Climate Change

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

She is a prominent critic of the "consensus" that man-made climate change is an impending catastrophe

|

CurryWikimediaCommons
Wikimedia Commons

Climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry has announced her resignation effective immediately on her blog, Climate, Etc. I have long found Curry to be an honest researcher and a fair-minded disputant in the ongoing debates over man-made climate change. She excelled at pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. Given the thoroughly politicized nature of climate science her efforts to clarify what is known and unknown by climate science caused her to be pilloried as "anti-science" by other researchers who are convinced that man-made global warming is leading toward catastrophe. In her blog annoucement Curry explains her resignation:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).

Let me relate an interaction that I had with a postdoc about a month ago. She wanted to meet me, as an avid reader of my blog. She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn't identify as a climate scientist. She says she gets questioned all the time about global warming issues, and doesn't know what to say, since topics like attribution, etc. are not topics that she explores as a scientist. WOW, a scientist that knows the difference! I advised her to keep her head down and keep doing the research that she thinks interesting and important, and to stay out of the climate debate UNLESS she decides to dig in and pursue it intellectually. Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that – personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.

Curry adds that with her resignation her "fall from the ivory tower that started in 2005 is now complete." Curry continues, "At this point, the private sector seems like a more 'honest' place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs — at least when you are your own boss."

The good news is that Curry is not bowing out climate research and the climate change debate; she plans to continue and increase her blogging on climate research and climate policy. As she notes, "Once you detach from the academic mindset, publishing on the internet makes much more sense, and the peer review you can get on a technical blog is much more extensive. But peer review is not really the point; provoking people to think in new ways about something is really the point. In other words, science as process, rather than a collection of decreed 'truths.'"

I advise everyone concerned about climate change research to attend to her blog. I certainly will continue to do so.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

244 responses to “Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

  1. Tony will be along shortly to claim that Curry is not “a real climate scientist”.

    1. Real scientists live in their mum’s basement.

      /Tony

      1. Of course, they spend all their time loving science, instead of money like the sell outs.

  2. “the peer review you can get on a technical blog is much more extensive”

    I’m taking this as an invite for the H&R commentariat. We’ll just say that Ron Bailey sent us.

    1. Uh… yeah….. your matrices aren’t properly normalized to your integrated derivatives. I think you should take the root of the square of the series and start over.

    2. Ron should really know better than to say things like that around here. Our egos are big enough as it is.

      1. Curry said that. I read her blog several times a week. It is first class scientific thinking and presentation.

        She also mentioned that she would likely have less time to blog with her new situation.

        She is a modern hero of science.

        1. Curry’s blog falls as far short of the realm of the intellectually serious as the rest of the misnamed’ climate skeptics.’

          Serial credulity is closer to the mark, , and hers is a polemic POV that, much as we appreciate their support of the Reason Foundation, more or less deliberately caters to the deeper pockets in the oil patch.

          1. All science is skepticism. It is baked into the method: observe, hypothesize, test, observe, repeat. Without skepticism, why test?

            You are a fool, and apparently a poorly informed one.

            1. Thank you

          2. Says the guy who uses a website designed to fool people. You can definitely trust someone who just coincidentally named their site VVattsupwiththat. What a complete and utter tool.

  3. This is a major problem with inserting so much public funding into “science” (or anything else). It quickly becomes politicized. I wouldn’t be surprised if public funding accelerated climate research by decades in terms of raw data collection, but set the field back by decades in terms of honest interpretation of that data.

    1. cf. Ancel Keys, nutrition science, 1950s-on.

      1. Saturated fat is bad, mkay?
        Salt is bad, mkay?
        Sugar is bad, mkay?
        Red meat is bad, mkay?

        It goes on and on and on. And it will never end.

        1. Sugar is bad. Whether it’s a little bad or a lot bad depends on the person and his age.

          1. What about dose? Drinking a little water can save your life, drinking too much water can kill you.

            1. “Everything in moderation” is a pretty good way to live, for some definition of moderation.

              1. You’re just a moderation extremist!

          2. Substituting sugar for fat is definitely bad.

          3. Sugar is bad. Whether it’s a little bad or a lot bad depends on the person and his age.

            And his current calorie balance, activity level, etc. Also, as a species/race/society trying to subsist on cheap energy stores to outcompete neighboring species/races/societies, it’s mostly win in the short term (which is required to guarantee a longer term).

            As long as you aren’t diabetic and haven’t had a heart attack by about age 65, cancer and/or wasting are the most likely causes to take you down. Sugar provides cheap, effective energy to combat both. There are better alternatives to straight sugar, but pure sugar itself is rather definitively at/on the ‘not bad’ line and anti-wasting diets containing sugar are superior to those lacking it.

            1. Sugar is a totally unnecessary nutrient. The -only- thing it provides for the body is energy. Fats and proteins provide vitamins and the basic building blocks and our bodies are well adapted to doing that. Way overdoing sugar like we currently do is terrible for your body.

        2. Load up.

          One less guy whining about what he’ll die from is a good thing.

          Oh, one more: Smoking is bad for your lungs, and will cause lung cancer when done in excess.

    2. Its not so much the collection and interpretation of the data that is the problem, its the forward looking interpolation. Data suggests the Earth is warming…data also suggests micro effects of certain chemical compounds and warming effects in contained environments. Its the interpolation and projection that is made from these two sets of data that cause everyone so much grief. If interpolation was made about the effect of gravity and the chances of the earth falling into the sun without the knowledge of orbital momentum or the fact that the earth could not have fallen into the sun due to its continued existence, there may be a very political argument to putting massive propulsion on the earth to prevent it from falling into the sun.

      1. Its not so much the collection and interpretation of the data that is the problem, its the forward looking interpolation.

        Much of the “data” has been so bastardized with “corrections” and “in-fills” that even the data is very suspect. We’ve seen recently an analysis of NOAA (?) data which points out that the raw data and the reference data show no warming at all, and all the data driving the warming was correction/in-fill data.

        1. The hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit – University of East Anglia were shocking. The gross negligence of the people developing the software for the climate models is beyond belief. All the results put out by Michael Mann in cooperation with the CRU are worthless — completely and utterly unverifiable.

          And this is ignoring the conspiracy to destroy raw data to avoid legitimate FOIA requests.

          1. People believing bullshit context-free propaganda about perfectly innocent hacked emails is why Trump is our next president.

            1. I knew Tony wouldn’t disappoint, but that is epic derp beyond my usual expectations.

              1. He is in fine form today. Somebody must have left some airplane glue where he could get at it.

                1. I thought it was amphetamines this week and glue next week? I confused.
                  I knew I shouldn’t have stopped drinking coffee last week.

              2. ^^this^^

            2. The emails showed these people for who they are and it showed the code for the climate models to be what it was, dishonest shitbags and total garbage respectively.

            3. You’re the reason Trump is the next President, Tony.

            4. “Perfectly innocent”!

              BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

              That’s GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!!!!

              1. Tony’s a riot, you have to give him that.

            5. Someone sound butt hurt.

            6. People believing bullshit context-free propaganda about perfectly innocent hacked emails

              I love how the material was entirely innocent, but somehow millions were ‘convinced’ there was something there by voodoo magic.

              If that were actually true (lol) why would you need the evidence in the first place? people are so easily ‘tricked’. sad!

              1. Well, people are fucking stupid.

                1. Well, people are fucking stupid.

                  I lol’ed. Yes, Tony, you prove that every single time you post.

                2. And you do all you can to prove that each and every day!

                  -jcr

              2. I love how the material was entirely innocent, but somehow millions were ‘convinced’ there was something there by voodoo magic.

                Are these ‘millions’ trained evidenceologists? Did they reach a consensus as to what the evidence tells them needs to be done? Do they have government grants or are they just shills for big oil?

                I think these questions answer themselves and sufficiently prove my point.

                /case rested.

        2. I’ll just say that I consider extrapolation and correction of data to be part of interpreting the data.

          1. Except the ‘corrections’ keep changing, and correlate 0.99 with the co2 level, i.e. old data cooler, new data warmer. Those are called manipulations.

        3. My very tiny bit of contribution to the study of global warming involved a campaign to identify the location of all of the various Official Weather Stations. I lived in Arizona at the time and I found that an unchecked station wasn’t too far from where I lived. I grabbed the GPS coordinates (because addresses weren’t available of course) and headed out.

          The weather station providing the Official Record for this little Phoenix exurb was in an asphalt parking lot about 15 feet from two window AC units.

          1. And the historic readings of pristine weather installations must be the ones that are wrong and have to be corrected based on the ones in cities.

            Anyone ever heard of something called the urban heat island effect?

      2. “Its not so much the collection and interpretation of the data that is the problem”

        that is incorrect. The selective collection and directional interpretation of the data is precisely the problem. This was epitomized by Mann’s hockey stick and can be seen in far too much ‘science’ out there right now, where researchers tailor their experiments to support a politically correct hypothesis and cherry pick support results to highlight what they want to highlight. Read some primary research and you’ll find it filled with weasel phrasing tailored to sell the work to the layman. Along the lines of “the experimental data supports the hypothesis that the arctic ice is shrinking and may continue to do so with further global warming. A trend can be extrapolated, but the current data set is not statistically significant and further work is required to fully detail the continued decay of arctic ice.”
        See how that works. The layman/press reads the first sentence, uses that as the take-away, but fails to fully understand the phrase “not statistically significant”. You’ll find this stuff in far far too much science these days.

      3. Its not so much the collection and interpretation of the data that is the problem, its the forward looking interpolation.

        Extrapolation.

          1. Don’t feel bad. The interpolation of data into datasets is a major problem as well.

            1. Stop posting and get our kitchen cleaned. I’ll be home later this afternoon and expect that to be done.

        1. Extrapretation?

      4. The debate really isn’t about the basic science of greenhouse gases. No scientist argues that. All else being held equal, each doubling of the CO? concentration in a gaseous mix under infrared light spectrum (the part of the spectrum that is felt as heat) will increase the temperature of that mix by about 1.1?C (which is about 2?F). That would mean that in order to go up by that 1.1?C the concentration would have to go from the approximately 280ppm (parts per million) of the 1800s to 560ppm. We’re currently at 400ppm, less than halfway to a doubling.

        The disagreement is about the multipliers that fuel the “catastrophic” story line. Because all else in the chaotic system that is a worldwide climate system is not held equal. Any initial change creates secondary changes. The question is what those secondary changes are and do they, on balance, tend to increase the temperature further or to reduce the overall temperature changes.

        The catastrophe predictors use a multiplier as much as 6 or more, meaning that each doubling would make the temperature go up by 6.6?C. Even the IPCC (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has reduced the low end of their expected targets to a multiplier of only 1.5. However, actual readings of temperature suggest an even lower multiplier because they are lower than 95%+ of the all various computer models’ projections.

        1. There have been instances where the Earth’s climate had > 400 ppm concentrations, sustained. Go look what happened every single time that happened to the glaciers.

          1. Did the world fall apart when the temperature and CO2 concentration was much higher during the time of the dinosaurs? No, no it didn’t

      5. its the forward looking interpolation
        Extrapolation.

        Based on history.

        It’s not much different than saying “Social security will not be paying full benefits by 2032”
        Or “bin Laden determined to strike in the US”

        Sure, ignore the extrapolation because you consider it bad, but extrapolation is the way to predict and pehaps act to thwart foreseeable problems.

        Claiming that “it is just a computer model” is asinine. What, you want for the place to melt before you accept it is going to be warmer? Computer models are better tools than what we had for forecasting before computers.

    3. Spartacus Iron Law #14.7:

      When you depend on politicians for funding, your funding will depend on politics.

      1. ..and Ms. Curry will be doing so in the near future.

        In the Energy Department

    4. It’s unfortunate that everyone misses that part of eisenhower’s speech.

    5. “Public” sounds so wholesome and beneficial. The money is coming from the Regulation Industry, and when Big Industries fund science, then that science is corrupted and illegitimate.

  4. I hope it wasn’t the GT academic climate that drove her away. I always admired my alma mater for letting nerds be nerds outside of the political fray. I miss the school 🙁

    1. I don’t. Not enough girls.

  5. Now that she’s no longer a gadfly in the field, watch how quickly she’ll be unpersoned by the progressive left.

      1. Half of their “what science says” don’t at all refute what she is saying.

        That such a site exists is not a good look for “science”.

        1. And no citations of sources for “what science says”. And Science doesn’t say shit. Even in much more mature fields than climate, scientists disagree all the time.


          1. Our climate has accumulated
            2,438,782,173
            Hiroshima atomic bombs
            of heat since 1998″

            /lol

  6. The real reason she resigned is because Tech athletics still wears Russell uniforms.

    1. Okay. Just snorted during a conference call. Thanks.

    2. 3-0 vs SEC this year.

  7. Doomsday Cultists don’t like it when you disregard their hysterical shrieking.

    They think you’re laughing at them; in my case, they’re right.

  8. “In other words, science as process, rather than a collection of decreed ‘truths.'”

    How dare she question “settled science.” She better not be doubting evolution too. Someone please provide the missing link should that be the case.

    1. Doubt all you want. Provide evidence, and you won’t be doubted yourself.

  9. I worked really hard on my model. I’m not going to change it just because it doesn’t reflect the data.

    1. Are you arguing against the scientific method?

      1. Create theory that is useful for a patron to justify seeking power/wealth
      2. Develop a model based on that theory
      3. Collect observations to validate the model
      4. Modify the observations so that they actually validate the model
      5. Use social pressure to drive out dissidents who protest that this isn’t the scientific method.
      6. Having silenced all opposition, declare your views to be truth by virtue of universal consensus

      Anyway, if scientists believe in global warming and engineers are skeptical, I think I’ll go with the engineers. Scientists just have to answer to other scientists. Engineers get peer reviewed by reality.

  10. Well, I think we’ve known for some time the lunatics run the asylum now where climate change is concerned.

    The day the word ‘denier’ came into the lexicon as a legitimate weapon to ‘debate’ and calls for imprisonment were red flags we should all be paying close attention to.

    1. That sounds like something a denier would say!

      1. *Rummages around foot locker*

        Has anyone seen my largest scales?

  11. Speaking of…

    This morning’s NYT article about California snowpack (find it yourself) says something along the lines of: “Each of the last five years has been hotter than the preceding year.”

    Now, I’m no statistician, but I’m guessing this writer doesn’t know the difference between “noise” and “signal”.

    1. What’s a margin of error?

  12. “man-made climate change is an impending catastrophe”

    …and also a form of Rapture for those distraught with climate phobias.

    The breeding grounds for mania lie in the lack of widespread innate concern for conserving and protecting vital natural resources.

    Follow any multinational oil company closely enough and you’ll discover the reasons for environmentalist discontent caking the tire treads of their hushed contractors.

    Resolute attention paid to the tendrils of failure that mark any venture involving soil and water come with costs best whittled down in the shadows.

    Care for the woods should never require a twisted Rapture or a fucking mechanical shirking of duty.

    1. This was almost coherent. You’re slipping.

  13. Let me just point out how deep the conceptual rot is in our universities:

    She works in a field that is certainly relevant to climate science, but she doesn’t identify as a climate scientist.

    She’s either a climate scientist, or she’s not. What she “identifies as” doesn’t change what she is, professionally. Fer fux sake, people.

    1. I identify as the state’s greatest, most profound and innovative appellate attorney. In actuality I am preparing for a bond hearing…for an eviction appeal.

      1. I identify as your silent partner, so pay me my share.

    2. Mikey Mann is a mathematician, but identifies as a “climate scientist.” Its a title one appropriates instead of is awarded, because until very recently, like past academic year or so, there was no degree in ‘climate science’ or ‘climatology.’

      Carbontology is a cult only a couple decades old; like the early Christians the clergy is self-anointed – all the stratification into bishops, cardinals, and so forth took a long time.

      1. He was trained as a physicist, not a mathematician. He sucks at statistics.

        1. Whatever his collegiate merit badges, one should be in basket weaving or sociology or some shit because then at least he would have an excuse.

    3. In her resignation post she differentiates those who study climate as a consequence of studying Earth science and those who are solely motivated to study climate science. I do think there’s some wisdom in distinguishing the two, given her advice to young climate scientists: keep your head down.

    4. I identify as a millionaire handbag and shoe designer.

      1. Excellent. My wife wants to know when Coach is going back to classic leather bags instead of the printed junk they now produce.

        1. Me too!

      2. A handbag that also designs shoes?

    5. Uh… it seems like a sort of arbitrary label to me. I mean, lots of disciplines study things that affect or are affected by climate, so their knowledge is a part of climate science in some sense, but they would reasonably use a different label.

    6. I identify as a cisgender hetero patriarch. Wait! I am a cisgender hetero patriarch. No! I am THE cisgender hetero patriarch. Blame me.

    7. Just substitute “calls herself” for “identifies as”. Same thing.

  14. She could curry a favor from me anytime, if you know what I mean.

    1. Indian food?

      1. Crusty would not be averse to making sex with her, Eugene.

  15. Really unfortunate here; the Carbontologists I suspect will concentrate on culling any remaining unorthodox in ivory-tower land while waiting for their next political window. Nobody in the academic pipelines of the relevant fields today will professionally go anywhere unless they support the Inquisition; so I feel watching someone like Curry leave is a permanent loss.

    1. Unfortunately she’s not the first and undoubtedly won’t be the last.

  16. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment ? funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

    Also, it is my understanding that people indulge in games of chance in the back room.

    1. This quote is true of almost every academic field.

  17. How could anyone tell the difference between her self-characterization as a martyr and another characterization as a plain old bad disgruntled academic whose feelings got hurt because her bad work wasn’t given affirmative action by her community?

    The denier side of the “debate” relies on a really stupid fallacy: the fewer voices there are on their side, the righter it must be! They’re voices in the wilderness! Of course hacks and politicians then consult the same two or three contrarians over and over again when they want to demonstrate how right they are. You know, science.

    1. Nonsense. the “denier” side of the debate relies on the fact that the vast majority of “warm-monger” data is flawed and/or manipulated to fit a political agenda.

      Science demands data, not politics. The AGW crowd has zero data that supports AGW. All they have is a hypothesis and a mass of data sets that fail to support it. You know, science.

      1. “the vast majority of “warm-monger” data is flawed and/or manipulated to fit a political agenda.”

        Citation needed.

        “he AGW crowd has zero data that supports AGW.”

        Citation needed.

        1. “The end is near!”

          Who said that: religious fanatic or climate doomsayer? Is there a difference?

        2. Tony, quit it. Just stop.

          Bailey (never mind science websites) has provided countless examples on the subject. You have to be a special kind of cunt to demand a citation. There’s plenty. If I can keep tabs and follow this so should you. Ah, therein lies the rub. You don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth. You just sit on your side on the line and flick popcorn at people assuming you’re in the right.

          1. Bailey just reported that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded. He doesn’t often report the denier bullshit, although he does like to straddle the line as if there’s some kind of virtue in that.

            Now those were some pretty strong claims and I demand to see some serious peer-reviewed evidence for them. And not someone’s blog either.

            1. You scurry away every time I post links to Nature, Science, and Nature Climate peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that CAGW has failed a 95% (now 97%) CI. You flee from Pielke jr.’s (and now even Munich Re’s) hard data on disaster costs. And you insert you head even further up your ass to avoid the reality that CO2 geeening has meaningfully increased planetary biomass.

              Fuck off you religious lunatic.

            2. Curry is right that you can get a more thorough vetting of a blog post than you usually do for a peer reviewed journal article. And it’s all out in the open for all to see, unlike typical peer review.

              Bailey just reported that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded.

              Which was accompanied by: “The question is, does 2016’s record warmth mean anything scientifically?” Christy said in the press release. “I suppose the answer is, not really.”

            3. Something tells me progressives like Tony, even if presented with the peer-reviewed sources they will ignore or mock it if it goes against the cult.

              You don’t give a shit about evidence, Tony. You care about your partisan position.

            4. Bailey just reported that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded.

              And also reported that, because its an El Nino year, it doesn’t really prove anything.

            5. There was some significant warming in the 20’and 30’s, almost exactly the same amount as there was in the 80’s and 90’s. So even though the temperature stabilized in the 40’s and actually went down in some of the years inbetween, those new temperatures were still above what they were in the early 1900’s. By the same token, even if temperatures held steady or even slightly went down, the current temperatures would still be above previous temperatures.

              When you go up a step, everything is higher than it was before.

              There’s no question that there was significant warming in the earlier 1800’s either, what with the Little Ice Age finally ending. There just weren’t good enough records to say exactly how much and where. From the depths of the Little Ice Age in 1600 or so to 1850 there was a whole lot of warming, but it sure wasn’t due to human action. But we still don’t know what caused it or what ended it. We don’t know what caused or ended the 1400 year long Younger Dryas major cold spell near the start of this interglacial. We don’t know how it could have gone down so fast or back up at its end so fast.

              There’s far more that we don’t know about climate than what we do know about it. There are *no* models available that can explain the past changes. If we can’t even explain the known past, how can we feel any certainty about modelling the unknowable future.

              1. Almost correct – the British Astronomical Society has a model of the sun’s “double dynamo” that has a tremendously high confidence level and runs backwards with a very good fit for global temperature changes. Of course, try to tell the High Priesthood of AG- er, “climate change”, that the Earth’s temperature changes might be most dependent upon that GIANT FUCKING GASEOUS BALL CLOSEST TO US (!!) and they lose. their. fucking. minds.

                I always laugh and ask the AGW idiots this simple question: what daily event changes the Earth’s temperatures more than any other single variable, bar none? ANS: The rising/setting of the sun. How much colder is it on the dark side of the Earth. The variance is incredible, yet no one wants to even address the effects of the sun and the sun’s own internal cycles.

                Fucking morons, every last one of them.

                1. While not technically true, I always say that even Neanderthals knew that the climate was driven by the “giant ball of fire in the sky”. The modern AGW advocate is more ignorant than the Neanderthals.

        3. It’s not my job to educate you. Go do your own research.

          There is zero supporting data for AGW. Try to find some and get back to me when you do.

          1. I want a single citation from you to back up at least one of your claims. They’re strong claims, so it surely is very easy to find a source for them.

            1. Sorry Tony, I’ve done this dance with you too many times, and you simply ignore the sources and citations I link to. I advise others not to waste the time and effort. Go fuck yourself, you dishonest shit.

              1. Who the fuck are you? The only place anyone ever actually links me to is that Watts blog. A blog. Not scientific literature, some dude’s internet rambling.

                Again, if you don’t know what science is, why are you opining on the subject?

                1. Now Tony pretends I haven’t provided evidence and citations in the past, and pretends to forget that I actually am a biologist. Fucking dishonest cunt.

                2. The only place anyone ever actually links me to is that Watts blog. A blog. Not scientific literature, some dude’s internet rambling.

                  Liar.

                  1. Don’t link Tony to sites he’s never heard of!

                    1. Tony gets his list of approved sites from journolist. He probably has to bypass his DNC programmed router just to harass us on Reason.

                    2. Tony gets his list of approved sites from journolist. He probably has to bypass his DNC programmed router just to harass us on Reason.

                      You can set up firewalls to allow certain computers/users to access restricted sites.

                      He’s probably employed by the propaganda department so has access to restricted sites to post propaganda.

            2. You show me one citation that supports the AGW hypothesis. Just one.

              Not atmospheric carbon levels, not global temperature, not models predicated on theory.

              But one hard science link that provides data supporting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis…or in layman’s terms, the theory that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are causing an increase in global temperature. Go ahead…try to find one. They don’t exist.

              1. Global warming. There are upwards of 300 citations in that entry. Or is Wikipedia in on the conspiracy too?

                1. ROFLMAO! You just claimed that a blog by scientists wasn’t “science” and then mention “Wiki”?! Tell the truth, you killed Tony and are pretending to be even more stupid than he ever was? Wiki, Tony? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  Science H. Logic you are one religious fool.

          2. I have provided multiple links and citations for Tony many times in past on just these issues, yet he ignores them and continues to pretend they don’t exist. He is not interested in facts, he is only interested in blindly promoting a political agenda. Don’t waste your time.

            1. No you haven’t. You’ve probably linked to that Watts blog. If you don’t know what reliable sources are then why the fuck are you even talking on this subject?

              1. Thanks for proving my point, shit stain.

                1. Only pre-approved scientists count! Watts? Please!

                  1. Skepticism is per force invalidating. That’s why there are no credible skeptics!

                    1. Watts has done much to advance their incredibility by banning scientists who call his bluff.

                    2. Watts has published some excellent work refuting AGW along with many lesser pieces.

                      Banning commenters is not recommended, but trolls like Tony, AmSuck, and you can destroy fruitful debate. So into the ether you go.

                    3. Entelechy, you are a piece of shit. You criticize Watts and use a website name to fool people into thinking that your site is really his? Even Tony doesn’t attempt such dishonesty! You could not be lower or more untrustworthy.

          3. AGW, yes, CAGW, no. There’s a difference. The C stands for Catastrophic.

      2. You’re wasting your time, Mike. If it weren’t for bad faith, Tony would have no faith at all.

        1. Asking for a citation was a doozy even by his standard. I’m now of the opinion he doesn’t read or research a single thing outside what his cult tells him.

          Standard M-O with progressives. Dull, uncurious, and fucken intellectually lazy.

          1. Admittedly it takes less effort to click on the first link when you google “global warming evidence” than it does to scroll through three pages to find something that confirms your bullshit.

            1. So you use “google” for your research into understanding a scientific topic?

              LOL and your ignorance is apparent to all.

          2. And Curry doesn’t really fit into the denier camp anyway.

            1. Lukewarmer. Her greatest contribution has been her focus on the uncertainty in the data.

        2. If it wasn’t for disappointment, I wouldn’t have any appointments.

      3. The new scientific method is based on the votes of quasi-scientists. No more of that nonsense of forming a hypothesis, comparing the hypothesis’ predictions to observed results, publishing the findings, and subjecting it to peer-review.

        Nope. Now it’s just how many people are on which side – then destroying the careers of the people on the wrong side (you know, the one that doesn’t require massive government intervention, the destruction of the economy, and neo-feudalism).

        1. No more of that nonsense of forming a hypothesis, comparing the hypothesis’ predictions to observed results, publishing the findings, and subjecting it to peer-review.

          That’s because all of the climate models based on the man-made CO2 hypothesis failed miserably, therefore falsifying the hypothesis, so now politics and fake “consensus” is all they have left.

          1. Ding!

            Remember when the raw data was released – and it turned out to be laughably bad shit with embedded notes from the analysts who worked on it and were doubting it’s validity?

    2. Tony claims leftoids to be on the side of science. Let me point out some other things that leftist environmentalists were also on the side of : Malthusianism, peak oil, global cooling, gmos-are-bad-for-you, DDT, acid rain, etc etc etc.
      Enviros believe that CONSTANTLY being wrong means they are more likely to be right on the future.
      No, Tony, you’re wrong….

      1. Add “eugenics” to that list.

      2. Um, acid rain is a real problem due to SOx and NOx, which has been greatly curtailed with scrubbers on coal plants.

    3. Perhaps, Tony, one could note that she has 187 published papers and a classic textbook (maybe more) to her name as well as being for many years the dept head of earth sciences at Ga Tech. Don’t accuse someone of being a loser who has published more and done more than some entire departments, it makes you look daft.

    4. The question isn’t the solid science of greenhouse gases, it’s the fear mongering of the catastrophic adherents claiming huge multipliers on top of the basic warming of the increased greenhouse gases we’ve put into the atmosphere. Those that are skeptical about the multipliers used to turn the relatively minor warming into huge catastrophic results are labelled “deniers” when all they are questioning is the feedback ratio.

      While there is consensus (and even if there weren’t it wouldn’t matter – science is what it is and scientists make mistakes regularly) on the basic science of greenhouse gases, there is *no* consensus on the magnitude of the feedback mechanisms or even what all the feedbacks are. We’re continually finding new ones. We’re also continually finding new cycles in everything from the sun, cosmic rays, ocean currents and many others that also come into play in the net climate at any given time.

  18. it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide

    It’s not even that. It’s a proxy war waged by pinkos clothed in green rhetoric. Scientific integrity is a sacrificial pawn to achieve socialist hegemony.

    1. Lysenkoism, American style.

  19. “Personal opinions about the science and political opinions about policies that are sort of related to your research expertise are just that ? personal and political opinions. Selling such opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.”

    This is precisely correct.

    Whether the polar bears will be extinct in 50 years is a scientific question.

    Whether people should sacrifice their standard of living to save the polar bears is not a scientific question. It’s a question of ethics, politics, qualitative preferences, etc.

    And when “scientists” let their own personal preferences masquerade as science, average people questioning the science itself is a perfectly legitimate reaction–especially if the “scientists” are coming after their standard of living.

    1. Where were you when the goalposts were a little farther back and politicians and hacks were denying scientific fact in order to come to political conclusions about the use of fossil fuels? Were you bitching then?

      1. So how’s your research going, Tony? Is there any warming down there in your mum’s basement?

        1. Friction due to masturbation is warming, but not much. Still more than the heat output from his brain at any rate.

      2. Science is a consensus.

        That’s what publishing and reproducibility are all about.

        The things that are mostly likely to be true are the things that withstand the most rigorous scrutiny.

        However, everything we know scientifically can be refuted given new data that contradicts what we thought we knew before. Hence, all scientific facts are always tentative.

        The scientific consensus is what it is, but it changes all the time.

        The question for me was never about the science itself. I don’t care whether the threat of AGW is real or false anywhere near as much as I care that whatever solutions are enacted are libertarian and capitalist rather than authoritarian and socialist.

        Any “scientist” that uses “science” to push authoritarian socialism isn’t engaging in science. Those are personal preferences masquerading as science. When a real scientist prays to Krishna or advocates for the personal sacrifices of others, he is not behaving as a scientist. Being a scientist doesn’t give a scientist’s personal preferences regarding my standard of living any kind of special status. We all have a PhD in our own personal preferences, and we should all be free to make choices for ourselves.

        1. Science is not a consensus. Stop peddling that shit.

          1. It really is.

            That’s was publishing and reproducability are all about. Surviving rigorous scrutiny means consensus.

            The important thing to remember is that science is NOT truth.

            Science is a tool, and the knowledge gained by that tool is always limited and tentative.

            Science is not the thing being studied. It is a body of understandings that have so far withstood scrutiny by people who are limited by perspective.

            Yeah, the earth orbits the sun. That’s the consensus. It isn’t an absolute certainty. Find some legitimate data to challenge the consensus, and the consensus should change–but that consensus is pretty rock solid because it has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

            1. What you are describing is not science in the sense of the scientific method. It is an epistemology distinct from empiricism that holds consensus as having merit unto itself. Science is the application of observation and testing. Consensus is a weaker proposition and the truthfulness of its conclusions is not made any more solid by greater agreement.

              1. Correct. One Brown Cow.

                And I would like to point out that one of the greatest disservices to science was done by one of its best proponents. Extraordinary claims, IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, require extraordinary evidence. Not in science they don’t. They just require evidence.

                Thanks Carl, ya jerk.

              2. There are areas of dispute, but once the body of data is sufficient and once one competing theory seems to be born out through rigorous scrutiny rather than the others, the consensus builds around the theory that survived the scrutiny and fall away from the one that failed.

                I’m saying that consensus is a natural product of this process.

                Surely, reproducability, the publishing of results, subjecting other people’s work to scrutiny, etc. are all integral to the scientific method–and consensus building is surely a natural consequence of these things. It is also true that falsifying other people’s results is part of this consensus building process.

            2. It really isn’t. Science is reproducible/falsifiable. That fact that we may take a short cut and hope that by following a consensus that that consensus actually engaged in the act of verifying the results does not mean that the consensus itself had anything at all to do with the science.

              Ridley has an excellent write up explaining why consensus is irrelevant.

              1. Did you see my post where I wrote that if the only available data points to something that isn’t true, then the consensus itself is either required to be untrue by science or should be highly qualified as being derived from limited data?

                Again, science is not truth.

                The scientific consensus is not truth.

                All of science’s understandings are tentative and subject to the limited perspectives of the scientists who subject them to scrutiny.

                All of this would be so regardless of whether the consensus is for AGW or against AGW or we’d never heard of AGW. We certainly don’t have to pretend that science isn’t a consensus just because the authoritarian socialists who want to use AGW against us say it is.

                The authoritarian socialists aren’t wrong in saying that science is a consensus. They’re wrong: 1) in saying that science is when people with PhDs advocate for their personal preferences 2) in being authoritarian socialists.

            3. you are obviously not a scientist. Science has never required ‘consensus’ in any way shape or form.

              Consensus is practically the opposite of science, in that an hypothesis can completely ignore current scientific consensus and push experimentation in entirely new directions.

              1. He didn’t say that science requires consensus.

                He said that consensus can be a natural outcome of rigorous science.

                If a sufficient number of scientists come up with the same findings independently, then I think that it is safe to say that a consensus has been reached.

                He also suggested that consensus based on flawed scientific methods is unfortunately a by-product of politicized science.

        2. Science is the humble, ongoing, and sometimes asymptotic search for truth. Consensus has got fuck all to do with that.

          1. See my post at 1:34.

            Publishing, reproducability, and rigorous scrutiny are all about building consensus.

            Science is not truth.

            If and when the only available data points towards a conclusion that is not true, then science requires the consensus to be wrong.

            . . . or the scientific consensus should be that there’s very little data available and so the degree of certainty is very low.

            1. Publishing, reproducability, and rigorous scrutiny are all about building consensus.

              Any consensus is purely incidental to the scientific process. Publishing, reproducability, and rigorous scrutiny are about reducing errors, not driving belief in a given outcome (which may happen, again incidentally, but isn’t the point).

              1. It is important to note that the aspects of climate science which are reproducible are not those aspects which foretell rising temperatures or grave consequences. Moreover, reproducibility is not the right criterion for modeling. Instead, predictive power is what matters.

                1. “Moreover, reproducibility is not the right criterion for modeling. Instead, predictive power is what matters.”

                  Even in modeling, though, you’re looking for other people to get the same predictions you do with your model and other people to improve on your model.

                  You’re looking for consensus.

                  1. Modeling is not science. Modeling is simply the description of a hypothesis.

                    Science is the process of testing and supporting/refuting that hypothesis.

                    1. Modeling is simply the description of a hypothesis.

                      Well put. And perhaps that elucidates the flaw in looking to consensus. Consensus about hypotheses is meaningless since making an hypothesis is only the first step of the scientific method.

                  2. Even in modeling, though, you’re looking for other people to get the same predictions you do with your model and other people to improve on your model.

                    And if those predictions that you’ve all built consensus around fail to match actual measurements, then what? The quality of a proposition being falsifiable is not more important than actually recognizing when it has been falsified.

                    1. “And if those predictions that you’ve all built consensus around fail to match actual measurements, then what? “

                      When you falsify a hypothesis, you’re contributing to the scientific consensus, right?

                    2. Not if the consensus doesn’t change. You’ve contributed to the body of human knowledge. Whether the needle of consensus moves is an entirely different matter.

                2. DING! DING! DING!

                  Models with predictive power better than random chance. Fuck all to do with what others believe about it. Einstein was right IN SPITE OF the consensus that had gathered around Newton’s laws of motion. Einstein limited them to their proper domain – a very common event in science.

                  (I know what you’re trying to say Ken, but if no one ever read Newton’s Principia, it wouldn’t make it less ‘science’ – or any less correct. Ditto for Einstein’s Theories vis a vis Relativity.) And it wouldn’t suddenly be transformed into “science” beacuse it got discovered and a bunch of halfwits agreed with it.

                  Popper fucked that all up and the Supreme Court reified it in Daubert.

              2. Science is mostly about falsification. If it isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t science. Even with theories that no one knows how to test yet, the science is about looking for ways to test or falsify them.

                I wrote about the consensus on the sun orbiting the earth elsewhere. There may be less of a consensus on other scientific questions, but those points of dispute are still generally on other people’s work.

                That’s what consensus is. It’s a general agreement.

                There may be some libertarians who believe that the government has a legitimate responsibility in protecting the rights of potential drug addicts from drugs and potential crime victims from guns, but the general consensus among libertarians is that we have the drug war is bad and people have a right to own guns.

                Scientists are using the scientific method exclusively to reach their consensus, but building a consensus is what it is they’re doing. The process of falsification is necessarily consensus building, and the scientific method itself is all about falsification–if it can’t be falsified, it ain’t science, at least not yet. That’s the difference between the theory that the earth orbits the sun and the theory that Jesus hears my prayers.

                1. Scientists are using the scientific method exclusively to reach their consensus

                  A proposition that is “just so” but lacks real evidence. People who call themselves scientists are no less subject to biases and human nature than anyone else. For the same reasons democracy is not an unalloyed good, neither is consensus.

                2. Consensus has nothing at all to do with science. Popularity is irrelevant aside from the obvious impact on funding.

                  1. “Consensus has nothing at all to do with science.”

                    Sometimes, we get into habits about thinking about things in certain ways, and, over time, we can become emotionally invested in thinking about things in those ways.

                    You’re out there on a really thin branch right now, and it bothers the hell out of me because I know you mean well. You went out there on that branch specifically because you mean well.

                    I hope you understand that my intention here is to rip the mask off the phony scientists who are actually using political advocacy to masquerade as science.

                    We’ve always gotta watch out for Jane Fonda Syndrome. She started out opposing the Vietnam War, and that’s a reasonable position. It wasn’t enough to stop it though. She started out saying that the war wasn’t really good for the Vietnamese, but she became more and more radicalized over time. Some how in the course of that, the Vietnamese became the good guys. She ended up vouching for the good treatment of POWs who were actually being tortured. She ended up posing on a Vietnamese antiaircraft gun with spent shell casings all around her. There’s a lesson in there somewhere about the road to hell and good intentions. At some point, we can start to discredit our own cause.

                    Surely you can see that the scientific consensus has something to do with consensus, can’t you?

                    1. I’m out on a branch?! That’s rich after what you’ve posted here. Again consensus has NOTHING to do with science. What a majority of people believe to be true has nothing to do with science. Did you bother to read the Ridley piece? You need to. You really need to. The only value consensus has is enabling our laziness.

                    2. Consensus isn’t science… bumper sticker slogans are science.

                    3. Consensus happens because no one can falsify a premise, and it fits the observation, thus it’s more probable to be true than not and a field of science is born built upon that edifice.

                      In fact, ‘Science’ as a generic field of study is merely the accumulation of things that are more likely to be true than not. Thus consensus is expected in a field of study, and in fact required to call something a field of study in the first place; the mechanism of science itself does not require it though.

                      So, once again, it’s semantics.

        3. Surely you can’t seriously look around and deny that a lot of skepticism of the science itself probably has to do with the fact that it’s kind of a global problem requiring collective action to solve, that is, a problem with no libertarian solution.

          The only respectable options for libertarians are to come up with a libertarian solution to the problem or stop being libertarians if it can’t come up with any.

          And “authoritarian” is hyperbole and you know it. You guys have somehow convinced yourself that the fossil fuel status quo is the most libertarian of all worlds. Which is mighty convenient for fossil fuel companies.

          1. “Surely you can’t seriously look around and deny that a lot of skepticism of the science itself probably has to do with the fact that it’s kind of a global problem requiring collective action to solve, that is, a problem with no libertarian solution.”

            This is all horseshit.

          2. It is mighty curious, Tony, that fossil fuels were the devil’s rum BEFORE global warming was in any way established. That authoritarian solutions are pushed even when capitalist and free enterprise solutions are already working. Just saying.

            1. Name one such authoritarian proposal.

              1. Standard Oil, 1911.

        4. Science is the understanding of the underlying and unchanging laws of nature. It doesn’t matter how many “scientists” are right or wrong in their explanations of those facts. Consensus has no part in what the facts actually are.

          Nor are any actions resulting from the decisions of human beings part of necessary facts of nature. The “science” in “social science” is not a science even though it uses some of the methodologies of science.

      3. Guy. It’s always been about the politics and desires of certain people to gain even more control over the global economy while others fight against that. That’s all it’s ever been about.

        And if you want to talk about goal posts moving, in 20 years it’s gone from “the consequences of global warming will be mass extinction and collapse of civilization” to “the consequences of climate change will be extreme weather, coastal flooding, and climate refugees.”

        The whole thing is an exercise in politics and it’s never been anything else.

        1. There are honest environmentalists out there, but they’ve been overrun with people who treat environmentalism as a wedge issue.

          “The reconciliation of sustainability and increased prosperity must therefore be achieved through market-based systems in predominantly capitalist economies . . . . The more ‘market friendly’ any proposed reform, the greater the likelihood of adoption” (11).

          —-Jonathon Porritt, Capitalism: As if the World Matters

          http://tinyurl.com/hpfwdej

          He wrote that after excoriating capitalism as all manner of evil in the book. He’s basically a socialist. It may have been physically painful for him to write that.

          But he cares more about the environment, and as much as it pains him, if capitalism is required to save the planet, he’d rather save the planet than be socialist. Later in the book, there’s a quote about welfare, wealth redistribution, social programs, etc., and how as awful as it may sound, if all those things need to be scrapped in order to safe the environment, then out with them already.

          This guy’s got a pretty good book too!

          http://tinyurl.com/hoa2zo8

    2. 1. Announce the Earth is warming and human activity is a contributing factor

      2. Demand severe cuts in economic activity and consumption of resources to the detriment of 90% of the world

      3. ???

      4. We saved the planet!

      1. Yeah, that’s the failing narrative the left is selling.

        If their models are correct, and selling solutions to the world depends on that narrative, then the left is going to get exactly as much cooperation on fighting climate change as they’re getting right now–which is not enough to save the planet given their models.

        IF IF IF saving the planet depends on selling a narrative, they better find a better narrative ’cause that one doesn’t sell.

        It’s a lot like the left’s inability to comprehend the fact that demonizing the white, blue collar, middle class is off-putting to white, blue collar, middle class voters.

        I’ve got great news, everybody! We’re gonna save the planet. And all you gotta do is give up your standard of living! When that didn’t sell, they tried to convince everybody that’s there’s no other way. When that didn’t sell, they tried berating people for being stupid rednecks. Turns out that didn’t work either.

      2. These are people who care about identities, not practical results. It’s the identity as enlightened ones they crave.

        Protesting about evil establishment fatcats, or insulting the IQ or rednecks, makes them feel good about themselves.

      3. 3. Develop and continue to invest in non-fossil-fuel related energy sectors.

        You’re welcome.

        But have fun as the coal mines get re-opened.

        1. And that’s where the failure is. The government does not “invest” in alternative energy. Investing would naturally expect a return on that investment. No…..government is only about funneling tax dollars to crony ventures. solyndra as the most egregious example, but all government ‘investment’ in alt-energy is very counterproductive as it encourages further expenditure of valuable time and talent in pointless ventures.

          If the government truly wanted alternative energy they would fund their own R&D…much like how DARPA operates, but with a focus on energy. But they don’t, because that’s not how you line the pockets of your cronies.

  20. Speaking of Doomsday Cultists, here comes Tony.

    1. Singing:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM4lJKfu5Mg

      It’s what he does best.

    2. Have you seen that A&E documentary series about Scientology? Interesting shit man. How people can believe that shit is beyond me, but then lots of people believe lots of stupid shit.

  21. Not enough Judith Currys in the world. By a long shot.

    1. There aren’t enough Anal Vanmans either.

      *hugs*

  22. How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me

    Um. Tow the party line. Duh. That was easy.

    1. Ah, but then they won’t be a scientist.

      1. Ah, but then they will have employment in the field.

        Which is more important to a young scientist?. employment or intellectual integrity?

  23. Selling [personal and political] opinions as contributing to a scientific consensus is very much worse than a joke.

    hear hear

  24. It’s sad to see someone this intellectually honest leave a prestigious institution like Georgia Tech.

    Prestige may not be a refutable scientific principle either, but just because things like prestige, ethics, politics, and personal preferences aren’t science doesn’t mean they don’t matter.

    I don’t know what the rest of the world thinks, but I’ve always thought of Georgia Tech as being up there with Caltech and MIT.

    1. It is. Those other schools are a bit bigger and richer, but Ga Tech is an excellent science school. Top ten, easy.

  25. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1…..-challenge

    So today’s challenge is to find a working scientist or PhD in some climate-related field who will agree with the idea that the climate science models do a good job of predicting the future.

    Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements. That’s a separate question. For this challenge, don’t let your scientist conflate the measurements or the basic science of CO2 with the projections. Just ask the scientist to offer an opinion on the credibility of the models only.

    Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.

    Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.

    1. I saw progblogs dismissing this entirely simply because he said that he wanted to avoid the question of measurements even though that was the whole point.

      disclaimer: Adams is kooky and mostly scientifically illiterate

      1. sat vs ground measurements? are they so different that it matters?

        1. yes…yes they are.

        2. Prior to the use of satellites there were vast areas of the world that had no way to get any sort of actual temperature data about. So all the climatologists loved the new era of satellite data.

          Then came the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming fad. But the satellite data didn’t give them the numbers they wanted. They kept coming out way too cool. So now satellite data is bad and only averaged and corrected ground measurements are good.

      2. disclaimer: Adams is kooky and mostly scientifically illiterate

        …but was the only voice in the media I encountered other than the LA Times who successfully predicted a Trump victory, and he did it months earlier.

      3. And he explicitly states this in that blog post. He says he doesn’t know enough to have a sound opinion.

    2. its kind of like the higgs boson. the scientist had to run billions of theoretical computer simulations in attempt to figure out how to find it. Once they thought they found it they had to run billions of computations where a couple finally confirmed it. my question is did any of the confirmation computations match the theoretical computations.

      maybe someone here knows

      my point is computations rarely leads to expected results when the variables are so vast

    3. Notice I am avoiding the question of the measurements.

      Hilariously relevant!

      I’m pretty sure I’m not reading it the same way Munroe intended which, IMO, only makes it all the funnier.

  26. funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

    But I’ve been assured that the debate has been skewed Big Oil $$$!

  27. “scientific integrity versus career suicide”

    Politicians co-opted “The Enlightenment”. Who could have seen that coming.

  28. Curry adds that with her resignation her “fall from the ivory tower that started in 2005 is now complete.” Curry continues, “At this point, the private sector seems like a more ‘honest’ place for a scientist working in a politicized field than universities or government labs ? at least when you are your own boss.”

    The private sector has always been more honest and meritocratic. That’s what happens when people have to risk their own money instead of just other people’s money.

    1. Um…tobacco? Food supplements? Snake oil?

      Not always. Many companies put profit above honesty/integrity.

  29. A climate denier will be running the EPA and the CEO of Exxon Oil will be running our foreign policy. In 2017 we goin be rapin Mama Gaia, YES WE CAN! Make climate great again! Tony hardest hit.

    1. Just lay back and enjoy it Gaia! You know you want it! Burying all that coal and oil – you are practically begging for it.

  30. I have found that in the medical field, retrospective observational studies are worth essentially zero when trying to predict the outcome of future interventions.

    I can’t imagine why this would be any different.

    1. Yet they are the “evidence-based medicine” that is relentlessly flogged for physicians and hospitals.

    2. I have found that in the medical field, retrospective observational studies are worth essentially zero when trying to predict the outcome of future interventions.

      I don’t know that I quite agree with this. I’d certainly buy an inverse correlation between ‘sophistication’, ‘accuracy’, and ‘usefulness’ for a dollar.

  31. Tony might be right. its really warm down here today.

    BUT!. Come Friday, it is going to be really cold.
    Its a tie! Cite that Tony you absolutely frustrated moronic failure.

    That is settled science in the minds of brainwashed imbeciles like Tony. He believes what he has been conditioned to believe.
    He is the average sheep who either works for the bureaucracy as a professor or is so stupid as to still be enamored by one of his idiot professors.

  32. “Everything government touches turns to crap.” – Ringo Starr

    Science is not an exception.

    1. When you get into bed with government, expect to get fucked

  33. I hope to read the next your article update obat aborsi bali Thank you for sharing in this article obat aborsi bandung i like it!

  34. Good for her, all this crap about global warming is nothing but a hoax. There has been NO measurable warming now for going on 20 years.. basically the same amount of time we all started WATCHING the temps when the IPCC said it was happening. Then their email server was hacked and one of their concerns was how to hide the fact that it wasn’t warming now that people will be watching. And yet people STILL fell for it.. almost like a daggum RELIGION.

    1. Aw, but they need more than that before they hire you to be a shill for denialism.

  35. Air quality – and environmental issues in general – are a privilege of the rich. You think I’m kidding, Tony? How many years have you spent living abroad in impoverished countries where people have to burn anything – and I mean anything , including their own feces, metal, tires, etc, in order to stay warm at night or risk death for themselves and their kids?

    Question: how many people did Mother Gaia kill last year? You know, the usual shit – volcanos, earthquakes, disease, sinkholes, mudslides, floods, thunderstorms, tsunamis, poisonous reptiles/bugs, famine, wildfires, etc. Now I know AGW priests say some of this is “exacerbated” by AGW but they’ve offered zero proof to support that and have been falsified repeatedly. So, once you calculate how many people Mother Earth killed last year, please then post the total.

    After that, please provide the list of actual human beings killed by AGW so far.

    Until you have done that, go fuck yourself. You have nothing to say.

  36. Dr. Judith Curry is often used as a source by the climate change denial communities. Some of the links below demonstrate weaknesses in some of her positions.

    Judith Curry
    https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

  37. There are some very good reasons Dr. Judith Curry has often clashed with the 97% consensus of a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines studying Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD) effects.

    Climate Misinformer: Judith Curry
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/ (delete space) Judith_Curry_arg.htm

  38. A cushy job in the Drumpf administration under Tillerson or Perry awaits her.

  39. Tillerson’s Exxon Mobil:
    http://corporate.exxonmobil.co…..r-position

  40. Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

    There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted.

    Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.