Professor Jak Kelly will present ‘Science then and now: What will 100 years have done for science?’ as it was delivered 100 years ago to a meeting of the Royal Society of NSW, in the now heritage-listed Science House in the Rocks (Sydney) on Saturday September 6, 2008.
According to the latest newsletter from the Royal Society of NSW, an equally eminent scientist will follow with a demonstration of the advances in science since that time.
Was science held in much higher regard back then – around the turn of the 20th Century?
———————-
Science then and now – what 100 years has done for science
2-4 pm Saturday September 6, 2008
Science House, 157 Gloucester Street (corner of Essex) in Sydney CBD
Bookings not essential
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer…it depends on who you were I guess and on the kind of science you practised. James Maxwell was probably well regarded but Freud didn’t get much respect. He tried to suggest there was more to the human mind than will-power and that unconscious processes drove us. He even demonstrated it scientifically by hypnotizing people who were hysterically deaf and showing they could hear, yet he was derided by many people in the scientific community.
Jennifer:
Professor Barry Brook has attacked for being a skeptic.
He has no training as a climate scientist and appears to have a bio degree and higher from Macquarie university.
Would you be so good and explain to us two things:
1. What expertise would the hairless Brook have in Climate science to be actually teaching it with a biology degree.
2. Seeing your background is Biology how does Macquarie compare to other universities as it has a pretty dismal reputation in mot areas.
These are Brook’s qualifications
B.Sc. (Hons I), Ph.D., Macquarie University http://www.bio.mq.edu.au
Excuse me for asking but isn’t Macquarie the last place one would go before Newcastle or Latrobe?
Where did Jennifer go: It looks like a pretty reasonable uni in regional terms.
a Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, Australia.
Brook goes to a second rate school learning a subject he has no formal quals in and then begins to attack others.
Maybe he ought to buy a rug as it would be less funny.
Well RA, making immature and derogatory remarks about Barry Brooks’ personal appearance says more about you than him.
I don’t agree with his views on climate change but I’ve had nothing but cordial exchanges with him online which is in stark contrast to the tone taken by many others who infest the unburnt latrines that pass for threads on many climate related blogs.
Perhaps you should take note of his good manners and withdraw your spiteful remarks – debate his qualifications and expertise in an adult manner and not in the excremental way you started this thread.
There is such a thing as climate science?
PeterW.
PeterW.
I wouldn’t take back one thing about that shyster posing as a climate scientist. He attacked Jennifer in the vilest way and deserves everything he gets back and more.
He refers to himself as a professor of “climate change”. That’s like a non-lawyer posing as legal consultant without the requisite degree and license to practice. And the university allows that?
Take look a look that propaganda the shyster passes off as somehow suggesting lower rainfall levels are the result of climate change in the thread he attacks Jennifer? Seen it? Agree with it?
Now take a look at this paper that basically took the CSIRO’s facts and figures and destroyed the argument that the Murray Darling drought is caused by AGW.
Here:
http://landshape.org/stats/tests-of-regional-climate-model-validity-in-the-drought-exceptional-circumstances-report/
The Shyster knows about this paper ignores it and prefers to pass propaganda around to scare the kids. Meanwhile you’re worried about how I refer to him and the chances of the dishonest putz wearing a rug. Go away.
debate his qualifications and expertise in an adult manner and not in the excremental way you started this thread.
He doesn’t have the qualifications to be calling himself a professor of “climate change”. Furthermore he doesn’t have the qualifications from a decent institution to be taken seriously.
Yea Louis
There is such a thing as professor of climate change at Adelaide uni.
He’s also a grants ho too.
Nothing surprises me about that topic anymore.
At least in the old days the snake oil salesmen would only survive by selling potions to the unsuspecting public.
These days the newer version are glomming grants and living off a government stipend.
It’s sickening.
One other thing PeterW.
As I said Brook isn’t a climate scientist. He’s a political activist posing as one who happens to be doing it on the government payroll.
If you take a close look at his site it’s global warming by bibliography. He doesn’t know the science in the way a real climate scientist would as there would be a great deal more maths and physics on the site.
In fact he often links to blogs that extol the same junk he does.
So I have a right to be upset when I see my taxes getting spent like that.
Furthermore the rugless douchebag takes a shot at the IPA while on a government stipend.
So let me hear it again. I shouldn’t be angry my tax money is being spent on a political activist doing his ” activism” on a tax supported salary.
That’s another tax eater we have to support. So take a long hike.
One other thing PeterW.
As I said Brook isn’t a climate scientist. He’s a political activist posing as one who happens to be doing it on the government payroll.
If you take a close look at his site it’s global warming by bibliography. He doesn’t know the science in the way a real climate scientist would as there would be a great deal more maths and physics on the site.
In fact he often links to blogs that extol the same junk he does.
So I have a right to be upset when I see my taxes getting spent like that.
Furthermore the rugless douchebag takes a shot at the IPA while on a government stipend.
So let me hear it again. I shouldn’t be angry my tax money is being spent on a political activist doing his ” activism” on a tax supported salary.
That’s another tax eater we have to support. So take a long hike.
Ra the Sun God desperate for anything close to a distraction goes the big Ad Hom.
As for the CSIRO paper – if that’s your interpretation of what it says you’re an idiot – try and read it to at least get the broad subject material in focus! err not relevant to the discussion.
Everything you’ve thrown at Brook could also be levelled at the IPA – so how does that make a logical argument. It doesn’t. Go over to Andrew Bolt and have a sook. – wanker !
(or should we say “Birdy”)
“There is such a thing as climate science?” – certainly not at this site Louis.
We are still waiting for that list of peer reviewed climate science papers published by the vocal Australian climate change sceptics. How is it going Jen? It seems the sceptics are too busy trying to influence the public debate, to let little matters such as science get in the way.
Luke:
Is it getting too hot for you… Don’t be scared, Luke, don’t be scared. I promise you that you won’t die through AGW.
Ra the Sun God desperate for anything close to a distraction goes the big Ad Hom.
No, just telling it how it is.
As for the CSIRO paper – if that’s your interpretation of what it says you’re an idiot – try and read it to at least get the broad subject material in focus! err not relevant to the discussion.
The CSIRO paper was a dishonest, political wank, just like you are.
Everything you’ve thrown at Brook could also be levelled at the IPA
I’m happy you see Brook as a political activist. The only difference with that dishonest creep is that he sucks water out of the public trough whereas the IPA doesn’t.
So don’t be scared luke. Don’t be scared.
well you do have me scared now – as by logical inference the IPA if the analogy you assert is correct must be dodgy too. And interesting so you also seem to be saying that purchasing an opinion via private enterprise is the way to enlightenment … hmmm… must call Phillip Morris about my nightclub problem …. onya bike clown.
Another Hamilton disciple or a Macquarie graduate?
“well you do have me scared now”
Not my intention to scare you luke, you clown. You’ve done that all by yourself. Don’t be scared of AGW, Luke, don’t be scared.
“as by logical inference the IPA if the analogy you assert is correct must be dodgy too.”
That’s not what I said you pathetic fool. I said that the IPA is a private organization and privately funded whereas Brook is a political activist posing as a climate scientist and sucking on the public tit.
If rugless wants to campaign the way he does and criticize people he ought to be doing so with private funds, not public money. However I very much doubt if rugless could survive outside of the comfy public sector and would most probably end up at a centrelink booth looking for another handout.
“And interesting so you also seem to be saying that purchasing an opinion via private enterprise is the way to enlightenment”
Never said that at all, dimwit. Brook’s snake oiling proves that can happen anywhere.
hmmm… must call Phillip Morris about my nightclub problem ….
What is that supposed to mean? Christ you’re a fool, Hives Hamilton disciple.
You mean secretly funded – do you benefit Ra – who pays you to sing the tune? Ping off scumbag
Oh, and you want to know who funds the IPA now do you Luke? Why?
They’re a private organization and have the right to privacy you complete buffoon. Just like you expect privacy and extolling these decrepit views in public.
On the other hand Brook indirectly works for the taxpayer, yet he conducts his political activism on the government payroll.
In a normal state of affairs he ought to be summarily fired without hesitation for what he is doing as he really doesn’t have the right to be criticising private individuals while he’s sucking on the public tit.
If he wants to do that he should get himself a job with Greenpeace or the Green party (who he’s really working for anyway) and not draw a salary off the taxpayers. However seeing rugless has the morals of an alley cat he’s not doing that.
Don’t be scared lukey, don’t be scared. AGW won;t kill you.
Well Ra dude – Brooksy musta certainly ruffled your chook feathers. Heapum powerful medicine. But you see the public teat provides that old academic independence where he’s not bound by vested interests and pay per view. I know free speech is a disturbing concept for you right wing totalitarian types who like to buy their influence, astroturf and silence dissent. Anyway why are you arguing with me – shouldn’t you be out ho’ing yourself for profit?
Naaa,
Lukey, Barry Rugless has only ruffled my feathers because he’s a shyster attacking Jennifer from the vantage point of the government salary while he’s nothing but a political activist.
He ought to be fired for doing what he’s doing, the rugless little shyster.
He’s no more independent than a political hack as his salary and grants whoring depend on scaring the kids. So spare me about his ” independence” . lukey, you clown.
I’m not totalitarian at all. The far leftist freak could go speak about anything he wants anywhere anytime. He could run naked down the main street in adelaide crying like Chicken Little for all I care….. but on his dime not mine.
Have I made a profit today? yes I have thanks and for asking.
Has “Brooksy” done anything similar today. Doubt it as I don’t think he’s ever worked in the private sector in his life. He may try flipping burgers though as he could get the idea eventually.
Don’t be scared, Lukey, Don’t be scared. AGE will not kill you.
No he doesn’t get paid to your bidding mate. Independent clear thinking is the name of the academic game; not rolling over and playing dead on demand for money. Anyway enjoy shilling yourself turd.
“He even demonstrated it scientifically by hypnotizing people who were hysterically deaf and showing they could hear, yet he was derided by many people in the scientific community.”
He still is 🙂
Fuck off lukey and don’t be scared.
why don’t you head back to that shysters site and ask him if he’s happy with the new pay rise he’s getting for frightening the kids. You clown.
Don’t be scared, lukey. Don’t be scared. AGW won’t killya.
Such harsh language… tsk tsk tsk
“Frightening the kids” – LOL – classic bilge – he must have you piddling your frilly panties. And only he’s only just warming up too. Woo hoo.
Ok Lukey… Rugless don’t scare me none, doodlechops.
I expect tax-eaters like rugless to behave in a professional way but these days never surprised otherwise.
In other words “ruggy” shouldn’t be lobbing grenades towards Jennifer on Uni time and sporting his uni credentials when he’s nothing other than a dark green “professional” (taxpayer funded) political activist shystering as a climate scientist.
Fme when a Macquarie graduate is masquerading as a climate scientist lobbing spit balls around the place when he ought to be working for the propaganda section of the Green party or greenpeace we know the unis have been glomming far too much money from the taxpayer.
I think rugsy should spend a few years flipping burgers (he wouldn’t need a cooks hat obviously if he keeps shaving his head), understand the private sector and how people actually make money in the real world.
That would stop the little shyster from running a propaganda site on taxpayer dimes.
Dunno why you’re supporting ruggie.
now don’t be a scaredy cat, lukey. You’ll survive. I promise. AGW won’t kill you.
Broosky scares you heaps matey boy – truth hurts – that’s why we’ve still got you on the line towing you around the Bay.
Looks like we’ve emptied you out though. You’re now on the endless mantra loop. Anyway you’re now going to have to campaign against all the other academics that Jen hosts too – Carter, Plimer, Kellow – obviously by your assessment criteria now – simply political activists of a different persuasion. Doesn’t matter what the views you’d have to be consistent. Gee by the time you’re finished there will be nobody left.
And anyway given the democratic instrument that was exercised last year Brooksy is now just supporting government policy – so turds like you need to understand that and get back in line.
Why would i campaign against those people you mention, Lukey? I disagree with them on AGW. I think AGW is a problem.
However I think they are legit people and respect their dissent.
On the other hand Rugless is a shyster and a grants whore who deserves to be fired for what he has done.
hmmmm – so you’re all sophistamuckated eh?
So how do you determine shysterism and grant whoredom; and what has BB done in comparison to others to attract your disdain. The sophistry others doesn’t concern you?
I mean Jen’s Australian article was rubbish – pure politics. And as always it’s what people don’t tell you is most important – something called “duty of care”.
And BTW why do you think AGW is a problem.
I’ve flicked the switch out of auto-troll and robocop engage for a moment.
So how do you determine shysterism and grant whoredom; and what has BB done in comparison to others to attract your disdain. The sophistry others doesn’t concern you?
1. He has no know formal qualifications in Climate science.
2. He makes applications for grants related to the subject of climate science.
3. He attacks private citizens from the comfort of a government-supported salary. He makes out he’s legit while attacking and impugning the motives of others.
4. He posts alarmist crap at his site and uses ‘authoritive’ references such as other alarmist blogs.
5. He is basically a dark green leftist political hack and activist financially supported by a government pension.
6. In short he’s basically a tax eater whose questionable methods is alarmism, which is, reason enough to call him up on it
Is that enough?
“I mean Jen’s Australian article was rubbish – pure politics. And as always it’s what people don’t tell you is most important – something called “duty of care”.”
Sorry, but Jennifer is a private citizen doing her stuff without taxpayer support. She has a right to say what she likes. Rugless could do the same and get off the government pension. What are the chances, you reckon?
And BTW why do you think AGW is a problem.
Because legitimate scientists suggest there may be a connection with excessive C02 emissions and rising temps. There are lab experiments (not stupid models) that suggest there is a more than a casual link.
The real big issue as far as I can see is the economics. How do we arrange our affairs in such a way that doesn’t adversely affect living standards and how do we keep economic declinists well away from policy.
To your numbers…
1. Does Jen or 95% of the others quoted here. Irrelevant.
2. He does? Your list being? It appears that he probably makes applications for funds on change biology, well within his field of expertise. In deed it’s his responsibility to seek funding competitively and deliver on those outcomes which his CV indicates he has some success in doing.
3. Well we’re all private citizens and are therefore entitled to some degree of privacy; but however Jen has published by her our volition an op-ed piece in the national newspaper on public policy. The article lists her as a fellow of the IPA – The IPA web site self-describes the organisation as
“About us
The Institute of Public Affairs is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
Since 1943, the IPA has been at the forefront of the political and policy debate, defining the contemporary political landscape.
The IPA is funded by individual memberships and subscriptions, as well as philanthropic and corporate donors. Support the IPA today!
The IPA supports the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, evidence-based public policy, the rule of law, and representative democracy. Throughout human history, these ideas have proven themselves to be the most dynamic, liberating and exciting. Our researchers apply these ideas to the public policy questions which matter today.
The IPA’s specific research areas include the environment, deregulation, workplace relations, energy, political governance, intellectual property, telecommunications, technology, housing, education, health and agriculture.
The IPA publishes a wide variety of research papers and supporting opinion pieces, as well as host conferences and lectures across the country. The IPA also publishes the IPA Review, Australia’s longest running political magazine. In 2008, the IPA Review was awarded the Sir Anthony Fisher Memorial Award for best magazine.”
So this organisation, and herself acting as their salaried representative, has chosen to involve themselves in public life and the discourse of national affairs. Jen has opened this public blog actively inviting comments and on occasion guest posts, again publicly involving herself in the debate on public policy and affairs of the nation. (and fair enough too).
But this is hardly how a shy retiring private citizen conducts themselves. i.e. you’re utterly full of shit on this point
4. Well so does Jen and half the other bloggers in the world. In the case in question Brook has cited published publicly available literature in rebuttal.
5. (a) Is he? How do you know? Your rampant opinion.
5 (b) No – my Mum’s on a pension – Brook is a tenured professor appointed by an academic institution with a diverse funding base.
6. Maybe – maybe not. Depends on the funding sources. Exceptional circumstances funding also “eats” taxes – so does “military adventurism in Iraq”.
“Is that enough” – NOPE – your case is utter doggy doo.
And the IPA can indeed says what it likes – however in a free democracy which it purports to support, with an espoused philosophy which it pursues i.e. “The IPA supports the free market of ideas, the free flow of capital, a limited and efficient government, evidence-based public policy, the rule of law, and representative democracy.” I’m sure they would support the right to be engaged in debate and supporting “evidence based” policy development, wanting to ensure the highest quality of that opinion and advice.
Incidentally Brook is acting as private citizen on his blog and explicitly said that his views do not necessarily reflect the views of his institution.
And does the recent funding of PhD stipends to the University of Queensland by the IPA imply the academics in receipt of those grants are also “grant whores”. I hope not. I don’t think they are but logically you would? Shame.
i.e. so slink off you whining hypocritical dropkick and go hide under a rock.
Reactivate auto-troll.
But to your science point of “There are lab experiments (not stupid models) that suggest there is a more than a casual link. ” – namely?
Jen doesn’t purport to be a professor of climate change, rugless does.
He participates in obtaining grants that put a spin on “ massive extinctions”/ AGW, which is alarmist friggen crap and shystering. There are no extinctions as a result of AGW. There are extinctions because of such things as over fishing and the fact that we have basically fenced critters in. The rest is spinning dark green environmental activism.
We’re all private citizens however he places the uni name and his misbegotten credentials on links attached to the website so rugless appears to be attempting to morph the two in people’s minds. Rugless reep.
Jen is a private citizen and works for a private institution, which means she’s fully within her rights to say and publish anything she wants. Rugless on the other hand receives a government salary and doesn’t have he same freedoms we do in the way he’s going about things such as attacking people who don’t conform to his views. All he needs to do is resign and do what he wants and I certainly wouldn’t have a problem with that. However I do have a problem when he’s morphing his political activism with his day job.
Lukey, the IPA is a private institution, you dickhead.
And no, Rugless does not appear to be running the site as a private citizen. He updates during working hours and links to the uni from his site.
If the IPA is funding private grants then that is their business. Rugless on the other hand whores for public money, you moron.
Don’t you even understand the difference between public and private funding? Christ you’re a friggen moron.
No Lukey, I am not hiding under a rock. You and the shyster ought to for glomming public funds to support political activism while sucking on the public tit.
Wonderful world we live in when I’m debating with an idiot who doesn’t know the difference between public and private funding. I bet the rugless shyster does though.
“Professor of Climate change”… fme. What has the world come when we have snake oilers who are nothing more than political activists stealing money from the public to support their conduct? It’s sickening.
Lukey, don’t be scared, okay. We’re here to help you. So don’t be scared of AGW.
Oh bugger off – a private institution engaged in the public policy debate. Doesn’t bloody matter. Mate you are big sucking hypocritical toad.
Or if you’re really serious put up your name and address and libel him publicly. See ya gutless wonder. You’re all wind and piss mate.
Libeling the shyster? Oh please piss off you pathetic leftist little toad. There’s nothing I’ve said about rugless that could even be considered libelous.
You don’t even know or understand the difference between private and public funding and why they are so different, you ignorant peasant.
Rugless attacks people from a site he runs from the university where he teaches. He links to his university site and he gloms public money for his political activism. That’s obviously ok in your leftist circles because the cause is more important than the morality of what you’re/he’s doing.
Don’t be scared Lukey, Don;t be scared of AGW. Mummy will help you. Dickhead.
And don’t call me mate Lukey as you could never aspire to that position. Go and suck up to Ender that other wind aficionado.
Now look you can’t use toad coz I used it first. OK. You could you use dipstick.
And the ad hom is “don’t “mate” me you social climber” – more subtle.
Anyway put the up the name and address and we’ll have the QC to come around and take down your particulars. Ready when you are…. don’t be afraid. We won’t hurt you. You can trust us.
Rugless can ask me any time.
don’t be scared lukey. AGW won’t kill ya because mummy said so.
Come on gutless wonder? Don’t be scared. Cat got your tongue ? Obviously not a serious player.
You’re such a leftist little toad, Lukey.
Lukey is scared because rugless thinks the world is going to end now.
I had to laugh: rugless latest piece is about the end of times.. hahahahhahaha
This from the “professor of Climate Change”.
” good morning, Professor of climate change’s office, how can I direct your call?”
“Yes,, er I would like to speak to professor of climate change about how I prepare for End of Times”
” that would be his assistant you wish to speak to. Professor of climate change is currently busy. You want the End of times department”
“Ok then, thank you. Who would I be speaking to”
“That would be Professor of the End of Times”
It’s just too funny to be real.
Don’t be scared lukey. AGW won’t killya.
Didn’t bother even reading mate. Make with the name and address – let’s get it on.
” good morning professor of climate change’s office, can I help you”
‘ yea, where do I buy an End of Times t-shirt?”
” oh that would be from the Climate change gift shop right here in the professor’s office”
” how much are they?”
” they’re $38.95 with 30 cents going to the save whale foundation”.
Lukey, don’t be frightened. You know that.
boo
Luke the toad. Toad-Luke. Its catchy.
So it was you all along Birdy. Your IP address matched in our Sniffer database.
So just to speed proceedings up – could you estimate your net worth.
Ironic that Ra goes off at Prof Brook on this particular thread. Prof Jak Kelly is a former president of the Royal Society of NSW. Indeed, he was president when the RSNSW awarded the 2007 Edgeworth David medal for excellence in scientific research in any discipline. No prizes for guessing who won that medal. Prof Barry Brook…
As one who suffers the dreadful scourge of male pattern baldness, I’m thoroughly offended by the abuse handed out to Barry Brook over his lack of hair. It reflects nothing about his character, intelligence or good looks!
I am a private consultant to private industry, government and universities (including the University of Adelaide) and a businessman who invests in property development, futures trading and film. I am not a climate scientist, although I have had science training.
Like 85% of Australians, I believe the climate scientists; that burning fossil fuels is a direct cause of global warming, that we are already seeing the effects of this, and that global warming is going to increase over the next 100 years.
The leading climate scientists in the world have prepared a series of reports that summarises their views – http://www.ipcc.ch/
You only need to visit the CSIRO website to realise that the best Australian climate scientists fully concur with the broad thrust of the IPCC reports, and that we are well down the path of understanding the impacts of global warming on Australia.
I live in South Australia where the impact of climate change is likely to be terrible based on the best climate modeling we have to date. Adelaide has gone from having the most secure water supply of any Australian capital city, to the least. Our farming areas in the marginal areas of the state are under dire threat, and irrigators along the River Murray will face longer periods of low water flows, according to CSIRO. This could have serious consequences on SA’s economy, although as an entrepreneur, I believe that we will adapt and continue to thrive – perhaps an area where I sometimes disagree with Barry Brook.
It is the Premier of South Australia who funded the position of Professor of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide, such was his concern for the implications of climate change to the state. My understanding is that he was not after a climate scientist, because the climate science was clear enough to show that we needed to adapt, and CSIRO, ANU and others are already able to undertake the research that we need to improve the climate modeling here in South Australia. My understanding was that Barry’s role was to understand how South Australia could adapt to climate change. He got the job because his expertise (highly awarded and regarded) is in how biological systems have changed and adapted to climate change in the past.
The IPA is a privately funded political think tank. While I respect their right to exist, I found their remarks in this blog less than professional. If I was funding them to muddy the waters on climate science, I would be carefully considering my contract with them.
There have always been people who are prepared to take employment in such organisations. My father is dying from mesothelioma, a disease caused by asbestos, a product that James Hardy made a fortune out of. When scientists started showing that asbestos caused cancer, James Hardy paid shady, non-transparent organisations to muddy the waters in much the same way. They attacked the credibility of the scientists making the claims, referred to a much smaller body of evidence from less credible scientists, and abused violently those who disagreed with them. By delaying the final withdrawal of asbestos from production, James Hardy made significantly more profit.
There are business interests today who will also benefit from delaying any action on climate change, and they fund organisations like IPA to spread their message. In the US, Exxon is facing a shareholders revolt, lead by the Rockefella Family, partly because of disgust at the support Exxon has given to such organisations as IPA to attack the global warming message through misinformation, personal attacks on leading proponents in the debate and to maintain the perception that there is a large body of people who disagree with the science of global warming (I am not suggesting that Exxon has funded IPA).
One of the differences between science and business is transparency. Science puts its data together with personal interpretations and asks people to comment on the interpretation or put forward new data.
Business is about making money. The IPA is a business, and must show the number of comments in its blog to its clients to demonstrate they are having an impact. For those of us who have participated in this blog, we have helped the IPA achieve their KPIs, but perhaps not so much the science.
It’s a pity that the pundits of today are incapable of expressing themselves with anything approaching the polite manner of the scientists of yesteryear. As demonstrated in this 1958 warning about global warming
– http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=24268
Re Peter’s “I live in South Australia where the impact of climate change is likely to be terrible based on the best climate modeling we have to date.”
Which is no no better than regional climate modelling twenty years ago – that is, no good at all.
And: “Adelaide has gone from having the most secure water supply of any Australian capital city, to the least. Our farming areas in the marginal areas of the state are under dire threat, and irrigators along the River Murray will face longer periods of low water flows, according to CSIRO.”
Excellent! Perhaps those irrigators will be forced to stop growing rice and cotton.
ooooo – Ra …. Ra-sy Wa-sy? Must have super-nova-ed ! But more likely gone red dwarf. Poof.
Ra, I think you just got your reply:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/31/so-just-who-does-climate-science/
Brook decided he was going to present his CV (again) in response to the accusations leveled against him that he isn’t qualified to talk about Climate science.
He wrote:
Well, my undergraduate degree focused on biology, geology and computer science. I also did multiple units in chemistry, physics and statistics. My honours research degree was in palaeoenvironmental reconstruction (using palynology and micropalaeontology to infer changes in environmental conditions over the 10,000 year period of the Holocene). My Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) was on the validation of stochastic numerical models using real-world environmental data.
The CV he posted is not altogether different from the CV posted earlier on this thread questioning his qualifications to discuss climate change as it was lifted from his Adelaide Uni site he links to. His specialization is NOT climate science and he shouldn’t be posing as a climate scientist.
He also attempts to trump the league status of Macquarie -where he went to university. I just can’t see its rankings in the league tables. In fact it’s so far down the list it’s almost at the South Pole.
No Barry, Macquarie is not a world-class university.
Basically Barry’s university training is a basic science degree with specialization in biology and stats and computer science. Sounds like an everyday higher science degree from a pretty mediocre university.
This is what a graduate degree in Climate science looks like after lifting it from MIT’s school of climate science.
Suggested subjects include:
* Climate Physics (12.841)
* Climate Physics and Chemistry (12.842)
* Global Climate Change: Economics, Science and Policy (12.848J/ESD.128J)
* Land-Atmosphere Interaction (1.713J/12.826J)
* Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry I and II (12.806, 12.807)
* Fluid Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean (12.800)
* Steady Circulations of the Oceans (12.801)
* Wave Motions in the Ocean and Atmosphere (12.802)
* Quasi-balanced Circulations in Oceans and Atmospheres (12.803)
* Large-Scale Flow Dynamics Laboratory (12.804)
* Laboratory in Physical Oceanography (12.805)
* Introduction to Observational Physical Oceanography (12.808)
* Dynamics of the Atmosphere (12.810)
* Tropical Meteorology (12.811)
* General Circulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere (12.812)
* Introduction to Atmospheric Data and Synoptic Meteorology (12.818)
* Turbulence in Geophysical Systems (12.820)
* Nonlinear Waves and Vortices (12.822)
* Topics in Waves and Instability (12.830)
* Dynamics of the Middle Atmosphere (12.831)
* Inference from Data and Models (12.864)
* Theory of the General Circulation of the Ocean (12.866)
* Air-Sea Interactions: Boundary Layers (12.870)
* Paleoceanography (12.740)
* Pre-Pleistocene Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology (12.707)
* Surface Hydrology (1.714)
* Groundwater Hydrology (1.72)
* Surface Processes and Landscape Evolution (12.463)
* Chemicals in the Environment: Fate and Transport (1.725J/ESD.151J)
* Physical Limnology (1.64)
* Aquatic Chemistry (1.76)
* Environmental Organic Chemistry (1.83)
* Environmental Microbiology (1.89)
* Environmental Data Analysis (1.715)
* Marine Chemistry (12.742)
* Geochemistry of Marine Sediments (12.743)
* Marine Isotope Chemistry (12.744)
* Marine Organic Chemistry (12.746)
* Fluid Dynamics of the Environment (1.63)
* Biological Oceanography (7.47)
* Analysis of Transport Phenomena (10.50)
* Radiative Transfer (10.74J/2.58J)
* Data and Models (12.515)
* Dynamics Complex Systems (12.517)
* Geosystems I and II (12.550, 12.551)
* Techniques in Remote Sensing (12.565)
* Physical Principles of Remote Sensing (12.621)
* Receivers, Antennas, and Signals (6.661)
* Acoustics Sensing (13.810)
* Principles of Oceanographic Instrument Systems — Sensors and Measurements (13.998) Other graduate subjects that might be of interest:
* Civil Society and the Environmental (11.363)
* Sustainable Energy (1.818J/10.391J/ESD.166J)
* Science, Politics and Environmental Justice (11.368)
* International Environmental Negotiation (11.364)
* Introduction to Environmental Policy and Regulation (11.601)
* Environmental Law and Policy: Pollution Prevention and Control (1.811J/11.603J)
* Global Change and International Relations (17.410)
* Policy Choice and Global Environmental Issues (17.414)
Undergraduate courses in climate science include:
* Global Change Science (12.300J/1.11J)
* Past and Present Climate (12.301)
* Physics of the Atmosphere and Ocean (12.003)
* Environmental Earth Science (12.102)
* Nonlinear Dynamics I: Chaos (12.006J/18.353J)
* Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry (12.306)
* Fluid Physics (12.330J/8.292J)
* An Introduction to Weather Forecasting (12.310)
* Experimental Oceanography (12.311)
* Fundamentals of Ecology (1.018J/7.30J)
* Environmental Chemistry and Biology (1.080)
* Environmental Chemistry and Biology Laboratory (1.107)
* Introduction to Hydrology (1.070J/12.320J)
* Surface Processes and Landscape Evolution (12.163)
* Introduction to Environmental Engineering (1.016)
* Transport Processes in the Environment (1.061)
* Environmental Fluid Transport Processes and Hydrology Laboratory (1.106)
* Thermodynamics and Kinectics (5.60) Other undergraduate subjects that might be of interest:
* Strange Bedfellows: Science and Environmental Policy (12.103)
* Air Pollution: Processes Controls (1.082)
* Transport Processes (10.302)
* Archaeological Science (12.011J/5.24J/3.985J)
* Alternate Energy Sources (12.213)
* Environment and Society (11.122)
* Environmental Policy and Economics (14.42)
* Science, Technology, and Public Policy (17.310J/STS.482J)
* Policy Choice and Global Environmental Issues (17.413)
When he’s done a course with these subjects you would be a climate scientist, otherwise he’s just a poser.
Barry should face facts; he’s nothing more than a political activist posing as a climate scientist and knows shit all about the subject other than what is peddled in like-minded alarmist blogs.
If he is so smart as he says he is why didn’t our Barry get a scholarship at one of the world’s prestigious universities? Instead he’s holed up in Adelaide touting his CV around the web. Didn’t the film the End of Times movies in Adelaide?
They do scholarships at prestigious universities but of course Barry didn’t read about them otherwise he would have been in like Flynn. Yea sure.
Here’s MIT”S website:
http://web.mit.edu/scholarships/
What a twit is our Barry.
Vinny, where do irrigators grow cotton and rice in SA?
Given you don’t like science (which apparently hasn’t progressed in 20 years), on what basis would you set out to discover truth? Perhaps we could have a yelling contest? Or see if one of us could float (and would therefore be a witch and should be burned)
Why Ra-sy Wa-sy – so you tell us – if you’re doing an appeal to authority – what’s your authority to make such a determination – if you give us your name and address we can make a determination. Otherwise you’re some some libellous anony-mouse squeaky little blog turd.
The beloved Professor Brook has linked this thread and is highly impressed with Luke.
Did I not tell you all the ALL climate alarmists are lunatics?
Note how he has shied away from appearing on the more substantive threads. He just wanted to give an authentic scientist a bit of a backhander on account of him being a mummified changeling.
give us yours first lukey. We also need to verify, you grub.
Graeme, the shyster barely has a couple of subjects from the listed menu and still thinks he’s competent to discuss climate science. They sure build them well at Macquarie. But then I guess he never went to Western Sydney uni so that must be an advantage.
He certainly sounds mummified. All he does is link to other alarmist sites as voices of authority.
Poor gutless Ra – having a big sooky – not enough guts to libel a bloke and put his name to it. What a wuss.
Funny watching Graeme Bird exchange compliments with his sock puppet Ra – he lets anono-Ra do the libelling and then he just provides a bit of greasy lubrication. Pretty convincing stuff – NOT!
Also funny how he didn’t post this bit from Brook’s post:
————————————
Since my PhD I have published regularly in top peer-reviewed journals and publishing houses, with first author papers in Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Quaternary Science Reviews, PLoS, Global Change Biology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, and books by Cambridge University Press and Wiley-Blackwell Science.
My scientific papers have covered a diverse array of fields, including stochastic numerical modelling, Earth systems science, palaeoclimatic reconstruction, information theory, Bayesian statistics and meta-analysis, time series analysis, ensemble model averaging, extinction models, ecological genetics, population dynamics and the synergies among drivers of global change. See here for a selection of my papers, and here for a complete listing of my 130+ peer-reviewed publications. I hold a Professorship in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and am Director of the multidisciplinary Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability. I have also won a number of prestigious scientific awards from leading scientific and academic authorities.
————————————
Also, seems Ra and Birdy can’t stand having the mickey taken out of them (him):
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/30/if-you-want-a-laugh/
Water off a duck’s back to Brook, it seems. That must hurt them most of all, heh, heh.
Amun (Norm in Arabic)
I’m making the point Barry rugless is unqualified to be talking about climate science.
Apparently Prof Barry Brook did get a scholarship – to do his PhD – from The Australian Research Council – funded by the government to support the MOST OUTSTANDING Australian university students to do post-graduate research. Very few awarded each year and only to the creme de la creme! Really such venom from the likes of Ra and Bird – how big is the chip on your shoulders!! Gee, Barry Brook has really got you stirred up! Keep going Barry, we need scientists like you.
You dickhead Plover. Professor rugless is unqualified as a climate scientist. He has absolutely no formal training in climate science. I am therefore correct is saying that he is a shyster and a dark green political activist.
The douchebag is now predicting mass extinctions- What a rugless creep.
This is what he got his so-called meddle:
“In 2006, he was awarded the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal for distinguished research in biology.”
And then says:
“His area of expertise is climate change, global change biology,”
WTF? His biology medal suddenly makes him competent in climate science. It does in the enormous metropolis of Adelaide. Haha
“I’m making the point Barry rugless is unqualified to be talking about climate science.”
Ra, what are your qualifications to be talking about climate science?
In fact, what are the qualifications of Jennifer, Louis, Graeme, Ian and others here to be talking about climate science?
Bernard , have I been expounding views on Climate science or resulting mass extinctions the way the huckster is doing for a living? Don’t think so.
Jennifer is a biologist with a Phd from a respectable regional university and does other things in her career other than run a blog
Louis is a qualified geologist and from what I have heard is one of the best in the country in the precious stones sector.
Don’t anything about Greame.
Me? None of your business as I am not going around telling people I am a professor of “climate change seeing I’m not a huckster.
I suggest you take a look at the course selection offered by MIT in climate science I linked to above and then contrast that to what Professor Barry Huckster has.
Barry Huckster claims he has 130+ peer reviewed articles. At the rate he’s going by the time he retires the count will be 25,000 peer reviewed pieces.
Is the modern version of Einstein actually residing in Adelaide? haha
here Bernard these are my qualifications:
Seeing anyone can call themselves Professor of Climate change without residual qualifications, I’m the Dean of the school of Climate Change, Mass Extinctions and Hamburger Flipping at Mulligan University in South Australia.
Seeing as no such position exists in no such department in no such institution, I can only assume that you are (at the least) prevaricating, and have no qualifications at all to offer. This would certainly make it difficult, and somewhat hypocritical, for you to critique Barry’s bona fides, especially if you have not actually reviewed the work that he has had published.
According to your criteria, Jennifer and Louis are no more qualified than Barry, and less so in Louis’s case, as he does not have a PhD. Precious stones have nothing to do with climate science, and I know this because I have spent years in lapidary clubs and fossicking field trips.
Actually, as Jennifer doesn’t seem to be publishing in peer-reviewed climate science forums, I don’t know that her qualifications match Barry’s either.
If you sincerely have a real problem with Barry’s credentials you should contact the University and complain about his lack of suitability to hold the position he that does.
I would be very interested in seeing a copy of this correspondence.
Re Paul’s (not Peter’s – sorry about that): “Vinny, where do irrigators grow cotton and rice in SA?”
And they say there are no weasels in Australia!
But let’s move on from that. Let’s examine the precise contemporary unambiguous correspondent current of thought flowing towards the upstream Murray Darling Basin (MDB) cultivators of rice and cotton from Paul’s downstream (and perhaps mythical) South Australian (SA) “irrigators along the River Murray [who] will face longer periods of low water flows”. Do these downstream SA “irrigators” want the upstream MDB boys to stop growing water-intensive crops like rice and cotton? Do they hell! If they did that, they might start growing grapes, and then where would SA be?
I meant to post a link to news story in that last post. Here’s another try:
NULL
OK. Just Google with “SA Murray irrigators fear upstream crop switch”.
Bernie, please stop acting the clown. I don’t profess to be a professor of “climate change” lie the Professor Barry Huckster.
Ra.
If you admit that your qualifications are not at the level required to be a professor of climate change, how then are you able to determine what qualifications WOULD be appropriate to the position?
Jesus, you’re one stupid peasant, Bernie.
I’m not a qualified doctor: would allow a pharmacist to operate on a say a hernia.
Would I allow a tax driver to be a airline polite?
You really are stupid, Bernie and Barry Huckster should not be proud of any of his emissaries that he sent over here.
Are you another Macquarie graduate?
BTW – Macquarie University is listed in 2008 at no7 in the top research unis of Australia – ahead of Monash and Adelaide – both members of the Group of 8. Incidentally Macquarie’s new graduates are the highest paid of any new graduates from Aussie Unis. So, pull your head in Ra, Graeme or whoever else you are – apart from being a bigoted, anti-intellectual, loudmouth if very litte brain.
Furthermore – I checked – he certainly does have 130 peer-reviewed papers – including 2 in the prestigious “Nature” – very hard to crack! Considering his prodigious output of scientific papers it is no wonder that he became a full Professor at 33 – you don’t hear of many achieving that distinction at such an early age – most academics need far more years to achieve the required academic standard to be granted a Chair. Obviously the Academic Board at Adelaide, and the premier of SA considered his qualifications and experience fitted him admirably for the post. Probably one of the most important factors is that he is an accomplished speaker and advocate for science AND HE WON’T BE BULLIED INTO SILENCE BY THE LIKES OF YOU AND THIS BLOG!
Yes, Plodder, Macquarie is a prestigious university. Very! That’s like Barry that would be the first university I would ever apply for. MIT, Stanford? Who needs them when we have Macquarie.
Who wants to silence Barry Huckster as I certainly don’t. I want him to write more about mass extinctions. Hopefully one day he’ll be getting out of our hair and write a Hollywood script on the subject or better still sell it to Bollywood as they are really cashed up.
How’s this for a title?
Barry’s Hickster’s:
“Mass Extinctions and the Night of the Living Dead”.
Barry could play himself in lead role.
Oopsey daisy
Second sentence should have been deleted.
“Furthermore – I checked – he certainly does have 130 peer-reviewed papers – including 2 in the prestigious “Nature” – very hard to crack!”
Exactly Barry Huckster is obviously is going for quantity rather than quality. Who can blame him anyway. At that rate, by the time he’s 60 Barry will have 14,000 peer reviewed articles and 3,800 books on mass extinctions and climate science. I envy him in the nicest possible way seeing as when I become an adult I want to be just like the Huckster.