with a clear contradiction…. why am I not surprised?

                No contradiction if you understand the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.

                CO2 is the control knob and water vapor reacts to the changes in temperature. Water vapor has a lifetime in the atmosphere measured in weeks, it goes up there and it precipitates, clearly seen by the science I have provided that demonstrates a 7% increase in extreme precipitation events. When it comes down it comes down with greater intensity as the atmosphere heats and is able to hold more water.

                Added CO2 to the carbon cycle has an extra effect measured in hundreds to thousands of years due to the very slow processes that remove it from the carbon cycle. Therefore once in the cycle it has a cumulative long term effect on warming. I have said that as slow as possible, but since you don’t want to understand it, because it does not reflect your confirmation bias, I don’t expect you to agree. Even though I have repeatedly shown the science that proves it.

                There is none so blind as those that will not see.

                Warning: actual published science follows.
                “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide(CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperaturestructure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.”

                http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal.pdf

                http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6002/356/DC1

                “CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

                “Furthermore, the atmospheric residence time of CO2 is exceed-ingly long, being measured in thousands of years.”


                Report this

                23

              • #
                Mark D.

                There is none so blind as those that will not see.

                I rather think it is more correct (and logical) to say: none so blind as those that do not look.

                Michael, it is you that do not see because you quit looking. You are blinded by a irrational fear for the world. A fear for the babies, a fear OF humankind. This fear is really causing you to be irrational. Wake up before this irrational fear drives you to harm yourself or others. You are close you know, close to causing harm to untold millions by denying them the low cost energy that will make their lives easier. Keep them from starving, keep them from freezing.

                Michael, you are exhibiting symptoms of psychopathy, and I suppose, one step closer to irrationally justifying a violent solution to what you incorrectly perceive is harming the world.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Heywood

                Mark D.

                “one step closer to irrationally justifying a violent solution to what you incorrectly perceive is harming the world.”

                This is my concern exactly, along with driving people into energy poverty.

                Michael is concerned for his children and grandchildren and I get that, but I believe there is a greater risk to humanity via outlandish policies created in the name of “saving the planet” from a problem which may or may not prove to be catastrophic. We have already heard calls from some commentators that suspension of democracy might be required., and that us a truly frightening prospect.

                The world may have warmed, but we still don’t know if, and by how much it will continue to warm, and whether or not any future warming will be a net beneficial or catastrophic.


                Report this

                20

            • #
              Carbon500

              Michael: The Lacis paper is one which surprised me when I came across it some time ago, because of its reference to calculations using computer models as ‘experiments’.
              Dr.Robert Carter in ‘Climate – The Counter Consensus’ on p116 points out that ‘The models are deterministic, in that every factor that is known to influence climate significantly must be included at the start in order to allow the model to correctly determine a future climate state. Deterministic computer models therefore assume (wrongly) that we have a complete understanding of the climate system.’
              The IPCC in ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’ also acknowledge this. On p601, they state that ‘Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.’
              As a result, my inclination is to view the conclusions of this paper with caution.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Backslider

              So Michael, how many tons of CO2 are in the atmosphere?…. you have only one day left before I expose your bullshit.


              Report this

              10

            • #

              michael writes:

              Not my quotes Mark, they were quotes from the actual peer reveiwed science. If you would like to present some in rebuttal then please do so. Otherwise your opinion is less than useful.

              and,

              Well I explained the mechanism and the peer reviewed science. Your opinion is off no relevence. If you have any science to back up your ignorance then provide it. By the way, you are both wrong. Typical anti science response. I provide peer reviewed evidence and explain the mechanism and you provide bullshit :-)

              So basically I am very comfortable in my knowledge based on science.

              Really are you sure? Here is a chart showing Three dozen published science papers showing short CO2 residence times:

              http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-188-post-3118.html#pid3118

              I think you are completely unaware of these papers,some published from the 1950′s that have been in circulation for a while.


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Michael

                Three dozen published science

                Firstly, a chart of papers from decades ago is hardly useful. Nothing very current and no specifics. I am used to the anti science fraternity taking peer reviewed science and misrepresenting it.

                Secondly the title below makes the specific reference to human CO2 when what we are talking about is the addition of fossil fuel CO2 to the carbon cycle. Once part of the cycle, all the CO2, natural and anthropogenic, cycles around the oceans, atmosphere and land ad nauseum for a very long time. The long carbon cycle, that removes the CO2 permanently from the system takes a long time, so the effect is cumulative and constant.

                Thirdly it depends on what you mean and the purpose. The IPCC state that the actual residence time of an individual CO2 molecule is 3 to 5 years, that is not in question, it is its addition to the carbon cycle that is cumulative and constant in the atmosphere. I suspect you misunderstand the carbon cycle and the concept. Its not surprising, most of you clearly only get your science from blog sites (like you did). So I suspect most of those papers are referring to individual CO2 molecules or have been misrepresented.


                Report this

                11

            • #

              “CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not con-dense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that re-spond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precip-itating.”

              Some of the CO2 in the air is converted to Carbonic Acid and more of it in the waters of the planet:

              http://books.google.com/books?id=6KT12tOU9jEC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=co2+in+the+atmosphere+conversion+to+carbonic+acid+in+raindrops&source=bl&ots=x5MCwXLFd3&sig=7bCcaNkRpmXzxZfcWHiHM-Zf6WU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3t3gUabhF4isiAKUwIGgCA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=co2%20in%20the%20atmosphere%20conversion%20to%20carbonic%20acid%20in%20raindrops&f=false


              Report this

              10

              • #
                Michael

                Some of the CO2 in the air is converted to Carbonic Acid

                Yes, it is called the carbon cycle. I have explained it many times and pointed to resources to learn it. Perhaps you could refer yourself to those and learn something.


                Report this

                12

              • #
                Mark D.

                Yes, it is called the carbon cycle. I have explained it many times and pointed to resources to learn it. Perhaps you could refer yourself to those and learn something.

                Carbon? I thought it was just CO2 and methane that caused the AGW scare. Now you claim it is the “carbon cycle”? All carbon causes warming? No you haven’t “explained” it very well.

                Hmmm. Just how low on the IQ scale will you go?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Carbon? I thought it was just CO2 and methane that caused the AGW scare

                Sigh :-(

                Maybe I have not taught it well. carbon is part of CO2 and through the cycle takes on many different forms. Perhaps you need to go learn it yourself.

                http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php


                Report this

                11

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Dammit I hoped that wouldn’t happen, now you’ve all gone off on the tangent of rehashing the carbon arguments. I only mentioned it to highlight that even a critic has to support the guy.

        No, I’m not arguing the science here, it distracts from the issue. What’s important right now in this thread is that Salby got wrongfully sacked.

        It’s like a soccer game where Murray Salby is trying to guard David Karoly who is getting close to kicking a goal, then suddenly a giant hook comes down from the astrodome and yanks Salby off the field.
        Okay that’s a poor choice of opposition for the example, but no matter which side you’re barracking for it is no fun for the players or the spectators to have one side being insta-benched randomly like this.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Heywood
    July 9, 2013 at 3:29 pm · Reply
    No comment on the treatment he received by Macquarie university? That is the subject of this thread after all…

    Your kidding right..??
    Its a truly mindless troll that appeals(bows) to authority and the lowest common denominator.
    Did you expect it to react normally or honestly..and it tried to put the boot in later.
    Not one peep about the ethics of the situation.
    It doesnt understand how science works..or ethics..what a surprise.
    Still driving a car and connected to the grid John..oh,,thats right..Its others that have to do the right thing..


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Sean

    What kind of banana republic are you Australians running down under?

    Sorry but i am now striking Australia off of my list of tourism destinations.

    Will also avoid hiring any graduates of the Australian university system.


    Report this

    92

  • #
    reality check

    Macquarie university is over-loaded with academics at the moment. The previous vice-chancellor hired a whole heap of “star” scientists to bolster the uni’s rankings. Many of these star recruits do little in the way of undergraduate teaching at all which in Austrlia is the backbone of our university system. Funding is poor relative to the USA and so there is now a problem…. Salby is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. Get back to basics and teach…. as getting rid of dead wood is too hard. Not to mention nepotism and cronyism that have a great home at macquarie Univeristy. Prof salby should just move on and be gratefull he is out of that place.


    Report this

    12

  • #
    Ross

    After reading all the comments on this it has got me thinking again about all these institutions who use all the modern media to push their barrows but somehow do not really understand what changes these modern communication methods have bought.
    They just don’t realise how easy and how quick it is to spread information these days ( even though they are churning out media studies grads, computer science grads etc by the thousands each year.)
    Here we have a very bad news story(for the University) spread around the world in a day or so. We have people like Reed Coray
    (from the USA) writing brilliant,damming letters to the University immediately.
    But the university cannot return a phone call to give the otherside of the story. I’m sure their PR people are not on holiday. The longer they leave it, the more widespread the email will go and the more likely people will say
    ” well he must be right because they have no answer to his comments”. At this stage it is probably limited to the sceptic blog community world wide ( not a small number)and a few other outlets but I’d say the twitter brigade will not be far behind.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    handjive

    Spot the logical fallacy:

    Australian University Dumps Bob Carter, Advisor To Multiple Global Climate Science Denial Groups –
    Tue, 2013-07-09 12:55 GRAHAM READFEARN@desmogBlog


    Report this

    30

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Ten, or so, years ago this report would have been met with incredulity.
    Clearly the Professor was delusional, had behaved badly and his employers did ‘the right thing’
    To me, at least, this would have been crystal clear.
    Scientific Academics were incapable of anything but pristine behaviour, ergo Salby was an exception that proved the rule!
    Back to the present and the integrity and reputation of scientific institutions has been well and truly shredded.
    Thanks to academic luminaries like Mann, Gleick, Hansen, Cook, LewWhatever, … and uncle Tom Cobey and all, my default position, in this case, is that Macquarie are the baddies.
    However this particular episode pans out and whatever the outcome I feel great sadness that a reputation built up over hundreds of years by the talented, that took us from poverty to prosperity, could be destroyed and so quickly, by a bunch of self-seeking, selfish hooligans.
    Shame!


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Ace

      NOBODY should EVER be automatically accorded that kind of “above suspicion” authority, ANYWHERE. The “shredded” reputation of such institutions merely constitutes the realisation that they are composed of human beings the same as any other body. Its a good thing.


      Report this

      41

  • #
    MadJak

    The Climate Commissions statement was simply not as was meant:

    What they meant was:
    “…one in two thousand chance that by 2100 after the next election there’ll be no any human beings left on this planet in the climate commission and the other satellite industries

    Somehow it came out as:
    “one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet”

    Fairs fair – cut them some slack, they’re probably already working out their notice periods – assuming we don’t have yet another coup to delay the next election.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Geoffrey Cousens

    Three cheers for Lord Monkton,if anyone can achieve justice from this dreadful scandal,it is he.


    Report this

    63

  • #
    Macquarie University Insider

    Yes. This is true – Power of corruption and abuse of power. These tactics are commonly used. It is hard to believe that these things are happening in Australia. Check out who are the Chancellor, political parties affiliations, governance body and senior leadership executives team at Macquarie University.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    [...] cannot keep or will not keep, just to get them. I am reprinting below a segement from JoNova. Check that site for updates. ________________________________________________________ Thanks for [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    OT i know but this is gold

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/nbn_workers_say_the_billions_are_still_not_enough/#commentsmore

    The sub contractors have not been paid so are now pulling the fibre out LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLL


    Report this

    40

  • #
    mangochutney

    Salby’s PhD student seems to be this lady:

    http://envirogeog.mq.edu.au/about/students/person.htm?id=etitova

    Her email address has also been closed down


    Report this

    30

    • #
      University insider

      They have damaged Prof Murry Salby’s career and reputation. It is now targeted his Ph.D student. Barbaric and sickness behavior!!


      Report this

      40

  • #
    DrJohnGalan

    Does this episode in 1999 bear any resemblance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1vcPVtzbJ4o#at=180

    From 1:40 to 3:10 is the relevant part.

    Corruption in the world of science (not just of climate science) is rife. Bockris died three days ago.


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I think we can say that the results obtained at Mitsubishi and NASA over the last 4 years had vindicated Bockris before he died.

      If LENR can be made to work more reliably at scale, it will change the world.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Ace

        NASA…..are you kidding, that outfits been several decades a fecking joke.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Ace

          …and Mitsibushi make the fecking Prius, for feck sake.

          Some authorities you rely on.


          Report this

          01

          • #
            Heywood

            Toyota make the Prius Ace…..

            :-)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Hey Ace, you jackass,

            If you google for “LENR NASA” here is the FIRST hit:
            http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html
            NASA LaRC has begun LENR design studies guided by the Weak Interaction Theory

            If you google for “LENR Mitsubishi” here is the SECOND hit:
            http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/12/06/mitsubishi-reports-toyota-replication/
            Toyota’s conversion rate of cesium to praseodymium was one-to-two orders of magnitude lower than that of Mitsubishi’s; however, the distinction between their tests with cesium and control tests without cesium is unambiguous.

            Why bother doing research when you can use intuition and false memory?
            Some brain you rely on.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Ace

              Macrae you are the jackass…reading online shite and thinking its “knowledge’

              your magic-power pile is just that, a fecking pile (ofd shite).

              We were being told fusion was about to “change the world” (your words dickhead so don’t blame me for making you sound a twat, you do it yourself)…Sixty years ago after the first tocamak was built. If thered been an internet (noddy-box, dickhead-web) youd have been citing URLs to that too, pillock.

              Even fission was assuredly going to “change the world” (your words pillock, Im not traducing you, dont need to) seventy years ago, with promise of free electricity from nighbourhood reactors and even reactor driven cars and airplanes. If you’d had the chance youd have been citing Fords web-site …undoubtedly…touting their sales shite like you are for Mitsibushi…plomker.

              Gullible plonkers are always and everywhere, not just Greenies, no doubt if you had been around in 1890 and thered been an internet youd have been telling us this amazing oil made from snakes you’d read about was going to cure all disease and “change the world’.

              As for NASA…you ignoramus, an institution with enough failed and cancelled projects in its last twenty years you could get to the moon just by stacking them on top of each other. Its researchers will tout anything and sell any dream (or “vision”) to get the grant money. It no more legitimises those dreams than the Pentagon spending millions on “remote viewing” is any evidence for clairvoyance.

              Go on, quote us a shedload of URLs that “prove” your Pentagon-proven paranormal forces then. They are just as meaningful and about to “change the world” as the crap fantasism youve cited already. Big institutions on govt money breed bullshit. Big companies seeking govt money breed big bullshit. Companies trying to m\ke themselves look clever …Mistisbushi, Toyaota, Ford, BMW, who gives a toss which…will spew any amount of bullshit in the process…to sell thir other products. remember: Durch sprung fur teknik!”

              Oh, BTW, before parroting crap about the ISS…dont forget that first, it was built with Russian engineering, secondly the yanks can only get to the fecking thing on Russian rockets (cos marvelous NASA aint managed to build one of their own in the 33 years since the shuttle) and…bst of all folks…in five years its going to be dismantled and scrapped.

              NASA…dont make me puke.


              Report this

              01

              • #
                DrJohnGalan

                I find it rather sad that a comment I made about a man in a similar predicament to Prof Salby, but 14 years ago, should result in the unpleasantness shown here. The man I mentioned was one of the few prepared to stand up for science (i.e. observations trump theory every time).

                And he is not yet cold in his grave.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Seems the “report comment” button doesn’t work at the moment.

                Never mind, we can just leave your comment there as an eternal reminder of what happens when Ace has a bad day.

                You can email the mods to remove or snip your own comment any time you like. Don’t make me do it for you.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Ace

                Macrae say:
                “Seems the “report comment” button doesn’t work at the moment.

                Never mind, we can just leave your comment there as an eternal reminder of what happens when Ace has a bad day.

                You can email the mods to remove or snip your own comment any time you like. Don’t make me do it for you.”

                …ooh is it offended the the lace curtain twitcher…got no answers only tut tut noises.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Heywood

                Do you two need to be put in time out? ;)


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Nice trolling, Heywood.
                But at least Ace is teaching us some new vocabulary – with a British flavour to it which is always nice.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                crakar24

                Trolling Andrew?

                Usually when two children behave the way you two have, time out is the standard punishment.

                Thankyou Dr John Galan for bringing the plight of this man to our attention.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Ace

                A Mcrae:
                “Nice trolling, Heywood.
                But at least Ace is teaching us some new vocabulary – with a British flavour to it which is always nice.”

                Thanks for that …maybe you do have a sens of humour down-under after all. Ive got to say, this latest few threads I keep reacting to commnets by thinking “for feck sake lighten up”. And this is the way real people talk in the UK.

                …not [snip crass] who work in universities.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Ace

                …but as for Cracker 42 …do you still love the Fakestinians?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Heywood

                Trolling??

                Just an attempt at humor ’tis all m’lad.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                See that doesn’t work the second time, Crakar. It was original when Heywood said it but copying his trolling doesn’t have any effect now. There’s no shock value.

                Unless you actually believe what you just said, in which case my retort is this…

                Who was the first commentator to express sympathy by stating evidence that Bockris had been vindicated?
                Who was the first anonymous commentator in this thread to insult a real named commentator’s intelligence and claim their statements were false in a bipolar rant based on their own purely imaginary stereotypes woven into an ad hoc international conspiracy theory between Mitsubishi and the Pentagon, despite the original claims being easily verified on the MHI, NASA, YouTube, and ANS web sites, so turning a poignant moment into (as DrJohnGalan correctly labelled it) “the unpleasantness shown here”? Who, actually, was the first to exhibit jackassery?
                That’s a rhetorical question. I know the answer which is why I have nothing to apologise for.

                And I’m sure you wouldn’t take an insult laying down. You’re a fine one to tell me I shouldn’t fight back.

                Clearly I am not here to win friends! I am after the truth. That’s why when jackasses (particularly serial offenders) tell me I’m stupid for believing in historic facts I am going to call them what they are. Maybe it will remind them not to be jackasses in the future.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Joshua

    It is extremely important for the future of Australia, that the Labour party be booted out forever. I would suggest that the above case be sent urgently quick smart to Mr Abbot. ALL the people involved at MacQuarrie University with this case need to be sacked URGENTLY. Australia is rapidly becoming a third world dictatorship. If Australia votes in another labour government it is finito. (BTW I used to be a labour diehard)


    Report this

    92

    • #
      Michael

      This has nothing to do with LAbor. You are turning an internal UNI issue into a political argument. If anything it would be a state government issue, and that is Liberal, so quick lets get rid of state lib governments.


      Report this

      18

      • #
        Dave

        Michael.

        Catamon said here:

        bobl, the nexus between University staff arrangements and state arrangements was broken years go. University Staff are covered under Federal, not State agreements and tribunals.

        Then you say:

        You are turning an internal UNI issue into a political argument. If anything it would be a state government issue, and that is Liberal, so quick lets get rid of state lib governments.

        You guys have to make up your minds about this. Email your mate Catamongst about this.

        Fools, both of you.


        Report this

        51

        • #
          Catamon

          Dave, you seem confused.

          Micheal is actually correct, in a sense. My reference was specific to “University staff arrangements” which are handled in the Federal jurisdiction.

          However, Universities exist under State legislation, so on University governance matters, it could well be more appropriate to go to the relevant State minister.

          Objectively, since tribal groupenthunk position here is obviously that this is an action taken by Macquarie management as part of the overall campaign by the evil, unenlightened ones who have not received the wisdom of the Great Lord das Monkers with the appropriate adulation, its quite plausible (xxx MV) that a rational response would be to go for the University at a governance level, via a state based approach.

          Gawd, Maquarie’s VC must be terrified now das Monkers is on his case?? :)


          Report this

          05

          • #
            Annie

            I’m not at all favourably impressed by your rudeness re. Christopher Monckton…you do your stance no good by it.

            i don’t know what’s happened to Australia the last few years but it’s definitely not the country I first encountered in 1984 and lived in for years.


            Report this

            31

            • #
              Catamon

              I’m not at all favourably impressed by your rudeness re. Christopher Monckton

              Oh no Annie! and the only reason i come here after all is to make a favorable impression on you……

              Nah, actually its mainly for the laughs, MV (xxx), and to keep loose track of the latest outrage generating events significant to the grumpy true disbeliever demographic. :)


              Report this

              04

  • #
    ColdinOz

    John Troll (on this site) Brookes. Would you be prepared to go head to head with Murry Salby in a public, open and fair debate?

    I have read through your postings on this post, and see nothing of substance. This is in contrast with what I see in Murry Salby’s presentations.


    Report this

    72

  • #
    Sonny

    An alarmist academic debating?

    They would sooner have their genitals removed with a spoon.


    Report this

    61

  • #
  • #
    KR

    For what it’s worth, Macquarie University has made a statement on the subject, with a very different take on matters.

    10 July 2013

    Macquarie University does not normally comment on the circumstances under which employees leave the University. However, we feel in this instance it is necessary to do so in order to correct misinformation.

    The decision to terminate Professor Murry Salby’s employment with Macquarie University had nothing to do with his views on climate change nor any other views. The University supports academic freedom of speech and freedom to pursue research interests.

    Professor Salby’s employment was terminated firstly, because he did not fulfil his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach. After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.

    The University took this matter very seriously as the education and welfare of students is a primary concern. The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.

    The termination of his employment followed an extensive and detailed internal process, including two separate investigations undertaken by a committee chaired by a former Australian Industrial Relations Commissioner and including a union nominee.


    Report this

    21

    • #
      Heywood

      Well there you go..

      Now it’s He said – She said.

      I am still willing to put a six pack on his research being a factor in his dismissal. Of course, the Uni will never admit that.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Catamon

      Thanks for posting that KR. Informative.

      After repeated directions to teach, this matter culminated in his refusal to undertake his teaching duties and he failed to arrive at a class he had been scheduled to take.

      Yup that will drop you right in it.

      The second reason for his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.

      That too, big time.

      Interesting that Macquarie are going public. Implies they have specifics of the referred to reasons documented and are probably comfortable with their position in an industrial sense.


      Report this

      24

    • #
      janama

      Fine if he was hired as a lecturer – I gather he was hired as a researcher.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Chas

    So, this is Macquarie’s idea of “academic freedom”, and challenging society’s ideas. Apparently Macquarie has hired the ghost of Trofim Lysenko to protect “academic freedom”.

    Public Comment Policy

    This policy asserts Macquarie University’s commitment to the principles of academic freedom, and its expectation that staff will challenge society’s ideas and contribute to open debate by commenting publicly within areas of their professional expertise.

    Because academic freedom has associated responsibilities, this policy also aims to clarify the obligations of Macquarie University staff when commenting in public fora, including in the media.

    The full Public Comment Policy is available from Macquarie University’s ‘Policy Central‘ website.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Macquarie University Insider

    Macquarie university has just posted statements to cover-up. Liar, liar, liar!!

    These the most criminal activities in university. Shame, shame, shame!!

    Michael Engan (Chancellor of Macquarie University) is a leader at Macquarie university. He should ask himself why these evils tactics can be used in university ‘repeatedly’. Would you hire Tim Sprague as a HR director to manage your organisational culture?

    Who is the sponsor of the faceless men in Australia? This is what we have in Australia – ‘very doggy people’ are operating Australia.

    Dictatorial, barbaric and sickness behaviour!!


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Macquarie University Insider

    Macquarie university has just posted statements to cover-up. Liar, liar, liar!!

    The most criminal activity in university. Shame, shame, shame!!

    Michael Egan (Chancellor) is a leader at Macquarie university. He should ask himself why these evil tactics can be used in university ‘repeatedly’. Would you hire Tim Sprague as a HR director to manage your organisational culture?

    Who is the sponsor of the faceless men in Australia? This is what we have in Australia – ‘very doggy people’ are operating Australia.

    Dictatorial, barbaric and sickness behaviour!!


    Report this

    01

  • #
    Ace

    “This is what we have in Australia – ‘very doggy people’ are operating Australia.”
    Would that be “doggy people” like the one in Spaceballs (Barf) or like the ones theyve only recently banned in Germany…or like the ones we have at Crufts.

    Makes Australia sound more interesting altogether.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Macquarie University Insider

      It is okay for to make funny jokes sometimes. Australia is a nice place.

      However, it is not so funny for Prof Salby and his student for these kind of treatments.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Fifty years from now Macquarie University will pay for this – just as the Roman Catholic Church paid for Galileo’s inquisition (and never completely recovered from, three hundred and eighty years later).

    This is unfortunately little consolation to Dr Salby in the meanwhile.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    hello reality

    Get over it! Hasn’t anyone actually thought that he was at fault in the first place! Maybe he thought he was too important as often happens. Time and history may very well forget him completely as inconsequential.


    Report this

    13

    • #
      Macquarie University Insider

      These [snip] activities at Macquarie University, a public Australian university. It was a set-up for Professor Sadly and his student.

      It reminds me someone who is guilty to make such cover-up statement.

      [lets not jump to conclusions] ED


      Report this

      11

      • #
        Macquarie University Insider

        I am not jumping to conclusions. These are the “weapons” (evil tactics) that they use to attack staff all the times. I just know it.

        Updated:
        These are [snip] activities at Macquarie University, in a public Australian university (that can exposed by public). It was a set-up for Professor Sadly and his student.

        [Unsubstantiated allegations of criminal activity are not permitted. Besides that, you've spelled Salby wrong more than you've spelled it correctly. Are you a troll?] ED


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Macquarie University Insider

          Hey Jo, Power is above the law as we have noticed. Power of corruption is a common problem.

          Withdraw the statement and correct the selling. Professor Salby.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Macquarie University Insider

            The power is above the law.

            Macquarie University Insider will now leave this discussion forum. Let’s hope that Professor Salby can find the justice.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    alex

    Dr. Salby has been ‘Galileod’ by the ‘popes’ at Macquarie


    Report this

    00

  • #
    alex

    This is very similar to the way ‘rogue’ scientists were treated in the soviet union, except for the locking up Dr. Salby in a gulag. But then green/trougher scientists extremists have already demanded our imprisonment for what they consider to be crimes against humanity, for ‘murdering tomorrow’s children’ when actually what we are trying to do is save today’s children from being victims of the greatest scam the world has ever seen.

    Tomorrow’s children would not be born if we don’t save today’s children who are now suffering from increased poverty due to the explosion in energy costs as a result of carbon taxes or whatever these are referred to in different continents.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    crakar24

    Oh and by the way Michael can you please stop perpetuating this myth?

    For the record (again)

    crakar24
    July 10, 2013 at 2:51 pm · Reply
    Here you go Michael,

    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/ice-age-sediments.html

    “In the paper in Science, the researchers compared the geological record to the climactic cycles that would result from their theory and to that of the competing theory, first published in 1912 by Serbian scientist Milutin Milankovitch. Using a geological fingerprinting technique, Muller and MacDonald found that the climactic changes recorded in the rocks matched their theory but not that of Milankovitch.

    There you go, today you have learnt something new.

    Cheers


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Michael

      I read it, I commented on it. In summary their theory was a different type of orbital cycle, not really earth shattering, secondly Muller, with fossil fuel funds and now having been peer reviewed, has concluded that the rise in Temps since industrialisation is 1.5 deg c and has been largely caused by man. So your point is?

      “Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years”
      http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/

      “The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”


      Report this

      01

      • #
        crakar24

        LOL

        It was a peer reviewed and published paper that shows not all ice ages match the M cycle theory however they all match the movement of the solar plane that the Earth orbits the sun on.

        Your response?

        I read it, I commented on it. In summary their theory was a different type of orbital cycle, not really earth shattering, secondly Muller, with fossil fuel funds and now having been peer reviewed, has concluded that the rise in Temps since industrialisation is 1.5 deg c and has been largely caused by man. So your point is?

        As i have said previously you do not posses the required skill sets to debate people on an adult level.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Michael

          they all match the movement of the solar plane that the Earth orbits the sun on.

          Thats what I said. None of it changes the basic fact that it is the way the earth is oriented to the sun that caused the major ice ages. None of that affects the current warming, which on these short time scales does not apply, most evidence says natural factors are cooling and Muller himself (the author of your paper) agrees the cause is mans emissions. So not really sure what point you are trying to make.


          Report this

          01

  • #
    J Martin

    Salby’s case sounds to me like a classic case of constructive dismissal. In other words they maneuvered him into a position where they could dismiss him. If Australian law is strong enough and fair enough, Salby should be able to take the University to the cleaners.

    If the University had brought too many senior people in to their organisation and needed to restructure, then there are well established mechanisms for doing so. Clearly they did not pursue that path and so this casts their activities in a suspicious light in this case.

    Re the carbon cycle. It is clear that not enough is known about it to be able to establish with any confidence the residence time of co2 or the effects of mankind’s contribution to co2. Given the apparent importance to the warmists of establishing the role of mankind’s co2 it is surprising that so very little research is carried out into carbon sinks and sources, including the impact of agriculture and land use.

    Perhaps the carbon cycle is an underfunded area because the warmists fear the outcome of such research and would prefer to speculate and make religious proclamations about mankind’s role in changes to the atmospheric composition.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Dave

    Michael.

    you say

    as plants prefer c12, so not likely volcanos

    Wrong, C4 plants account for about 30% plus of terrestrial carbon fixation (and majority of our food chain), and they do NOT prefer C12 like C3 plant species. A C4 plant (like corn, sugar cane etc) will use C13 as readily as C12.

    you say

    Declining c13/c12 ratio so source fossilised plant life

    Wrong, the ratio is declining because 90% animal, and our 60%food crops are C4 in origin. In the US, people have a C12 to C13 ratio that corresponds to 90% of our food to be derived from C4 plants. Humans are altering the ratio though storage.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Michael

      Not sure any of that changes my arguments, but do you have a scientific source for all that? Even if what you is correct, c3 on what you say above is still 70% so I do not see why the ratios would not change?

      Secondly, they were secondary arguments to my main ones, additional evidence. Do you disagree that mans emissions are causing the increase in CO2? If so where is mans emissions going? and do you have any scientific evidence?


      Report this

      12

      • #
        Dave

        But it should ask questions of your theory?

        C4 plants developed this pathway (some 40 different times) some 300 million years ago, amazingly at the same time CO2 levels were very low. Since this C4 pathway evolved, temperature and CO2 concentrations have more or less equalised and leveled out.

        C4 plants account for about 30% plus of terrestrial carbon fixation (in peer reviewed papers) which were done in 1996, and today it has increased to approximately 40%. Makes you think about this aspect. The area of continents flooded has also stabilised since this period.

        You’re the expert, I’m just putting forward topics for you to check and relate to current day. I am not a scientist (peer reviewed) and maybe this explosion of C4 plant growth is just a secondary answer.

        Also why do you think CO2 ppm can very between 390 and 398 ppm in one 12 hour period?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Backslider

        Ok Michael. I have given you every opportunity correct yourself, however you do not have the courtesy even to answer a very simple question (a whole bunch in fact, but one in particular that relates directly to your harping):

        How many tons of CO2 are there in the atmosphere?

        Let me answer it for you:

        Its generally accepted that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 3000 gigatonnes (2011 – 383 ppmv. I like round numbers, don’t you?

        You state (or agree with):

        Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere, of which about 55 per cent has moved into the land and oceans.

        You must agree with this as you have stated it seven times just in this one thread.

        That leaves us with 157.5 gigatonnes.

        You also state:

        CO2 has increased in the atmosphere by a whopping 40% since industrialisation and in near perfect correlation to mans emissions.

        Perfect correlation, huh? Well, let’s just look at the math, shall we?

        40% of 3000 gigatonnes is 1200 gigatonnes – that’s the increase since industrialisation, according to you.

        Your 157.5 gigatonnes is only 13% of that 40% increase of CO2. Where did the rest of the CO2 come from, Michael?

        Now, 157.5 gigatonnes is only 5.25% of total atmospheric CO2, or 20ppmv

        Now Michael, this has been using just your own numbers.

        Are you still going to argue that the “whopping” human contributed 20ppmv of CO2 that we have pumped into the atmosphere (according to you) is going to cause a catastrophe?

        Or, will you sit back and think about it and finally decide to stop scaring our grandchildren?


        Report this

        11

        • #
          Michael

          So sorry poor boy, you have stuffed up and confused carbon and CO2. CO2 is heavier than carbon because CO2 is carbon and 2 oxygen, your calculations are therefore faulty, and as per previous conversations I don’t generally accept back of the handkerchef calculations. Surely you have a scientific paper from one of your many skeptic climate scientists. I mean being such a crucial issue surely somebody would want to put it to bed?

          amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 3000 gigatonnes…
          …Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon

          Let me point you to a place that have done the calculations correctly.
          “Since 1850 – 2000 (figures are in petagrams of carbon)
          Addition to atmosphere
          Land Use 154 PgC
          Fossil Fuels 282 PgC
          Cement Manufacture 5.5 PgC
          Adds up to 441.5 PgC

          Over that time CO2 in atmosphere grew by 174PgC (81.5ppmv)
          This demonstrates that 40% of the CO2 caused by man has stayed in the atmosphere and 60% has gone into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
          40% of 441.5 = 174 PgC
          60% of 441.5 = 265.9 PgC”
          http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q4

          Also there is good information here
          “The annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 was 1.70±0.09 ppm in 2011 (ppm = parts per million), slightly below the average growth rate of 2 ppm of the past 10 years (2002-2011). The average growth rate for the decade 1990-1999 was 1.5±0.1 ppm, and was 1.6±0.1 for the decade 1980-1989. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was 390 ppm in 2011 on average, 40% above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (about 278 ppm in 1750). The present concentration is the highest during at least the last 800,000 years. ”
          http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm

          Have you done your reading on the carbon cycle yet? You really should argue from knowledge.


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Backslider

            you have stuffed up and confused carbon and CO2

            No Michael, it is you who has stuffed up. You come here ranting and raving about CO2 in the atmosphere, yet now you bleat that one of your figures is “carbon”.

            Now Michael, carbon and CO2 are not the same thing. I think we are agreed on that.

            So, tell me exactly how you arrive at the figure of 350 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere.

            Then tell us exactly how much of that is CO2, in gigatonnes.

            You now say that 60% is no longer in the atmosphere. Your previous figure was 55%. Why is that?

            The thing is this Michael – You cannot talk about carbon and CO2 in the same breath. Not only is it confusing, but its also inaccurate. We are not interested in how much carbon has gone into the atmosphere, but rather CO2. They are not the same thing, but you talk as though they are: “This demonstrates that 40% of the CO2 caused by man has stayed in the atmosphere”. This is clearly wrong, however I will again give you the opportunity to correct your figures.

            Just stick with how many gigatonnes of CO2 are in the atmosphere, how many gigatonnes have been added by man and how many gigatonnes of that remain. Then your numbers will be clear to all.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Michael

              you have stuffed up and confused carbon and CO2

              Backslider you should quit while you are ahead and admit when you are wrong. You should also go back and look where the figure did actually come from. It is NOT MY FIGURE, it came from peer reviewed science, so read the whole article and then argue with the article being actually informed. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO GRABBED AND USED THE FIGURE.

              As to your CO2 does not equal CARBON nonsense, you need to check the periodic table. CO2 is carbon and oxygen, by applying the correct conversion factor (to remove the weight of the oxygen) you can indeed just take the carbon measurement out of the CO2 (as I have done). In most scientific publications they do just refer to the carbon because it is the CARBON CYCLE that is important, when talking about the exchange of carbon through the cycle. It is quite scientifically valid and not at all confusing if you understand basic chemistry and the process.

              I have, using your own calculations (corrected), proved the increase of 40% by mans emissions, and provided peer reviewed science with the calculations as well to confirm my figures. Carbon500 also proved it.

              If you have any evidence that disproves them then it is up to you to provide it. Point closed, you are clearly wrong.


              Report this

              11

              • #
                Backslider

                Backslider you should quit while you are ahead and admit when you are wrong.

                Where exactly am I wrong Michael? If anything, its your numbers that are wrong. Let me give you and example, straight from your own mouth:

                In most scientific publications they do just refer to the carbon because it is the CARBON CYCLE that is important

                We are not talking about the carbon cycle per se. We are talking about CO2 in the atmosphere.

                Yes, when scientists talk about the carbon cycle, they correctly talk about “carbon”, even when talking about human emissions into the atmosphere.

                Why is that Michael? Its because human emissions of carbon into the atmosphere does not comprise solely of the carbon in CO2. It also includes soot, ash and carbon monoxide.

                Thus, it is perfectly incorrect to convert the figure for “carbon emissions” directly to CO2, as you have done.

                Now, please come back with some correct numbers.


                Report this

                31

          • #
            Michael

            Where exactly am I wrong Michael? If anything, its your numbers that are wrong.

            Seriously Backslider you are entirely wrong. Firstly they are your numbers, you took them and used them, you should have understood them before you did that. Secondly the numbers are correct, I will not spoonfeed you anymore, you actually have to GO AND READ SOMETHING. Read the article you got the figure from and then come back and apologise and admit your mistake. Your inability to admit when you made a mistake is getting tiring, I am embarrassed for you :-(


            Report this

            12

            • #
              Backslider

              Firstly they are your numbers, you took them and used them

              No Michael, they are YOUR numbers.

              You are insisting that your CO2 calculation is correct, taken from “carbon emissions”.

              It is not correct and never will be. Perhaps you THINK they are correct, however that does not make it so.

              Who is spoon feeding who? Here I am trying to spoon feed to you the FACT that when scientists talk about “human carbon emissions” that it is NOT just CO2. You like to think it is just CO2, but that does not make it so.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            Michael

            It is embarrassing that I even have to do this, but since you refuse to even look at any peer reviewed science (are you to scared that it will corrupt your confirmation bias?) and just in case somebody is falling for your excuses and desperation I will actually use some basic common sense myself. Something you could have seen quite easily with only a tiny bit of effort.

            From your own quote

            Since 1959, approximately 350 billion tonnes of carbon have been emitted by humans to the atmosphere,

            So basically to make a long story short, they are only counting and have only used human emissions. Cheesh. and if you cannot accept that then ignore and use all the other published calculations I pointed to. Case closed, point proved, stop embarrassing yourself.

            “Since 1850 – 2000 (figures are in petagrams of carbon)
            Addition to atmosphere
            Land Use 154 PgC
            Fossil Fuels 282 PgC
            Cement Manufacture 5.5 PgC
            Adds up to 441.5 PgC

            Over that time CO2 in atmosphere grew by 174PgC (81.5ppmv)
            This demonstrates that 40% of the CO2 caused by man has stayed in the atmosphere and 60% has gone into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
            40% of 441.5 = 174 PgC
            60% of 441.5 = 265.9 PgC”
            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q4

            Also there is good information here
            “The annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 was 1.70±0.09 ppm in 2011 (ppm = parts per million), slightly below the average growth rate of 2 ppm of the past 10 years (2002-2011). The average growth rate for the decade 1990-1999 was 1.5±0.1 ppm, and was 1.6±0.1 for the decade 1980-1989. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was 390 ppm in 2011 on average, 40% above the concentration at the start of the Industrial Revolution (about 278 ppm in 1750). The present concentration is the highest during at least the last 800,000 years. ”
            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/12/hl-full.htm


            Report this

            11

        • #
          Michael

          Backslider, I hope you feel privileged because I don’t normally result to back of the handkerchef calculations, but hey, I was curious.
          So I found a conversion factor, apparently

          1 g C = 0.083 mole CO2 = 3.664 g CO2

          http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.

          So, and I may do this wrong, which is why I prefer actual peer reviewed science evidence,
          157.5 gt of carbon = 577.08 of Co2
          So of the 1200 GT of CO2 increase since industrialisation 577.08 GT has gone into the atmosphere. This is 48% sonny jim. Now if I did your calculations correct I think you just shot yourself in the foot, an own goal.

          I use the disclaimer that I may have done something wrong, working these things out on the fly is not normally my cup of tea, please refer to the actual scientific sources I give above for actual figures and calculations.


          Report this

          23

          • #
            Carbon500

            Michael: your conversion factor accords closely with that given by the IPCC. In ‘Climate Change 2007; The Physical Science Basis’ they state in a footnote on p26 that 1GtC corresponds to 3.67GtCO2.


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Carbon500

            Michael: I’m quite fond of what we here in the UK call ‘back of a fag packet’ calculations, so here’s one I cobbled together earlier. I’ve rounded one or two numbers off to keep things uncluttered.
            In the IPCC’s ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’, figure 1(a) on page 513 shows the human contribution from fossil fuel burning and cement production as being 7Gt of carbon for each year from 2000 to 2005. That’s a total of 35Gt of carbon over those 5 years, which equals 3.67 x 35 = 128Gt of CO2.
            The IPCC tell us on the same page that ‘only 57 to 60% of the CO2 emitted from human activity remains in the atmosphere.’
            Let’s call it 60%.
            Atmospheric CO2 increased from 367ppm in 2000 to 377ppm in 2005, an increase of 10ppm. Since 1ppm of C02 = 7.8Gt of CO2, that’s a total increase of 78Gt of CO2 over the 5 years we’re looking at.
            And yes: 60% of the 128Gt humans produced during that time = 77Gt of CO2.
            This lends support to the view that human activity is behind the total increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.


            Report this

            11

            • #
              Backslider

              That’s a total of 35Gt of carbon over those 5 years, which equals 3.67 x 35 = 128Gt of CO2

              You also are quite wrong Carbon500.

              carbon != CO2

              You must first ascertain how much of that carbon is in fact in CO2.

              Now I see another reason why warmists like to refer to “carbon”. At first I thought it was just because of the “black awful stuff” picture it conjures up, but now I see its also to pad the numbers up…..

              Let’s see… what “carbon” goes into the atmosphere? Soot, ash, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide…..did I miss something?


              Report this

              01

              • #
                Michael

                You also are quite wrong Carbon500.

                carbon != CO2

                You must first ascertain how much of that carbon is in fact in CO2.

                Which is why we apply the conversion factor.

                You are missing quite a lot, basic chemistry and science for a start. The calculations are correct. In science when talking about the carbon cycle it is the carbon that is important, as the carbon takes on many forms depending on where it goes, it does not stay as CO2. You REALLY NEED TO LEARN the carbon cycle. It is seriously important for this discussion.

                Specifically focus on the short and long cycles as well.
                http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

                While you are on a role get a better handle of the greenhouse effect too.
                http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Backslider

                Which is why we apply the conversion factor

                You just don’t get it do you, or you like to pretend ignorance?

                Carbon is not the same thing as CO2. If you are saying the X amount of carbon was pumped into the atmosphere, then you must ascertain how much of that carbon was carbon in CO2.

                You cannot just convert the whole lot to CO2, because its not all CO2 carbon. Get it??


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Backslider

                In science when talking about the carbon cycle it is the carbon that is important, as the carbon takes on many forms depending on where it goes, it does not stay as CO2.

                I think that YOU REALLY NEED TO LEARN Michael.

                You assume that ALL the “carbon” that goes into the atmosphere is CO2. It’s NOT.

                This is why I have asked YOU to come up with figures in gigatonnes of CO2, not “carbon”.

                If you are now saying that ALL of what you refer to as “carbon” going into the atmosphere is CO2, then its YOU who needs to learn about the carbon cycle.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Carbon500

                Backslider: the label on the IPCC figure I refer to states that the amount displayed is (and I quote) ‘CO2 carbon (GtC/year)’
                I can only interpret ‘carbon’ in this context as referring to CO2 and nothing else.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Michael

                Thanks for clarifying that for Backslder, Carbon500, but he won’t accept it. The figure I and Backslider used (in his incorrect calculations) were also only CO2 carbon. Because he won’t go and understand the carbon cycle, and read the science he took the figure from, he does not realise that when talking about movements through the cycle everything needs to be converted to the common element carbon as it takes many forms depending on where it is.


                Report this

                11

              • #
                Mark D.

                Michael says:

                Which is why we apply the conversion factor.

                Really? but you didn’t provide the actual factor. All that science behind you and you didn’t bother a reference?

                Beyond that the link you provide to NASA doesn’t mention “carbon” except in the opening sentence. Then they go on to explain the effects of water vapor and clouds but with the most incredibly shallow and frankly bizarre propaganda style, leaving out the details on what else the water cycle does. No wonder you are confused Michael!

                You really need a deprogramming session.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Really? but you didn’t provide the actual factor. All that science behind you and you didn’t bother a reference?

                Yes I did, on both counts. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/macquarie-university-sabotages-exiles-blackbans-strands-and-abandons-murry-salby/#comment-1295522

                1 g C = 0.083 mole CO2 = 3.664 g CO2

                http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/convert.html#3.


                Report this

                11

          • #
            Michael

            Thanks Carbon 500 :-)


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Backslider

            157.5 gt of carbon = 577.08 of Co2

            Well Michael, you are clearly wrong.

            Carbon in that atmosphere is not composed solely of CO2. There is also soot and ash and there is also carbon monoxide.

            When somebody says “157.5 gt of carbon has been added to the atmosphere” it must include all of these.

            We are only interested in CO2, so please hurry back with some accurate figures from your peer reviewed science.

            When arriving at figure from the burning of fossil fuels for example, you cannot assume perfect combustion and say that is the number for CO2. It’s not.


            Report this

            02

            • #
              Backslider

              Oh, a red thumb for asking for accurate numbers? My….

              Also Michael, you inaccurately refer to “industrialisation” in the same breath as the date 1957, giving the impression you are talking about post war industrialisation…. but now talk about “The Industrial Revolution” (1750).

              Please also stick with a single set of accurate dates.


              Report this

              11

            • #
              Michael

              Well Michael, you are clearly wrong.

              I used your figure, which came from the peer reviewed science that I quoted. The figure and the calculations are correct as far as I can tell. Besides that I also provided another peer reviewed source that had done the calculations, and they come to the same conclusion. So I think the ball is in your court.

              Also Michael, you inaccurately refer to “industrialisation” in the same breath as the date 1957,

              Sorry, my confusion, YOU used the figure from the peer reviewed article that measures from 1957, and I used your figure. The outcomes is the same though, According to Knorr the proportion of mans emissions staying in the atmosphere is not changing, so it is basically about half regardless of the time period, also the increase in atmospheric CO2 since industrialisation in total is 40%. So I suppose the 2 figures are different even though they are related.


              Report this

              11

              • #
                Backslider

                The figure and the calculations are correct as far as I can tell.

                Your figure for “carbon” emissions into the atmosphere converted directly to a figure for the amount of CO2 is clearly wrong, as explained above…. but, I’ll say it again, since you appear rather thick in comprehending it:

                When scientists talk about “human carbon emissions” this is not just CO2. It includes soot, ash and carbon monoxide.

                You need to come back with some numbers for exactly how much of those “carbon emissions” are in fact CO2.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Michael

                As Carbon500 and I pointed out above, the carbon used in the calculations was only carbon from CO2. Because it is a cycle the carbon takes many different forms so all calculations need to be converted to carbon to make comparisons.

                If you read some of the science we generously give you, you might understand.


                Report this

                20

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Bernd Felsche July 10, 2013 at 12:21 am wrote: “Upon reflection, if the “University” received funding from the ARC for funding research by Salby, then they should also have questions to answer about the use of research funds. But, given the current political situation, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.”

    By coincidence, I’ve been following similar money trails through the Cwth Dept of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency. There are several pages of emails, so I’ll give just the introductory ones here.
    …………………………………….
    From: sherro1@optusnet.com.au [mailto:sherro1@optusnet.com.au]
    Sent: Wednesday, 25 July 2012 10:33 PM
    To: enquiries@climatechange.gov.au
    Subject: Due Diligence – Grants from Department of Climate Change

    For the responsible person.

    The Department of Climate Change provided funds to facilitate the preparation of a publication described in two earlier emails I have sent to you and send now for the third time.

    Please note that the Department of Climate Change provided funds for this paper. The paper has now been withdrawn by the first-named author.

    Does the Department of Climate Change have a policy of seeking a refund of monies spent on papers subsequently withdrawn?

    It would be appreciated if you would answer the questions already asked of you in the recopied email below. The matter might well gain national prominence and the Department would not, I presume, like to be seen in an uncooperative and unfavourable light.

    Geoffrey H Sherrington
    Scientist.
    ……………………………………………………..

    Copy of email already sent to you twice:

    …………………………………………………….
    From: sherro1@optusnet.com.au

    Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:51 PM

    To: enquiries@climatechange.gov.au

    Subject: Disclosure of information by persons under contract

    Might you please describe the requirements for authors of scientific papers to make available some or all of the raw data behind a publication when the publication is funded in part or in full by the Department of Climate Change, and/or under Contract to it. If the information exists in an Act, might you please disclose it and the relevant section. It there are guidelines from the Department of Climate Change, might they please be emailed to me or referred to in a form that has reasonable access properties. If the Department of Climate Change is involved with publications that have no guidelines for data availability and archiving, might you please make this clear to me. In the event that there is a complexity caused by dates of commencement, amendment or cessation of Acts, Regulations, Contracts or Guidelines pertinent to the activities of the Department of Climate Change, Australia, you might use the specific example of Dr Joelle Gergis et al, Melbourne University. The information below is from the public source

    http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person203094.html

    Contracts

    Title Role Funding Source Award Date ESTIMATING NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN THE AUSTRALASIAN REGION OVER THE PAST 2,000 YEARS: DATA SYNTHESIS FOR THE IPCC 5TH ASSESSMENT REPORT Chief Investigator DEPT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 01/01/2011

    This is believed to have led in part or in full to a publication – J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, 2012.
    ……………………………………………

    Answers from the Dept have slowed because no person will put a natural name to replies to me. The emails are signed “Climate Change Science Team”. They refused to divulge who they were, despite several requests.

    There are some dubious works going on with funds in the climate change business. In a few months, we might start to find out who and what is at work. There is no shortage of questions to ask officials. Like, do authors refund advances for failed papers or not?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Backslider

      In a few months, we might start to find out who and what is at work

      I can just imagine the money trail and favours for mates…. what a headache.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Michael writes this stupid impossible stuff that is easily countered by people who think rationally:

    CO2 has increased in the atmosphere by a whopping 40% since industrialisation and in near perfect correlation to mans emissions. The amount matches the amount of increase in the atmosphere and estimated other natural processes. Therefore about half of mans CO2 goes into the atmosphere, nature has a slight protecting effect by absorbing the other half for us, but this is damaging the chemistry of the oceans. So if the atmosphere is increasing by half of mans emissions the oceans cannot be the source of CO2, otherwise the atmosphere would be higher than mans emissions not less. Simple logical reasoning. How do you explain where mans emissions are going? So stop this nonsense, the discussion on this page shows how deceptive, desperate and incorrect the side that denies the science of AGW is.

    Carbon Dioxide: The Houdini of Gases

    LINK

    Selected Excerpt:

    In 1750, carbon’s weight in the atmosphere was 590
    billion metric tons.
    By 2000 it was about 790 billion.

    and,

    (The chart in the link) shows that mankind from 1750 to 2006 added about 9 billion metric tons.

    Nature added 200 billion metric tons since 1750-2006
    Mankind added 9 billion metric tons since 1750-2006

    Figure it out sir!


    Report this

    32

    • #
      Michael

      Well firstly the site for your information is nonsense, ilovemycarbondioxide.com, seriously? another biased opinion blogger? Give me a break, do you guys ever use any ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCES for your information.

      Nothing to comment on, I have provided clear and actual peer reviewed science and logic that proves mankinds emssions are the source for nearly all of the increase in CO2. The amount man emits is about half of the amount going into the atmosphere with the rest going into other natural processes. Your claim above is most likely ignoring the carbon cycle, as is the specialty here and only considering what nature emits while ignoring what it absorbs. You are continuing the tradition of all others here by never providing any actual science or logical explanations. Man emits CO2, CO2 is increasing half in the atmosphere and the oceans are increasing in CO2 as well. There is no logic for another source, otherwise as pointed out in my quote the atmosphere would be MORE than mans emissions. Smoke and mirrors again due to desperation that basic logic and actual peer reviewed science is doing you in and you have none to counter it.


      Report this

      24

      • #

        Michael,

        I don’t usually respond to trolls like you, but really, you must be positively blind, or stupid. You say here, and I’ll leave both spelling errors in place here, because you guys are always so quick to tell us we lose the argument because of incorrect spelling etc.:

        …..that proves mankinds emssions are the source for nearly all of the increase in CO2.

        I can’t believe you can sit on your high moral perch and pretend that you think you are crapping on us, and not actually notice what is happening in front of your own eyes.

        You tell us that you KNOW positively that man made emissions are the cause, and yet you’ve done absolutely nothing about shutting off those emissions.

        If there’s a Cancer, cut it out ….. immediately, no matter how much pain that means.

        If the emissions are so bad, then stop the damned stuff from being emitted in the first place. Bloody well do something.

        Shut down the causes.

        Have you done that?

        No.

        You haven’t even started.

        No one has. They pay it lip service, point at your backers and nod their heads with all seriousness, saying just the things you sooooo want to hear, and then all they do is proceed to make money from it.

        Are they shutting down the greatest source of those emissions?

        Well, no, and you know why?

        Because if they do, it would be political suicide, and they KNOW it. It’s just another way to increase revenue for them, and they throw a small proportion of that money at your backers, telling them to keep doing what they are doing, and to ensure that funding stays in place, then just keep saying what you are saying.

        Talk talk talk. That’s all you’ve got, and all of it garnered from someone who tells you what it is you need to say.

        Go away and preach to the already converted. We use our brains here. We think for ourselves.

        Tony.


        Report this

        21

      • #
        Heywood

        So to sum up….

        In order to save your children from the evil fossil fuel industries who pay copious amounts of money to this blog to spread misinformation, you spend hours of your own time astroturfing this blog with post after post demanding peer reviewed answers to all your questions whilst ignoring anything directing you to what you think is an opinion blog (unless it’s “proof” of fossil fuel funding, then blogs are apparently OK) just to convince us that man emits CO2 and the world has warmed since industrialisation?? I don’t know too many here that doesn’t agree that man emits CO2, or that it has warmed for that matter.

        Do you actually have a life?


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Michael

          I don’t know too many here that doesn’t agree that man emits CO2, or that it has warmed for that matter.

          lol, you could have fooled me. Feel free to scroll up and see how many people are debating those very topics, and considering the amount of people and how many post repeatedly you could say the same thing of many posters here.

          So your point is?

          I am glad though to find someone who accepts the overwhelming evidence that mans emssions have increased CO2 atmospheric concentration by 40%. I was despairing of anybody here accepting any science.


          Report this

          32

  • #
  • #

    [...] leading scientists apparently lost their job for not supporting the global warming narrative. See here and here from Australia’s JoNova [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    the real truth

    The last few decades have seen a decline in standards in research to the extent that the PhD “bubble” is about to burst. Too many very average scientists produced whose real contribution to worldly knowledge is marginal. I thought they all were at Macquarie university BUt it seems by this blog that they are all over. Maybe its time to pull your heads in and start making a real difference in science.


    Report this

    11

  • #
    R.J.Greem

    What is that Institution, which seems to go by the name of Macquarie University? Is it in Siberia?
    It seems to publish rubbish that is all:
    Cons
    Spin
    Irrelevances
    Rorts &
    Obfuscations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert Holmes

    Disgusting what Maquarie has done to a brilliant scientist.
    They prefer alarmists like that idiot Flannery, because then they will be assured of $millions in taxpayer dollars.
    Macquarie must be brought to account by the new government; those responsible for the poor treatment and sacking of Salby must pay.
    You Tube’s 1000frolly


    Report this

    00