When I joined industry, one of the first things I was told was “always look busy” – because any department that didn’t look busy was bound to be the target of any redundancy.
Obviously climate researchers in Australia never got that advice – because for years they’ve been saying “the science is settled” – which in short means they completely understand the climate and there is no need for the public to pay them to do further research.
We sceptics have frequently been heard to say “if the science is settled why can’t we just get rid of these annoying researchers” … and so it seems that Malcolm Turnbull the Australian PM has had just the same thought. Now 350 jobs are going with nearly 70% of some departments being booted out.
… and how can they argue … as afterall they’ve been saying (or condoning) the statement that the science is settled … which either means they are lying (and should go) or are really no longer of use (and so should go).
I doubt very many academics will ever again support the view that “the science is settled”. Indeed, I imagine most hearing this news will realise that what happens in Australia could easily happen anywhere else. And so unless they find some uncertainty left to investigate, they too will be out of a job.
My thoughts:
- We actually need better research on the climate – and if we could have good research and researchers (not eco-idiots pushing their eco-political views dressed up as numbers) then I would argue for more spending.
- You’ve got to laugh – I think the phrase is “hoisted by their own petard”.
- There seems to be a bit of a trend to “downsize” climate related work. There’s also growing scepticism. Not sure how much of this is because climate is an easy target – and it’s full of idiots who can be easily cut – and how much is because of growing scepticism – or indeed a combination of easy target and not much interest.
- Supposedly more effort is being put into “mitigation”. My experience is that the hot heads on climate are in the mitigation side (so no hard science and full of left-leaning eco-fascists who want to dictate to the rest of society the “ZEE MUSTE” do Vat I say. I suspect by “mitigation” what is really meant is “giving engineers money to build flood defences and dams”.
In their free time these newly-unemployed scientists can now join bloggers who want to investigate what really drives climate. It should be a relief to some of them to be able to express themselves after all the years in the UN-imposed climate loony straitjacket.
The machine was set in motion in Paris and even though it is full of contradictions and stupid projections, they are determined to tax thin air or else because THEY NEED THE MONEY to run their scams!
Will voters get rid of this vermin? We shall see. Europe, which enjoyed splendid weather during this brief warm cycle, will cease worrying about nice weather as evil as cooling proceeds due to the solar cycle going cooler.
They will all look back on this period as a wonderful time with splendid weather and wish bitterly that it would return in the next 60 years or if this is going to be another Little Ice Age, they will regret this for the next 300 years or so.
test
From: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/atmospheric-convection-what-does-it-mean/comment-page-7/#comment-113414
Over two thousand comments to this one thread! Still with no hope of any scientific answer!!
The comments of Will Janoschka are now banned at the Talkshop as my views are in conflict with the political goals of Roger Tatersall, who is now actively soliciting monetary contributions to support his political goals!!
Wayne Jackson says: February 5, 2016 at 5:55 pm
suricat: (Ray Dart) ( “I offer the same advice I gave to ‘Steve M’ on C4’s Eve forum. “Get your loft ladder out and consult your graduate notes”! The ‘origin’ of ‘pressure’ within a gas is generated by the ‘repulsive nature’ of the ‘surrounding electron shell’ possessed by your and local entities.”)
Wayne: “Quite amazing, sounds like you think little of the well established kinetic theory of gases… in the decades I have studied chemistry and physics I have never come across such a far-out explanation for the origin of the pressure of any gas, from the random vectored momentum of the high velocity atom/molecules”
Will J: Your kinetic theory of gases has never been established, nor demonstrated to have any validity! The current interpretation is grossly flawed as it considers gas kinetic energy to be only molecular mass velocity (random vector momentum) rather than the rate of change of that momentum as clearly expressed by both Kepler and Newton. In any gas the numeric density not mass density of molecules, sets the rate of change of momentum, as each molecule has the same (statistical) linear momentum, independent of its molecular mass, (3kT/2t)!!! So far the rate of change in angular momentum of atmospheric non atomic gas molecules defies any computational solution! Makes a 6-DOF atmospheric missile intercept solution quite trivial! Someday perhaps, we may squeeze the 10 well known linear and angular dimensions down into octonion form; for some partial understanding of this physical, by school children of all ages!
continued:
From: continued.
Wayne:… “yes, but from electron cloud repulsion within any non-ionized neutral gas? The inter-molecular electric field repulsion/attraction interaction only becomes sizeable enough to even consider (showing up in less than the fourth digit of precision) when the molecules are only a few radii between any two atom/molecules (in a collision or close encounter)”
Will J: A at surface temperature and pressure the nearest atmospheric neighbor molecule is within 100 Angstroms (1/10^8) meter distance as per surface pressure. Molecular electrons are excluded from the tiny molecular nucleus volume. According to that fantasy, the shell is highly repulsive of that near neighbor in tune with the complex conjugate of one (ev) energy!
As Roger Clague clearly points out, at this scale, the charge repulsive force (potential) is eight orders of magnitude larger than Earth’s gravitational attractive force potential.
Can you locate any error? continued perhaps.
Wayne: “Please, lets move quickly toward well established science and away from science fiction so we can finalize this discussion on the simplicity of vertical convection and it’s reliance on nothing but gravitational acceleration and the case where density differences exist with less dense fluids lying deeper within a gravitational well… convection is spontaneous.”
You seem to be very quick to accept the 97% symbolic algebra BS from meteorological academics who only demonstrate they cannot find own gluteal muscles with one or both upper appendages. They only provide a continual Piriformis Syndrome for those attempting to think! The continual expansion of the atmosphere on the sunlit side is a spontaneous reaction to insolation; as is the atmospheric contraction night-side as EMR dispatches excess accumulated solar power to space! Gravitational acceleration has absolutely nothing to do with such spontaneous reactions.
The spinning Earth provides rotational outward radial mechanical, centrifugal atmospheric mass advection at the equator and 60 deg; latitude, that mass flow is compensated by continuum radial inward atmospheric mass flow at 30 deg; and 90 deg; latitudes! Atmospheric mass exits the surface at latitudes of low surface pressure and re-accumulate at latitudes of higher surface pressure. This is understandable using the continuum mechanics of compressible fluid dynamics. This is never even considered in the religious dogma of disgraced meteorology.
All the best! -will-
I’m keeping out of that one!
Thanks Mike,
I don’t blame you a bit! The chopped up post is because your site does not accept the HTML string for latitude degrees (ampersand-deg-semicolon) that I tried to use in the last part. All the best! -will-