An Interview with Dick Lindzen

This is the guy piehole repeatedly refers to and praises........


Murry Salby: Galileo? Bozo? Or P.T.Barnum?


Murry Salby fired from Macquarie, had been debarred by NSF

“They laughed at Galileo … but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown” might be appled to Murry Salby, who until May was a Professor of Environmental Science at Australia's Macquarie University (MU). P.T. Barnum might fit better, as Salby has a well-documented history of deception and financial chicanery that got him debarred from Federal funding in the USA.

Galileo? In 2011, he proclaimed a recent rise in CO2 to be natural, not human-caused, which if true, would qualify for Galileo level. This was received with great praise or at least taken seriously at The Sydney Institute (thinktank), Andrew Bolt in Herald Sun, JoNova, Jennifer Marohasy, WUWT (Steve Brown, Benny Peiser/GWPF, Ronald Voisin, Vincent Gray, Anthony Watts), Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Climate Depot (Marc Morano), Climate Etc (Judith Curry, who knew Salby at U Colorado), SPPI (Robert Ferguson reblogs Curry), NotrickZone (P. Gosselin), GWPF (reblogs Gosselin), The Hockey Schtick, to name just a few.

Bozo? SkS lists “Murray Salby finds CO2 rise is natural” as #188 in the catalog of bad arguments, following this and this earlier articles. MU Professor Colin Prentice took the time to write “How we know the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic”, but scientists rarely waste much time debunking wrong arguments. They wait until bad ideas get into credible peer-reviewed journals, beyond thinktank talks or even poster sessions.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum
 
More on the fraud/fool Salby. Maybe piehole is Salby?

Our investigation revealed that the subject, consistently and over a period of many years, violated or disregarded various federal andNSF award administration requirements, violated university policies related to conflicts and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both NSF and the university as to material facts about his outside companies and other matters relating to NSF awards. After many years of operation of the first company, the subject created a second, for-profit company (ASMP) that acted as a subcontractor to the first company. The subject was the sole owner and employee of the second company, which existed solely to receive grant funds from the first company and pay them to the subject as salary. The subject failed to notify NSF of the subcontracting relationship with the second company, and improperly failed to limit indirect charges for the subcontract costs to the first $25,000 as required.

The university repeatedly asked the subject to disclose all outside financial interests, and he repeatedly withheld information about the funds he re-ceived from his companies; when the university learned the truth, it severely restricted his access to its research facilities. The professor then resigned from his tenured faculty position.

When we asked him to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project. We recommended that NSF debar the subject for five years, and NSF’s decision is pending.'
 
'The Subject's fifteen-year-long pattern of deceptive statements to his University and to NSF disguised his participation in entities and activities that existed for the purpose of maximizing his personal financial compensation and shielding the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.'

p.18 'The most egregious act of misconduct is the deficient and likely fraudulent** preparation of the Subject's time and effort reports for Company 2. However, the Subject's actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies.'


The Subject's focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues…


​
 
Bozo: NO. Salby is a climate scientist, has written a textbook thought reasonable.

P.T.Barnum: YES. Salby has a well-documented history of financial chicanery, deception and unwillingness to listen to warnings. If he was increasingly unable to produce much good science, perhaps he moved to anti-science to retain attention, get (paid?) speaking engagements at thinktanks, as per FIN3, PSY3 inreasons.

Bozos: YES, many. Some people apparently accept anything that agrees with their views, without ever bothering to do even minimal credibilty checks.


http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-galileo-bozo-or-p-t-barnum
 
Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4]Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free marketthink tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[17] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[18]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[19] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to de-legitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.[20][21][22]Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s,[8][9][17][23][24][25][26] and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form of pseudoscience.[27][28][29][30]

Through a single organisation, between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[31]
 
futurecurrents said:
Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4]Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free marketthink tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

Peter Christoff, writing an opinion piece in The Age in 2007, said that climate change denial differs from skepticism, which is essential for good science. "Almost two decades after the issue became one of global concern, the 'big' debate over climate change is over. There are now no credible scientific skeptics challenging the underlying scientific theory, or the broad projections, of climate change."[14] The relationship between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism has been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine scientific evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.[17] Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.[18]

Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[19] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming.

Some commentators have criticized the use of the phrase climate change denial as an attempt to de-legitimize skeptical views and portray them as immoral.[20][21][22]Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s,[8][9][17][23][24][25][26] and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form of pseudoscience.[27][28][29][30]

Through a single organisation, between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[31]
More...

There is NO consensus
 
And here is one of jerm's and piehole's favorites....

It's the Sun, An Ice Age Cometh - Wait! OMG - It's the Insects! ... and more farce from WUWT

Example One: How Anthony is an Ass


Every now and then, Anthony Watts posts an actual science article, mainly for the purpose of ridicule. In doing so it's usually he who looks the fool. Here's a typical example of his childish petulance at scientific research.
read more

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/omg-its-insects-and-more-farce-from-wuwt.html
 
10443605_785181341520346_1485685131367908160_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top