GOAL MET! THANKS TO EVERYONE, see the update from Peter Ridd here. See UPDATE below: JCU, feeling some blowback, issues a press release on a Sunday.
WUWT readers may recall that WUWT spearheaded an effort to help Ridd’s legal fund, earning nearly $100,000 in donations in two days. According to Ridd, in an email to me:
They gave me a set of new allegations a few days after the successful gofundme campaign in February and we have been fighting them ever since. They really hated that gofundme campaign as one would expect.
Ridd wrote then:
I am astonished, very relieved and most importantly incredibly grateful for the support. I would also particularly like to thank Anthony, Jennifer Marohasy, Jo Nova, Willie Soon, Benny Peiser and many others for getting the issue up on blogs and spreading the word.
Here are the latest details, Ridd says in an email:
With the assistance from the Institute of Public Affairs we have appointed a Queens Counsel lawyer (absolute top gun lawyer in the British/Australian system) and we are still confident that we will win the case. Firing me has merely doubled the bet.
He posted this on his GoFundMe page early this morning:
Just an update of my battle
On 2 May, 2018, I received a letter from James Cook University (JCU) terminating my employment. JCU have sacked me because I dared to fight the university and speak the truth about science and the Great Barrier Reef.
Shortly after I went public with the GoFundMe campaign to which you donated in February the university presented me with a further set of misconduct allegations, which alleged that I acted inappropriately by talking about the case and have now ended my employment.
I will be fighting their employment termination, alongside the original 25 charges behind JCU’s ‘final censure’ last year.
As a consequence of the sacking, and the new misconduct allegations, my legal costs have substantially increased. JCU appears to be willing to spend their near unlimited legal resources fighting me. In the name of honesty and truth in science, we must fight back. We have an excellent legal team and are confident that we can win the legal case.
I feel extremely indebted to all those who have given so generously. I was blown away by the number of people who supported me, and I had hoped that more funding would not be necessary. Sadly, however circumstances have changed.
I have contributed another $15000 of my own money, in addition to the $24000k I have already spent. However, based on the growing complexity of the case, we will need to raise an additional $159000. It is a bit frightening, but we have reopened the GoFundMe site to receive more donations.
You have already contributed generously so all I ask of you is to help spread the word to expand the number of people who are helping.
I know there were many who were unable to donate the first time – including my own Mum – due to the speed we reached the original target of $95K.
For additional background on all the new allegations from JCU, I have uploaded all the documentation so that you can judge JCU’s allegations for yourself if you wish. https://platogbr.wordpress.com/fired-details/
In summary, JCU (1) objects to my criticism of the earlier allegations; (2) criticised my involvement with the Institute of Public Affairs; and (3) objects to me not remaining silent. The facts of the matter are simple: (1) the earlier allegations were an unreasonable infringement on my academic freedom, I was well within my rights to criticise JCU; (2) I have never been paid by the IPA, other than some initial support for my legal case and reimbursement for flights and hotels related to speaking arrangements which is normal academic practice; and (3) I am well within my rights, as stated by my employment agreement, to speak publicly about disciplinary proceedings.
Thanks, Peter
Jennifer Marohasy says on her web page:
BACK in 2016, when I asked Peter Ridd if he would write a chapter for the book I was editing I could not possibly have envisaged it would contribute to the end of his thirty-year career as a university professor.
Since Peter was fired on 2 May 2018, James Cook University has attempted to remove all trace of this association: scrubbing him completely from their website.
But facts don’t cease to exist because they are removed from a website. The university has never challenged the veracity of Peter’s legitimate claims about the quality of much of the reef science: science on which billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded research is being squandered. These issues are not going away.
Just yesterday (Friday 18 May), Peter lodged papers in the Australian Federal Court. He is going to fight for his job back!
If you care about the truth, science and academic freedom, please donate to help bring this important case to court.
It doesn’t matter how little or how much you donate. Just make sure you are a part of this important effort by donating to Peter’s GoFundMe campaign.
There is more information at my blog, and a chart showing how much some reef researchers have fudged the figures.
Thanks for caring.
Sincerely,
Dr Jennifer Marohasy
This action is seriously wrong, and the mark of a collection of cowards engaged in group-think. It sets precedent for the death of free speech, free ideas, and freedom to interpret science where the data leads you.
Because they are in the wrong, JCU will, in the end, be forced to capitulate. Let’s make them miserable using every legal method available. – Anthony
UPDATE: Feeling the Streisand effect in full force, JCU issues a rare Sunday press release:
https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2018/may/statement-about-peter-ridd
CLICK TO DONATE
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
JCU is doing to Peter Ridd what it did to Bob Carter – but Cairns and Townsville newspapers don’t want to know about it. The original James Cook would be spinning in his grave about now.
I have a special loathing for JCU for what they did to Bob. And now this. All of us need to attack this crowd of revolting specimens without cease. I’d like to see pieces explaining to the World what is going on at extreme left wing gulag JCU punned at the top of all the major climate realist blogs.
That was a great university and a great geology dept until the CAGW BS-artists decided it just had to be infiltrated, ther was too much actual earth science being taught, and not nearly enough UN IPCC propaganda pamphlets being circulated.
Look at it now, a reviled husk of what it once was when people like Bob Henderson, Mike Rubenach, Bob Carter, P J Stephenson and Chris Cuff made it the place for actual Earth science learning, then one of the top three geological sciences schools in Australia.
Now JCU promotes anti-science and blattant repression.
Where is the support from the actual scientists working at JCU? Why are they not standing up and putting and end to this anti-science nonsense, coming from JCU administration offices?
You, the scientists of the other JCU sciences can end this—just close down the science faculty in protest for a week. Keep it up until this JCU Admin nonsense ends.
Or are you too afraid of brain-washed students and media? You think you’re defeated already? If so you’ve already left it too late to do the right things.
just over a day since reactivating the fund me site and only $63,000 to go
This bloke also taught at JCU
https://acaaportal.com/whats-happening/orations/121-max-murray-oration
Bob Carter was the greatest and I was unaware that JCU screwed him. He’ s a man of even greater courage and conviction for truth then.
Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet. The reality of that is, we can bet no one hears about it, and either the Beak will judge against Ridd, or it will be settled out of court, or something, or Ridd will win and the whole thing hushed, not a word mentioned of it anywhere and it just won’t exist.
The media in Oz has total control over silence, the power to make things non existent.
This is a country where people all stand around silent on railway platforms because conversation is banned and fined by active police. To quote a recent shocked visitor, “The only thing free on the train was the WiFi.”
Joe, I’m not sure what part of Australia you been to but I find that comment utter nonsense. Please see the Australia newspaper today headline “Marine science rebel Peter Ridd sacked by James Cook University”
Australian newspaper, sorry.
Joe Adams “This is a country where people all stand around silent on railway platforms because conversation is banned and fined by active police. To quote a recent shocked visitor, “The only thing free on the train was the WiFi.””
In 67 years in Australia, mainly Sydney, I’ve NEVER encountered anything like the situation in your final paragraph. Until now I’ve never even heard of it. What’s your evidence Joe?
Joe Adams said “Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet.”
Nanaimo on Vancouver Island, Canada, is worse. The government of British Columbia just raised the global warming ‘carbon’ tax again and the local rag did not report it.
I’m prepared to admit and lament the degree of political correctness in this country but show me a country where railway platforms are brimming with conversation, for heaven’s sake (and I’ve seen many). What a ridiculous comment.
Joe we have the Murdocracy and Rupert allows his editors free reign.
The ABC, SBS and Fairfax media all avoid informing the masses that global warming is on its last legs.
“Australia is the most completely media controlled and indoctrinated country on the planet.”
Hyperbole.
Off the cuff, the Ministry of Truth in North Korea, MSM UK and EU, MSM New Zealand, MSM USA, MSM Canada give Australia more than a very good run for its money.
The Australian newspaper is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is vilified by the Left for printing the truth.
In terms of free speech limitations, Australia has a long way to go to catch up with the likes of Sweden and the UK. If you haven’t been following the UK recently, we have seen people banned from entering for wrong think, detained before being deported for the audacity of wanting to talk about free speech at Speaker’s Corner, tried and convicted over jokes and tweets, and there is legislation afoot to incarcerate people for propagating harmful tweets. One can only imagine how much worse it will become if Corbyn ever seizes power, which is possible given how ridiculously weak the Conservatives are right now.
Australia is streets ahead in these areas, but expect the local regressives to try and close the gap.
During my youth, I commuted to college every day, by train.
People traveling by train adhere to regular schedules. People that see each other every day, day after day; end up talking to each other and cliques form. Cliques that did allow new members to join.
* We met at bars after school.
* We met for dinners.
* We got together for sports events, especially shared sports.
* One day I was surprised when my train mates discussed working on their birthdays. Three out of four of us shared the same day. Later we added a fourth when the conductor, who often sat with us during his quiet moments, turned out to share the same day. All of us were treating our birthday as a normal day and either working or attending school.
During the latter part of my career, I commuted to work via train every day for over ten years.
Occasionally, I’d join a carpool, but usually dropped the carpool for one reason or another.
One of the major reasons was failure to have 3 commuters, out of six members with two maybes; HOV lanes required 3 riders in a vehicle.
Those days, I took the train, anyway.
I joined and became friends with many train riders. We’d meet at the station, talk to each other and look out for each other.
* We often met outside of work schedules sharing dinners, picnics, sports events, weddings and even auctions.
* Talking about work was a no-no, unless the topic was major news. One day, traveling to Omaha, Nebraska from Washington DC, I ran into another member of our train family at the luggage claim. We laughed about the travel schedule coincidence and even managed to have dinner together one time, at the hotel.
* Several times, I joined loud and boisterous groups, fun is contagious; laughter attracts other riders.
For several years, our group filled half of a train car, with half of those folks boarding the train at it’s first platform; the rest joined us as the train stopped at other stations.
* Grumpy people would get angry and very overbearing about our activity, and we’d laugh, loudly. Those folks tended to be nasty at all times of the day, not just mornings.
* When the train had problems or got stuck along the way, we’d share solutions to our group problem of getting to work. Just as friends help each other out, whether at work, home, church/temple, sports competitions and activities, etc. etc.
When work sent me to Europe, I noticed that the Paris stations had groups of people laughing and talking.
Train platforms are often lively places with friends greeting and talking to friends. Loners are loners wherever they are.
People who despise strangers intruding, playful banter, discussion, jokes and other people sharing the train ride often fail to notice the many small groups in close discussion, or they hate those others who enjoy friends and friendship; no matter where they are.
It’s all about one’s own personality.
“MSM USA” is not able to censure or silence the American people.
Outside of facebook and twitter being anti-conservative, or SJWs or wacky antis’ clogging comments or flooding certain MSM news stories; there is no restriction on free speech in America.
That a newspaper is blind to positive conservative news or blind, deaf and dumb regarding liberal progressive bad news is driven by that particular news source ownership; not government.
Bad actors are bad actors. Violent and/or overtly aggressive anti-Trumpers are the ones getting disciplined, fired, incarcerated for thuggish acts anti_Trumpers perform.
There are plenty of honest news outlets and sanity driven comment threads. Leaving only the lazy, gullible and wilfully blind people, in thrall to liberal progressive news outlets.
Ratings for many if not most partisan liberal progressive news outlets keep plummeting. Eventually, simple economics will force a correction; even when when despotic billionaires try to control the news.
Betcha JCU have their hands out bigtime for a slab of the 500MIL our stupid PM announced the other week for Reef reserach.
research;-)
Here is a good link to news at JCU:
https://www.jcu.edu.au/@jcu/snakes-on-campus (rid the campus for snakes….)
Perhaps anyone out there who is a hiring manager could let them know that you will not be giving consideration to any job applicant with a JCU degree from the last ten years until such time as they show themselves to actually be a university rather than an indoctrination center. Make it known that their students will be unemployable anywhere except at the government and environmental NGOs.
Alums should send a letter letting them know that no further donations will occur until such time as the current administration is sacked!
Academia will one day be seen as a bad point in a resume. People will lie about it, claiming they went to a univ only for the booze and party and girls (or guys) and never went to a single class, when they actually went to all classes and got excellent grades.
There was booze and parties and girls? Why wasn’t I told?
People will lie about it, (s)he said.
+1 We should be doing this with any University that promotes politics or punishes for scientific beliefs. As well, we should get businesses to support these efforts and make a stand. A list is appropriate and should be circulated. Time to take the offensive.
Yup. My three time alma mater is just beginning after three years of them flying down to solicit a major gift from me to understand that Some years, more than from one of the three schools. For the third year in a row (always treating them to lunch or dinner) , I have asked whether they had yet fired Naomi Oreskes? I gave them always the same specifics as to why. Just like JCU, it is now their problem, not mine. My money votes with my feet.
If rationalism is removed from science is that which is left worth having?
“OweninGA May 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm
Perhaps anyone out there who is a hiring manager could let them know that you will not be giving consideration to any job applicant with a JCU degree…”
That could be considered discrimination in Australian employment law if the applicant ever found out there was an unofficial policy against candidates with degrees from JCU.
Either way it’s a disgusting way to be treated by an organisation, supposedly a place of learning. This is very common in Australia.
Unfortunately, I am in no position to donate. I wish you all the best. Please keep WUWT up to date with progress because I know we won’t hear anything approaching the truth in the Aussie MSM.
correction
we will hear NOTHING at all about this from msm or aunty abc
it will be utterly ignored
Really an odd law as the evaluation of credentials is part of the hiring process. If the credentials don’t meet the job requirements, and JCUs public behavior indicates their degrees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, then one does not evaluate the candidate as qualified. Seems pretty evident that if you hire a JCU credentialed researcher you are getting someone who “settles science” by silencing any opposition. That would not be conducive to long term profitability of a company and thus would be something to “discriminate” against.
But you are probably correct, the practice of English common law everywhere except the USA has drifted far from its roots. Even in the US, the unions have managed to override the common sense features of common law with socialist blather. In the rest of the former British Empire, socialism has so contaminated the common sense of the common law as to make it unrecognizable to an 18th century practitioner of the law. The case could be made that the degradation of common law is the proximate cause of the collapse of the British Empire (not saying it is the strongest case). The lack of anything like English common law is a large part of what has held back the development of the rest of the world.
I would have thought that discriminating on the basis of the credentials and reputation, or lack of reputation or credentials of the issuer of a degree is perfectly legal. There are plenty of pay for a degree institutions all around the world, that sell use less degrees!
Just gave another hundred.
Hopefully Peter might consider a Countersuit for damages
As he is making the claim, he can’t file a countersuit against himself – that would be JCU’s option. However, he can, and presumably has, made a claim for damages as an integral part of the case.
I hope he’s named individuals too, as this seems to be a catalyst for waking people up to reality.
Are Court documents public in Oz, as they are here, even if you have to use a service like PACER? If so, it would hardly be a strong case against for releasing public documents to the public.
Based on lost salary (ten years?) this wrongful termination could have some big additional damages.
i just did the same. this cannot stand !
The up/down/”back” radiation greenhouse gas energy loop of the radiative greenhouse effect theory is pencil on paper, a spreadsheet cell, a “what if” scenario and NOT a physical reality.
Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses.
Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.
And with a snap of the fingers and “Presto!!” the bazillion dollar global climate change fantasy is suddenly unemployed.
Must be why nobody is allowed to talk about this possibility. Not newsworthy enough? Or too far outside the fake news narrative?
Doesn’t the CO2 below intercept the back-radiation from above as well. Sorry, not included in the theory.
Radiation flow and collisional energy exchange flow in a gaseous atmosphere should only be thought of as a big giant mystery.
The molecules are colliding with each other and the surface 7 billion times per second. Now multiply 7 billion by the number of atmospheric molecules (1.1 X 10^44) and then make that happen every second (86,400 seconds in a day) and then make that happen with the number of photons coming in from the Sun each day (1.6 X 10^40) and the number of photons leaving the Earth every day (8 X 10^40).
There is Zero chance of understanding that system or making a model of it.
So, we agree then that RGHE theory is nonsense as is CO2s influence over the climate.
its modelled all the time.
successfully.
Anything can be modeled. Even things that can’t exist. You just need enough parameters.
Bill, we make models of that sort of thing all the time. The trick is that you don’t try to model the base physics. We don’t have a Matrix that can run it.
You model the system as a flow using bulk calculations. You can’t possibly calculate how all the water molecules in a river will behave, but you can trivially calculate how fast it’s flowing. This does have limitations, as you need to have a model for each interaction. And the formula must be derived from observation of how the bulk behaves. However, it can be done.
I agree with the numbers. And add to that all the different weights at different elevations and temperatures of the air acting upon itself,and where on the globe under what thickness of atmosphere and which solar inclination it all is, all causing different pressures and changing the frequency of collisions, of molecules of different sizes and mass.
Then add water. . and spin.
Here is the difference between Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman.. Stephen Hawking believed in global warming. Richard Feynman would have destroyed global warming in a 2 page treatise. Richard Feynman not only did his physics as thought processes; He actually worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project, the making of the atomic bomb. He was a giant. I believe that the date was no coincidence that James Hansen went before Congress in the summer of 1988 to “warn” of global warming. He had to wait until Richard Feynman died of cancer in February 1988. He knew who Richard Feynman was and he knew that Feynman would have destroyed him if he was still alive when Hansen gave his talk to Congress. Unfortunately today there is no great physicist of Feynman.s stature to stand against the group think of global warming.
Further to my post. I looked at a website list of the top 49 scientists living today. It was top 50 but Stephen Hawking died. On that list there are 4 who are expertise either in quantum physics quantum chemistry or theoretical physics. I emailed them all to get their thoughts on global warming. I will report the results.
“its modelled all the time.
successfully.”
Always amusing to see Mosher make dumb comments. What “success”? What does that mean in this context? Which models, run once, have any skill in forecasting? I can run my three line climate model, with its two assumptions (sensitivity to increased CO2 and feedback effect) and be “successful” – I just have to run all the possible permutations of my two assumptions. One of them will produce a “successful” forecast. So what?
An example: CO2 goes up x. Sensitivity is 0.01 degrees increase in global average temperature per x. Feedback is +5%.
Global average temperature if CO2 goes up by x = 0.01 x (1+0.05)
To get my two assumptions your massive models do maths to loads of assumptions, but that doesn’t make your models any more accurate than mine.
Friends,
With his usual expression of doctrinaire falsehood in place of veracity and reality, Steven Mosher says of the radiative greenhouse effect (RGHE),
“its modelled all the time.
successfully.”
The absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’.demonstrates that the models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality. Their only “success” is in generation of computer games that promote a political ideology.
The ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is warming at altitude that is between two-times and three-times the warming at the surface in the tropics. It is clearly explained by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Chapter 9 of IPCC WG1 AR4 and specifically Figure 9.1.
The IPCC Chapter can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
and its Figure 9.1 is on page 675.
Importantly, the text says,
“The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models.”
The Figure caption says;
“Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).”
The tropospheric ‘hot spot’ is the big, red blob that is only seen in Panels (c) and (f) of Figure 9.1.
In other words, the ‘hot spot’ is a unique effect of “well mixed greenhouse gases” predicted by the PCM models the IPCC approves. And that effect is so great that the models predict it has overwhelmed all the other significant forcings.
But the ‘hot spot’ has not occurred, and this is indicated by independent measurements obtained by radiosondes mounted on balloons (since 1958) and by MSUs mounted on satellites (since 1979).
The ‘hot spot’ is so large an effect that it should be clearly seen if the models “successfully” model climate change and the warming from “well mixed greenhouses gases” has been greatest most recently in the modelled period so should be very obvious in the radiosonde and MSU data. Simply, the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is absent from the real-world observations.
In other words,
IF ONE BELIEVES THE IPCC THEN THE ABSENCE OF THE ‘HOT SPOT’ IS A DIRECT REFUTATION OF THE AGW HYPOTHESIS AS EMULATED BY THE CLIMATE MODELS.
However, the reason for the ‘hot spot’ is not unique to anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) warming or “well mixed greenhouse gases” and is as follows.
1.
Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. And the climate models constructed to promote assertions of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) assume that as temperature increases so will the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere.
2.
CO2 is also a greenhouse gas so increased CO2 in the air increases radiative forcing to increase temperature.
3.
The models assume increased temperature induced by increased atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of water held in the atmosphere (because of point 1).
4.
But water vapour is the main greenhouse gas so radiative forcing is increased a lot by the increased amount of water the models assume is held in the atmosphere as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.
5.
The large increase to radiative forcing from the increased amount of water held in the atmosphere increases the temperature a lot.
Points 1 to 5 are are known as the Water Vapour Feedback (WVF).
The direct effect on global temperature from a doubling of CO2 in the air would b about 1 deg.C. And (according to e.g. the IPCC) the effect of the WVF is to increase this warming to between 3 and 6.5 deg.C.
Clearly, there are large assumptions in calculation of the WVF: this is undeniable because the range of its calculated effect is so large (i.e. to increase warming of ~1 deg.C to a warming in the range 3 to 6.5 deg.C).
One of the assumptions is how much water vapour is held in the atmosphere and where it is distributed. Large effects of the WVF are induced by assumption of large increase to water vapour at altitude.
The major radiative forcing effect is at altitude in the tropics because
(a) long wave radiation is from the Earth’s surface,
(b) emission of the radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the surface temperature,
(c) the surface temperature is hottest in the tropics, and
(d) cold air holds little water vapour.
Temperature decreases with altitude and, therefore, the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapour decreases with altitude. So, small increase to temperature with altitude permits the air at altitude to hold more water. And, therefore, enables WVF at altitude.
The increase to WVF with altitude causes largest increase to radiative forcing (so largest increase to temperature) at altitude. And the radiative forcing effect is strongest in the tropics so the largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics.
This ‘largest increase to temperature at altitude is in the tropics’ is the ‘hot spot’. But the ‘hot spot’ is missing.
This could be because
(i) the assumption of WVF is wrong,
or
(ii) the calculated increase to radiative forcing of CO2 and/or water vapour is wrong,
or
(iii) the calculated ability of air to hold water vapour is wrong,
or
(iv) something else as yet unknown.
Whichever of these is true, it is certain that the absence of the ‘tropospheric hot spot’ is conclusive evidence that
Climate models fail to represent observed climate changes.
Or
There has been no global warming from “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
Or
There has been no global warming from any cause including “well mixed greenhouse gases”.
In other words, climate models are complete failures as scientific emulations of physical reality, and their only “success” is in generation of computer games that are used to promote a political ideology.
Richard
Alan, it’s interesting that Hawking studied at Cambridge whilst noted atheist Fred Hoyle was championing the Steady state universe as the consensus theory.
How times change
Would people PLEASE stop talking about “photons” as if they were real elementary particles. They are not.
They are an invention of the human mind to try to help explain certain “lumpy” observations in experiments with electromagnetic radiation. Get back to talking about e-m waves and it will help enormously.
When an N2 atmospheric molecule absorbs energy (which it most definitely does through collisional energy exchange), it NEVER emits that energy.
How’s that for a greenhouse effect. 78% of the atmosphere NEVER emit energy away from the Earth after they have absorbed it. And throw liquid N2 onto the floor and watch how fast it absorbs the energy from the floor, rest of the air. Within seconds, the entire liquid N2 pail will be at room temperature within 2 seconds.
Now explain how N2 is treated in a climate model. They assume it plays no role whatsoever. Completely wrong. N2 dominates the greenhouse effect but it is built in as Zero.
“There is Zero chance of understanding that system or making a model of it.”
Accurately modeling the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere is next to impossible. But you can model ideal gases by statistical mechanics. Maxwell and Boltzmann did it in the 19th century without solving the Navier-Stokes equations.
“Now explain how N2 is treated in a climate model.”
It’s treated as an ideal gas. N2 molecular collisions largely determine air pressure.
“N2 dominates the greenhouse effect but it is built in as Zero.”
N2 is not a GHG
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
“Unfortunately today there is no great physicist of Feynman.s stature to stand against the group think of global warming.”
While not of Feynman’s stature, these reputable physicists are against CAGW:
Freeman Dyson
Iver Giaever – Nobel Prize laureate in physics
Will Happer – Professor of physics at Princeton U
Fred Singer – atmospheric physicist
Richard Lindzen – atmospheric physicist
Chris Essex – theoretical physicist
Steve Koonin – theoretical physicist
Sallie Baliunas – astrophysicist
Nir Shaviv – astrophysicist
Henrik Svensmark – astrophysicist
Mosh,
What an Idiotic answer – Of course it can be modelled, I can model Time Travel too, or teleportation, or existing in two places at the same time but that doesn’t make them reality. Climate models are no more reality than time-travel is. Indeed climate models break energy conservation at almost every interface except TOA and that alone makes them impossible.
Off topic.
“Steven Mosher May 18, 2018 at 6:37 pm
its modelled all the time.
successfully.”
….if this is what you call success
Yes like most things in Climate Science you just play with the definitions, success could well mean it runs to completion without a program fault or it gives the answer 42 … it’s Climate Science and anything goes.
It strikes me that IPCC model “success” is defined by IPCC “confidence,” which if I recall correctly for the important bits, runs strong at a notional 95% “confidence.” Inadvertent conflation with a statistically significant 95% CI is entirely intentional. It is the UN MO, seen elsewhere with UNFCCC defined “Climate change” and “climate variability” and UN ECOSOC defined “civil society” … the latter begging the question, if you don’t happen to be an accredited member how are you described … “UNcivil?” There’s an irony in their somewhere.
Nick, you are mistaken. Everybody CAN talk about it, it is just that you have to choose carefully WHERE to talk about it.
There is some really amusing nonsense all over the internet apparently from people with PhDs (or better) who talk about back radiation, black bodies, photons,GHG, etc, etc.
I’m starting a scrap book of cuttings of this SH1T for the benefit of my grandchildren. Also collecting books on both sides of the argument. This is monumental history in the making and we are only at the start of it.
But DO keep mentioning the points (i.e. No such thing as GHGs, etc) on WUWT, there is a good sized group on here who do KNOW and it is growing despite the “squeaking” from certain quarters.
Can’t Peter Ridd up the stakes by suing the University for slandering his good academic name? The President or chancellor’s job should be on the line and they should be inviting serious financial penalties. Also, the alumni should be asked if they approve of this behaviour.
Dunno Aus law, but if like the US (where I am a licensed attorney) that generally follos UK common law with some unique evolutionary tweak since independence, then YES. Big time.
Defamation laws in Australia are very tricksy – the truth does not set you free.
Yes, note that one requirement is that the defamer publish the defamation. I am not sure that happened – However publish does not mean to the world, if the Dean sent an e-mail to staff about the dismissal impugning Peter’s character or reputation then that is sufficient to establish defamation.
bobl – the press release at the end of the head post seems to cover publishing the defamation.
You don’t defame someone just for firing them, you are guilty of wrongful dismissal. The remedies for a successful case is Reinstatement or Monetary compensation. Compensation is always higher if the employer won’t reinstate because it carries a penalty component.
If your heart beats, strengthen it with a donation to a freedom-loving brother. Fight for freedom now before it’s gone.
done & done.
Fight the goons.
Fight to win.
Done.
Go get’em Peter
Correct me if I am wrong but still plenty of references to Peter Ridd on the Uni website?
https://www.jcu.edu.au/search?collection=jcua&query=peter+ridd
The JCU desperation is palpable. Lets all contribute and make this legal battle part of the climate endgame. Steyn is hung up in DC against Mann, this is not.
Forgot to add, so incensed contributed $500 with an admonition to take JCU down and recover big damages.
And perhaps let James Chook University know what you think:
alumni@jcu.edu.au
engagement@jcu.edu.au
Hell, yes.
I love your final sentence Anthony. “Because they are in the wrong, JCU will, in the end, be forced to capitulate. Let’s make them miserable using every legal method available”.
And might I add, hope that all costs are awarded against JCU.
In unfair dismissal proceedings parties have to pay their own legal costs, regardless of the outcome.
The exception is under the Fair Work Act 2009 a successful party can seek costs against the other party if that party caused costs to be incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission in conducting the matter.
In other words so long as the JCU and it’s lawyers act in a reasonable manner there is no basis to be able to claim costs regardless of the outcome.
I thought the whole point was that they were/are acting in an unreasonable manner.
However, if JCU have defamed Mr Ridd and that claim forms part of the legal suit then substantial damages and costs can be awarded
“In other words so long as the JCU and it’s lawyers act in a reasonable manner there is no basis to be able to claim costs regardless of the outcome.”
The reasonableness of the dispute appears evident, and it would be shame if Peter Ridd were not rewarded. This is not only about unlawful dismissal, there is some email snooping, blackmail-like censure, and finally, a huge amount of claims that necessarily increase the amount of costs in court.
**** being UNreasonable can not be disputed ***
Done.
A real university is supposed to encourage diverse ideas, not suppress the ones they disagree with. Sadly, instead of being of Institutions of Learning the world’s Universities are degenerating into Instruments of Propaganda.
That was before the advent of post modern science.
Now the experts declare what the truth is and persecute anyone who doesn’t genuflect quickly enough.
In a fight between Jennifer Marohasy and James Cook University, I would give Jennifer Marohasy a huge edge because of her intelligence and persistence. The effort by WUWT and the crowd-funding for this fight are inspiring. I would love to see JCU severely mauled in Court.
Me too. I want to see these Marxist goons made an example of. Time for the academic thugs to be taken down in a manner which will demonstrate to all that the people are coming to take their Universities back.
Gave again.
Yes stay with it.
The documentation link doesn’t seem to work.
Go to the bottom, below the picture.
The word CLICK is there. Click on it to contribute.
Yes, it could be better advertised than just the word CLICK.
rd50
May 18, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Yes, I agree that maybe Anthony could have a more visible donate button. Anyway, another donation made towards this noble cause. Hasn’t JCU got better things to do with their funds?
To Alastair.
Yes, the word DONATE has now been added after CLICK.
Hard to say why JCU would do such without being in Australia.
Nevertheless no university should do this.
My first gofundme is a $100 to Peter Ridd
So free speech has died in Australia just as it has in Canada.
Free speech died in Australia when they redefined it to include any ‘Offense’ taken.
AND the decision is LEFT TO THE “OFFENDEE” TO ADJUDICATE ~!!
There is NO APPEAL……………automatically GUILTY !
We don’t YET have “hate-speech” defined as such
BUT here we have a RELIGION that is regarded as a RACE
so you can be accused of “Racial Vilification” ( which is defined in some Act ! )
if you DARE to mention any REALITY……sorry……..NEGATIVELY MENTION……
…..sorry………any PARTICULAR religion !
Take note that ABC and SBS banned open honest debate, first, and did all they possibly could to stymie, degrade and poison public, political and scientific debates ever since.
That’s the odious public-funded media muck who’ve enabled and emboldened JCU to try and get away with this.
they didnt take enough funding OR remove enough of the top staffers who keep pushing the warmist pc and touchyfeely pap theyr drowning us all in!!
as a longtime listener of 30yrs or so I am more often disgusted and angry that informed or entertained
the only reason its still on is its advert and crap music free, and every now n then a decent program manages to get by the censors.
The well known Dunning Kruger effect is,– If you’re really stupid , you’re too stupid to know how stupid you are . Could this be the real problem with the ABC/ SBS ?
Yes Trudeau gave a speech 2 days ago in New York lumping us AGW skeptics in with genital mutilation practitioners. The reality is that even though genital mutilation is a horrid practice it cant be stopped. I would close down any mosque in Canada that doesn’t have at least 1 speech per month condemning the practice.
As to us skeptics, Trudeau’s speech means that he is scared of the polls. Governments use polls hundreds of times a month on various topics. So of course Trudeau has been polling on global warming skeptics probably every month. The polls show that every month the number of skeptics have grown, The latest polls show 33% are skeptics of global warming.
Alan, Would you not agree that “rationalists” and “rationalism” provide a more accurate depiction of those who have doubts about the validity of much of the CAGW dogma than do “skeptics” and “scepticism”?
ra·tion·al·ism
/ˈraSHənlˌizəm/
noun (definition)1. a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response:
Yes. I found the self-contradiction in the speech outright scary. Trudeau asks everyone to be tolerant on what he believes in and then turns around and rants about man-made climate change as being case closed “real”.
It simply doesn’t get more Orwellian than that. Trudeau and his totalitarian bullies get to decide what is fact and what isn’t. Facts are incontestable and dissent will not be tolerated. They aren’t viewpoints that require tolerance. What clever doublespeak to have your cake and eat it!
That academics and the media are blind to this inconsistent behaviour (say one thing and do something opposite) in our leaders means that “critical thinking” is in very short supply these days. The Sheeple simply get the leaders they deserve.
Of course but that doesn’t matter to alarmists. Us rational observers are infidels to alarmists. My own sister who has a post doc degree in biochemistry wont even talk aboutt it.
The Australian University system could be downsized to 10% of its current size and we wouldn’t see any ill effects. Even then it may still be too large.
I believe that there is sufficient data – if we look in the right places – to show there is a correlation between the growth of JCU and global warming. Perhaps it isn’t anthropogenic after all just James Cook ..agenic.
I , with my classmates were given a tour of Adelaide and Flinders Unis in the early 70s, the idea was to get us wanting to sign up i guess, after highschool
for me at least it put me off higher ed entirely and i quit n got a job.
even Hindley street back then didnt have that many weirdos n druggies hanging around
Friedman18, biggest liberty event in Australia opens May 25-27th this year. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend, but I hope someone raises this issue at the event – this issue should be of huge interest to Australian libertarians.
Peter is lucky in one way, I suspect JCU would burn him at the stake if they could.
i think they better be careful, might not be peter getting burned at the stake.
When Tim stated the documentation link doesn’t work I think he was referring to the first link listing the additional JCU allegations. It doesn’t work for me either. Can anybody get that repaired?
Donated again – hats off to Peter for standing up to these b*******s
There are too many universities chasing too few elite students for too little money in these times of economic prudence.
Without a diversity of opinion within the university there is no economic case for its funding.
Perhaps Australia should (fairly) sack Peter Ridd by sacking all the rest as well.
James Cook University has failed.
Close it down.