This Scientist Used To Spread Climate Change Alarmism. Now She's Trying To Debunk It.
The doomsday consensus around climate change is "manufactured," says scientist Judith Curry.

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an "overwhelming scientific consensus."
"It's a manufactured consensus," says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue "fame and fortune."
She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.
Media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.
"We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled," says Curry. "This was picked up by the media," and then climate alarmists realized, "Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!"
"So, this hysteria is your fault!" I tell her.
"Not really," she smiles. "They would have picked up on it anyways."
But Curry's "more intense" hurricanes gave them fuel.
"I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star," Curry recounts. "Flown all over the place to meet with politicians."
But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research—years with low levels of hurricanes.
"Like a good scientist, I investigated," says Curry. She realized that the critics were right. "Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability."
Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded "they had a point."
Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren't so open-minded. Alarmist scientists' aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.
"Ugly things," says Curry. "Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired."
It made Curry realize that there is a "climate change industry" set up to reward alarmism.
"The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program," says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by "anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along."
The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"The IPCC wasn't supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC's mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change."
"Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts."
The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about "man-made climate change."
This is how "manufactured consensus" happens. Even if a skeptic did get funding, it's harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.
"The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant," says Curry. She even said, "The time for debate has ended."
"What kind of message does that give?" adds Curry. Then she answers her own question: "Promote the alarming papers! Don't even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go."
That's what we've got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
This article is nothing but propaganda advocating further delay in implementing the actions necessary to mitigate the threat of global climate change. Judith Curry is not a reliable source of information on climate change, and her positions on the issue have been widely criticized and debunked by leading experts in climate science.
Climate change is neither a theory nor a debate — it’s a reality unfolding in plain view almost every single day somewhere around the world. Its existence has been documented by countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by researchers whose entire careers have been devoted to studying the dynamics of Earth’s climate system.
One article featuring a single, so-called expert doesn’t change the reality that climate change poses a clear and present danger to our country and the entire world. The vast majority of those who continue to deny this reality are unqualified to make judgments on a topic which concerns science, not opinion.
Nice spin but false. You are conflating two completely separate phenomena – climate data; and anthropogenic climate change. Climate data are what they are, at least when they haven’t been manufactured from nothing by bought and paid “scientists” or subjected to biased “outlier” doctoring. The actual data accumulates through successive attempts to improve and increase meaningful information based upon previous efforts. The data are subjected to analysis by statistical methods looking for patterns. Theories are developed and studies designed to reject the null hypothesis – if the researchers cannot reject the null hypothesis, the hypothesis is tentatively accepted to try to fit into others to support the theory. Anthropogenic climate change is a theory. Various hypotheses tend to support human activities as fossil fuel combustion and deforestation as causative; and other hypotheses tend to contradict that theory.
The difference is important because the intervention you tout would cause massive economic and social displacement. If the theory is false, it would not affect global warming so you would be devastating the entire human population for a false political position. Please do some research of your own before embarrassing yourself in public.
Because doing nothing and letting climate change go unchallenged would not wreak havoc on economies and people! What I failed to understand with climate change deniers is their obstinance to let the house burn to the ground rather than change their lifestyle. I don't know where you get your data from but if you use the most respected scientific organizations on the matter (such as NOAA), the data speaks for itself. Talking about "paid scientists", Exxon is the perfect example of how industries at the center of the crisis tried to create an alternate narrative by using scientists on their payroll to explain that "Not all scientists are agreeing on the cause of climate change".
Climate change can be the result of natural cycles, but it could also be anthropogenic. Faced with 2 options, it would seem wise to reduce our possible contribution to the problem, rather than dismissing any change by invoking natural cycles with no proof.
not a climate denier, but this part i understand. it is because whenever anyone starts an attempt to educate them on the facts..... they quickly slip in phrases and implications like "let the house burn to the ground." you don't combat the perception that you are being an alarmist by acting like an alarmist.
They sound like alarmists because they’re alarmists. AGW is bullshit.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,930 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,930 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I wouldn't say AGW is bullshit, because it seems pretty obvious that man-made greenhouse gases are having SOME effect on climate, but if anyone thinks that even if all of us in the US completely stopped burning everything and stopped raising livestock etc that it would have any more than a negligible effect on this is fooling themselves. There's absolutely no reason to destroy our economy over say .1 degrees of warming...well, other than to take control and power away from the people of course.
the problem with climate change is that almost nobody who ever talks about it talks about what is real.
on one side, you have the alarmists. these are the people who can't look at a heat wave and not try to pin it on climate change. they forget about what the word climate means. you can't ever point to any short term weather event and make any claims about the long term climate. alarmist also tend to use outdated information without understanding or context. they look through every report they can find and pick the largest and scariest number they can find..... the most common numbers they use come from a congressional report in the 70's that includes the phrase "if the proposed efficiency standards are not implemented." (said standers were implemented, so nobody anywhere should be under the delusion that that model applies.)
then on the other side you have deniers. these are the people who can't look at a snow storm and cry that climate change is imaginary. they refuse to believe the laws of physics are real. and, instead of even trying to understand anything, they spend most of their time obsessing over the dumbest things said by the alarmists. (ironically, usually increasing the fame and money of the alarmists like the haters following AOC on twitter.)
the reality is that climate change is real, it is caused by humans, but the impacts are not as drastic as the alarmists say because they are trying to exaggerate it to push for policy changes. (and they fail to understand how much that tactic actively works against their goals.)
Climate change is real to the extent that earths climate is naturally changing. Human contribution is insignificant. This is just a phony argument being adopted by authoritarian Marxist, to deliver more authoritarian Marxism to combat a phantom menace.
to anyone who looks at the raw data, it is not phony. it is not what the alarmists claim, but it is most definitely not "insignificant."
but thank you for demonstrating my point. nobody talks reality. everyone talks extremes. either the planet is going to burst into flames any day..... or it does not exist at all..... nobody even tries to understand the possibility that reality lies somewhere between those two points.
Your fellow travelers regularly lie and distort scientific onquiry and are almost exclusively funded by people who need them to produce pro AGW results. So fuck your ‘raw data’
And let’s be honest. You and your kind are the extremists. This is hey you advocate for an uncontrolled border, unlimited physician assisted and government funded infanticide, and the reorganization of society to suit the gender delusions of people with severe psychological problems.
Our climate is certainly warming, and has been since the last ice age. But that won’t change, no matter how much misery and tyranny your kind inflict on humans.
oh look, a retard who can't tell the difference between one posers name and everyone who has ever expressed anything other than complete devotion to your stupidity..... claiming i have advocated for things i have never advocated for and trying to set up as many straw men as possible..... followed by one mention of the fact that you have absolutely no clue how the fuck reality works.
tip for you idiots. any time you mention the last ice age all you are doing is making it known that you have not bothered to look at fucking anything.
If you look at the raw data from satellite temperature (the best data for various reasons) it is obviously a phony alarm to worry about climate change. If you look at the presented and "updated" (aka fudged) numbers from government or government paid scientists, somehow you end up with a narrative of catastrophic man made climate change.
Satellites show that the energy balance of earths atmosphere in regards to the wavelength of sunlight that CO2 absorbs is net zero. All the heat the sun shoots at us that our terrible dumping of CO2 is going to capture and burn us all down with is... bouncing back into space. The sun and milankovitch cycles still do a whole lot more to the earths temperature than the sun total of human achievement.
"Satellites show that the energy balance of earths atmosphere in regards to the wavelength of sunlight that CO2 absorbs is net zero. All the heat the sun shoots at us that our terrible dumping of CO2 is going to capture and burn us all down with is… bouncing back into space."
so what you are saying is that you have no grasp of basic physics. you guys are basically trying to argue that a blanket won't keep you warm because there isn't any extra energy being added. (and yes.... it is that fucking simple.)
YOU are an alarmist. There are about 4 actual deniers. However, because YOU refer to anyone that is not an alarmist as a denier, you have chosen to be blind to actual science.
that might be one of the stupidest things i have seen anyone say in a pretty long fucking time.
i say there are alarmists and deniers who are both wrong, and your dim-witted ass thinks that means anyone not an alarmist is a denier? how fucking stupid are you?
Dude, the strawman has been beaten enough, no?
Talking about “paid scientists”, Exxon is the perfect example of how industries at the center of the crisis tried to create an alternate narrative by using scientists on their payroll to explain that “Not all scientists are agreeing on the cause of climate change”.
And the scientists at NOAA are not paid?
Did you know that the ratio of what governments spend on climate change and what the global energy sector spends on climate change is at least 1,000 to 1?
Can you point to some examples of this supposedly ubiquitous oil-company sponsored propaganda? Because I'd wager I can find at least a dozen examples of pro-government climate propaganda from today alone.
What I failed to understand with climate change deniers is their obstinance to let the house burn to the ground rather than change their lifestyle . . . . Climate change can be the result of natural cycles, but it could also be anthropogenic.
Does placing these two sentences closer together help with your failure of understanding?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth
Moving between icehouse earth and greenhouse earth is a natural event that predates humans.
The concept that the climate on this globe is naturally one that stays within parameters that supports human life is entirely made up by humans.
We are getting warmer as we are in the greenhouse phase. The question is where is the apex of that phase before we start moving to icehouse earth? Nothing says the apex will happen before human extinction. But let's hope so.
The apex is after the glaciers melt and the supermajority of earths surface becomes ocean. I just hope these climate alarmists haven't shut down all industrial capacity by then so some humans have a chance to live in water world.
“the supermajority of earths surface becomes ocean.”
What the heck does that mean? The supermajority of Earth’s surface has always been ocean. 3/4 of Earth’s surface is water now – and that ratio has barely changed since the peak of the last glaciation, when sea levels were 400 feet lower. If you take peak glaciation as the baseline, most of the glaciers are already melted, and the land is still here. Melt the rest of the glaciers and the loss of land will be a very tiny percentage, just a few miles flooded out of continents thousands of miles in extent.
Some cities may flood over the next century, but in less than a century the buildings and infrastructure will be outdated and need to be torn down and replaced, whether we rebuild a few miles inland and a few tens of feet higher or in the same place.
You have finally found something sillier to worry about than temperature increases of 1 or 2 degrees C, when in most of the temperate zone the temperature swings by 10 degrees daily and at least 50 degrees between winter and summer. If that 1 or 2 degrees C increase in the average temperature bothers you, you can cancel it by moving 100 or 200 miles north.
Nope. It is absolutely reasonable to question climate change.
When common weather data presented everyday is outright lies
When those who control funding only pay for one side.
When your own physical experience is counter to these claims
When you catch lies in all the reporting.
Yes, a reasonable person is able to decide that climate change is an overblown "crisis" that does not deserve our time, money or attention.
"It made Curry realize that there is a "climate change industry" set up to reward alarmism.
"The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program," says Curry."
There are two sides to Madison Avenue and many climate activists and fossil fuel flacks are happy to work both sides of the street- Judith Curry of Georgia Tech has been covering for the Appalachian coal industry since before Greta Thunberg was born, and has filled the vacuum created by the demise of chief Moonie science editor and climate crank Fred Singer by adding Falung Gong's even weirder newspaper, Epoch Times to the echo chamber.
It made Curry realize that there is a "climate change industry" set up to reward alarmism.
"The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program," says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by "anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along."
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/12/if-ipcc-is-yin-are-galactic-cosmic-rays.html
Cue the usual shitposters complaining about parody URL's
"It made Curry realize that there is a "climate change industry" set up to reward alarmism.
"The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program," says Curry."
There are two sides to Madison Avenue and many climate activists and fossil fuel flacks are happy to work both sides of the street.
Judith Curry of Georgia Tech has been covering for the Appalachian coal industry since before Greta Thunberg was born, and has filled chief Moonie science editor and climate crank Fred Singe's shoes by adding Falung Gong's even weirder newspaper, Epoch Times to the echo chamber. It isn'y pretty, because climate cranks are red meat to Green pundits.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/12/if-ipcc-is-yin-are-galactic-cosmic-rays.html
Cue the usual shitposters complaining about parody URL's
Funny how every result of the "science" has supported the same answer: give government more power.
The same people promoted global cooling, global warming, and now they've given up on a direction and gone for climate change. Funny how you don't attack the argument but the person, almost as if the change in science she points out is true and you're trying to avoid that.
Climate was never the point. It’s all about delivering more authoritarian Marxism. This is what gives the Democrat party its power.
Now do biosystem collapse and global famine in 1970.
and then do the acid rain that I was told over and over again, while growing up in the 80s, would melt all our buildings within the next few decades. Or that canisters of hairspray would burn away the planet's ozone layer (believe that scare was during the early early 90s).
I am in sympathy with your point but the ozone layer example is not a good one.
There was an international governmental effort to ban chemicals that were contributing to the ozone layer. It’s an example that is often given to justify similar efforts to address climate change.
Mike, See The Bozone Layer. Since I published it (https://hankphillips.com/bozonelayer.htm) hundreds of much smaller volcanoes have been found all over Antarctica. Yet only a ninth of Humanity lives south of the Equator and its Brewer-Dobson circulation. IBM to this day publishes current and ancient ozone images demonstrating the hysteria, like the Love Canal lying, was a hoax.
Earth’s climate in evolving on it’s own without any help from mankind one way or the other. So stop with your Marxist screeching.
BSD52 wrote:
"This article is nothing but propaganda advocating further delay in implementing the actions necessary to mitigate the threat of global climate change."
Except that the most vocal climate change extremists (who falsely accuse/label anyone who opposes banning carbon in the US and other civilized democracies of being climate change "deniers") have been campaigning to ban and excessively regulate carbon free nuclear power for 45 years (since TMI), and have been banning the drilling, fracking, piping, processing and burning of low carbon natural gas (which has reduced US carbon emissions by 25%) for the past 20 years.
Those same climate change extremists have also enriched China (which has quadrupled their carbon emissions in the past 20 years and keeps building a new coal power plant every week), Russia and Iran (which now sell dirtier natural gas and petroleum at higher prices due to left wing policies in the US and western Europe).
I bet BSD52 is one of the people that believed Manhattan would be mostly underwater by 2012
her positions on the issue have been widely criticized and debunked by leading experts in climate science
Cite?
Climate change is neither a theory nor a debate — it’s a reality
Science!
Try this for a start.
https://skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-etc/
That was a really terrible start. First one actually parrots falsities to claim Curry is wrong, and the second one simply does a “nuh uh” and claims refutation.
If one site appears to be parroting the other, it might be because those are her major gaffs. I have no expertise as a climate scientist so I am not in a position to assert that the claims of the "skeptical science" site are "falsities" -- that is a popular site that summarizes the technical issues from the technical literature. "Square = circle" asked about citations to criticism of Curry, and I make no claim about the validity of those criticism.
On the other hand, it would be useful to see actual scientific evidence that the claims in the first site are "falsities."
“Square = circle” asked about citations to criticism of Curry, and I make no claim about the validity of those criticism.
I asked you to back up your claim that "her positions on the issue have been widely criticized and debunked by leading experts in climate science."
You did not do that.
"You did not do that."
Of course not, and I doubt that a series of 400 page monographs on the subject would persuade you. I thought that "skeptical science" was a good start -- and Google is your friend here, if you are really interested in the science -- since it is run by a fairly large and international group of climate scientists. Whether you or I believe that Curry's positions have been "widely" criticized, or simply criticized, by "leading" experts, or simply by experts, is just a distraction, since these qualifiers are strategically ambiguous, and there is nothing at stake in this forum.
I doubt that a series of 400 page monographs on the subject would persuade you
But you thought a couple of half-assed partisan blurbs would?
Whether you or I believe that Curry’s positions have been “widely” criticized, or simply criticized, by “leading” experts, or simply by experts, is just a distraction, since these qualifiers are strategically ambiguous, and there is nothing at stake in this forum.
Then why did you bring it up?
Well, the IPCC had to recently eliminate their “business as usual” prediction because their claims were running too hot. You can see that in the most recent assessment. So, there’s that one. The “hide the decline” referring to trees rings is an after the fact excuse that was generated when the emails were leaked about manipulating the transition data from tree rings to thermometer temperatures. The claim is that they were referring to the decline of tree rings rather than temperature, which, even if taken legitimately, which there is a lot of doubt about, still doesn’t address the decline in tree rings being significant at demonstrating a poor proxy choice for temperature. Finally, the 97% number is a zombie lie that just won’t die. It came from the Cook paper studying scientific papers and was only able to use a subset of those papers to claim 97% agree, when after it came out many scientists whose papers were used to show consensus explained that their papers did not actually assert that.
So, another left wing fortified "vote"?
None is so blind as he who does not give a damn and won't find out. Learn the definition of energy, then whine honestly about it being too technical to grasp. We'll understand.
Gotta agree with Inquisitive Squirrel. This is not a very impressive case.
It is circular. The second references the first.
500 years or so of actual weather data, compared to millions of years that the planet has been spinning around the sun. I think I will focus my efforts on adapting to the changes that Mother Nature is making right now. Just like she has for millions of years. Climate change is real. But the man made part is not. So what will the new excuses be in fifty years when we are all still here, no worse for wear. Oceans rising? Ice melting? Atmosphere disappearing. All of those already claimed over the years, yet nothing. Follow the money.
BSD52, you are completely, 100% wrong. Judith Curry is THE preeminent scientist in the climate world because she brings honesty, insight, and humility to the task. None, not one, of the alarmists have the integrity to debate the topic in open forum.
I am a PhD chemist who has very closely followed the global warming debate for almost 40 years. The warmists have made hundreds of predictions of doom and gloom that are never proven true. Polar bears are OK. The arctic is still covered with ice (but it will be ice-free in a thousand years or so as we exit the ice age). Snow still blankets London on occasion. Dr. Curry delivers data and analysis with the uncertainties taken into account and acknowledges contrary facts where they are found.
judithcurry.com is the best discussion of climate on the planet.
Warmunist Sharknado shrieking is exactly the same as GOP Reefer Madness mendacity. Each gang of altruist collectivists makes up some superstitious lie to curry hatred toward what it fears. The lies are repeated prayerlike and questioners attacked as heretics. Warmunists insist a communist dictatorship will protect equality once fascists are dead. Positive Christianofascists shout that communist dope attics hate Jesus and Herbert Hoover Prosperity. Both worship the initiation of force as universal panacea.
What are you talking about? The so-called "Christianofascists" haven't done a damn thing communists have. Has the thought EVER occurred to you that they were NOT who you think they were?
Who doesn’t know this already?
We are overdue for another ice age.
It is now overdue for the next ice age to start
https://iowaclimate.org/2021/01/29/it-is-now-overdue-for-the-next-ice-age-to-start/
If you love alarm-ism, this one is for you:
Can Solar Flares Really Destroy Earth? NASA Says Probably
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/36999/20220406/is-suns-solar-flare-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-all-life-on-earth.htm
According to Stanford University's solar center homepage, a radio show supposedly claimed that radiation from a major solar flare in the future might destroy most existing life forms on Earth. However, current astronomical knowledge of solar flares contradicts this.
No need to worry about climate change, you won't be around, and nobody can stop it. Please worry excessively for all us who don't!
Sure, but global warming is the excuse to force Marxism on everyone.
Right. Spoiler alert, it's not just climate.
Not the climate. Not racism. Not COVID. Not gender. Not Ukraine. Not fairness.
It's about power. Power achieved by and for a Marxist agenda. Power that will end forever any vestige of free people.
Religious adherents.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, put it simply.
Is it any wonder he greatly influenced my own political views for twenty-five years!
"The prosperity of the American people."
No, it's the burning of fossil fuels. The problem arises when fossil fuel burning and prosperity are conflated, like your ally does.
You are free to give up all fossil fuel energy immediately. And don't forget secondary and tertiary use by others for your benefit.
"You are free to give up all fossil fuel energy immediately. "
We're not. That's the problem. Giving up fossil fuel immediately would lead to mass starvation and chaos.
You do realize that this comment contradicts your first comment and provides support for Michael's initial comment, right?
He does not see the contradiction.
No, I don't see what you mean. I'm saying prosperity doesn't cause climate change. Burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Two separate but related things.
Conflating the two will only stymie any attempts to address the issue.
Without fossil fuels, there is no prosperity. That's the point.
Nice of you to admit that.
It's not especially nice of me.
Well, you can do it and set an example.
I'm not clear what you mean.
Now you're just acting stupid.
Isn't that what you want?
If your kind really believed your climate rhetoric you would all commit suicide on principle.
Find someone else to share your death wish with. I'm not interested.
I hve no wish to die. I’m a survivor. As you and you fellow insist on constituting an existential threat to humans, it would be best if all of YOU died.
Of course, all you need to do is stop being Marxists and live in peace. But you and I both know you will never do that.
re: "it’s the burning of fossil fuels"
No, it actually isn't. If you bothered to read the underlying studies (and had even a rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis), you'd be able to see that for yourself.
I think energy consumption, a concrete notion, is a good proxy for prosperity, an airy fairy notion. Do you agree? My rudimentary understanding tells me that burning fossil fuels leads to CO2 emissions which leads to warming. Sorry if my statistical analysis is not up to par.
Of course it isn’t. If it were, you wouldn’t be a a democrat and support awful things.
"If it were, you wouldn’t be a a democrat and support awful things."
I'm not a democrat. If you think democrats are serious about climate change, you haven't been paying attention.
None of you are really serious about climate change. Climate change is one of the grifts you and your fellow travelers use as a delivery system for authoritarian Marxism. And wether you are a registered democrat or not is irrelevant.
You support their villainy and are their creature.
My rudimentary understanding tells me that burning fossil fuels leads to CO2 emissions which leads to warming. Sorry if my statistical analysis is not up to par.
No need to apologize - just don't preach at people about things you don't understand.
I should apologize in any case. My statistical analysis is not one of my strong points. I'm sorry too if my comments come across as preachy. I try to be clear, concise and avoid insults.
Energy consumption is a good proxy for prosperity - a reasonable premise broadly supported by observations up to the Computer Era. Since about the rise of computers, the relationship between energy consumption and prosperity has been less well coupled, at least in established economies. But subject to that limit, it's an okay proxy.
Burning fossil fuels leads to CO2 emissions - demonstrably try.
Implied but not stated in your syllogism is that CO2 emissions lead to increased levels of CO2 - That's a plausible hypothesis but the underlying mechanisms are not well understood and certainly not well enough supported by observations to simply be assumed. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels are a complex interconnected flow that require advanced chaos theory to model. Yes, burning CO2 puts some into the air. The incremental increase then stimulates plant growth which pulls it back out, one of many negative feedback loops affecting the global CO2 flows.
More CO2 leads to more warming - True in certain laboratory conditions but likely not true (or not as true) in real world conditions. Geological evidence shows that CO2 increases and decreases have lagged, not preceded, temperatures. If the null hypothesis is that the temperature increases are a natural consequence of the planet's emergence from the Little Ice Age, the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration could well be primarily due to oceanic outgassing - in other words, an effect rather than a cause.
Typo in para 2 - should be "demonstrably true", not "... try". Apologies.
Geological evidence shows that CO2 increases and decreases have lagged, not preceded, temperatures.
This can't be emphasized enough, as this is one of those inconvenient facts that gets pretty aggressively brushed under the rug.
"This can’t be emphasized enough"
I don't know, we are living in unprecedented times, a new era called the anthropocene, and looking in the rear view mirror may not be of much help.
a new era called the anthropocene
Who calls it that? God?
Without "looking in the rearview mirror" how can you possibly know that "we live in unprecedented times?"
“Who calls it that? God?”
Close. But it’s actually scientists. Naming natural phenomena is an essential part of science. If you’re going to measure something, you have to be able to name what you’re looking at. Even weird names like dark matter. Anthropocene is the name for a era in earth science for when humans played a clear and significant role in the shaping of the planet.
"how can you possibly know that “we live in unprecedented times?”"
All times are unique. You can't put your foot in the same river twice. I think time scales confuse us to think that the momentary stability we perceive in the world around us is only of the moment.
Close. But it’s actually scientists.
I hate to break this to you, but scientists are merely humans.
Anthropocene is the name for a era in earth science for when humans played a clear and significant role in the shaping of the planet.
Yes. I understand what the word means.
My point is that some people deciding to name something in a particular way isn't actually scientific proof that the past doesn't tell us anything about the future.
All times are unique. You can’t put your foot in the same river twice.
Depends on what you mean. Neither history nor rivers flail around randomly, and understanding how rivers flow and where the banks are will actually get you pretty far in figuring out what the boundaries of its behavior are.
But setting that aside, I'd just like to note that in this context you're saying that we can't use past climate states to predict future climate states.
I don't have the impression that this claim gets brushed under the rug so much as it gets debunked.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
*sigh*
Oddly, you're not the first alarmist to throw that article at me.
Note how the article actually asserts "well, yes, CO2 rises after warming that resulted from other causes, but THAT DOESN'T MEANT C02 DOESN'T CAUSE WARMING!"
IOW, a circular strawman.
As you say or yourself, above:
I have no expertise as a climate scientist so I am not in a position to assert that the claims of the “skeptical science” site are “falsities”
Maybe you should be quieter in your relative lack of expertise.
I have considerable climate science expertise, and in the light of it I must conclude that DT is right, and that you're an idiot.
I have considerable climate science expertise, and in the light of it I must conclude that DT is right, and that you’re an idiot.
What a substantive contribution to the conversation!
Can you please explain in what way I mischaracterized the article?
From the article:
The trigger for the initial warming at the end of an ice-age is a favourable combination of cyclic patterns in Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to a significant increase in the solar energy received by Earth's Northern Hemisphere. That's no secret. Glacial-interglacial transitions are caused by several factors working in combination – triggers and feedbacks. We've understood that for a long time.
And then, we get this gem a couple of paragraphs later:
We now know that CO2 did not initiate the warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.
Note the implication that because 90% of the post-glaciation warming happened after CO2 levels started rising that therefore 90% of the warming was caused by the CO2.
They don't come out and explicitly say this of course, because I'm sure they, as I hope you, realize that this is fallacious in the extreme (correlation =/= causation, especially when your correlation is downstream of an actual proximate cause).
The argument in the article boils down to "well, yes, rising CO2 levels follow rather than precede warming trends, but we know in principle that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be causing some warming, therefore it must be causing most of the warming."
This is medieval Scholastic-style reasoning. And really, it's rather obvious that the author of the article is starting with the conclusion that he wants to defend and is working his way backward into massaging the data to make it fit, like any good Scholastic would.
But then, you're the guy who thinks Foucault was a totalitarian, so your opinion on whether or not I'm an idiot isn't really that pertinent, not that I don't appreciate name-calling as an argumentative tactic.
"Note how the article actually asserts “well, yes, CO2 rises after warming that resulted from other causes, but THAT DOESN’T MEANT C02 DOESN’T CAUSE WARMING!”
The article also starts off by noting that "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." The issue you raise concerns only about 10% of climate warming, and the brief essay deals with that.
My point was that any claim that the issue is brushed under the rug doesn't seem to hold up, given the fact that it is addressed directly in that short essay and in many other sources.
For the record, I am not an "alarmist." I am quite relaxed about climate change.
And my confession that I am not a climate scientist was an en passant reference to my assumption that neither are you.... But as a scientist, I am interested in the use of such cases as surrogates for wider political disputes.
The article also starts off by noting that “In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.” The issue you raise concerns only about 10% of climate warming, and the brief essay deals with that.
Read my response to Public Entelectual, that's right there next to you:
"Note the implication that because 90% of the post-glaciation warming happened after CO2 levels started rising that therefore 90% of the warming was caused by the CO2.
They don’t come out and explicitly say this of course, because I’m sure they, as I hope you, realize that this is fallacious in the extreme (correlation =/= causation, especially when your correlation is downstream of an actual proximate cause).
The argument in the article boils down to “well, yes, rising CO2 levels follow rather than precede warming trends, but we know in principle that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it must be causing some warming, therefore it must be causing most of the warming.”
This is medieval Scholastic-style reasoning. And really, it’s rather obvious that the author of the article is starting with the conclusion that he wants to defend and is working his way backward into massaging the data to make it fit, like any good Scholastic would."
My point was that any claim that the issue is brushed under the rug doesn’t seem to hold up, given the fact that it is addressed directly in that short essay and in many other sources.
That short essay is an excellent example of how this gets brushed under the rug. The essay declares, both contra logic and it's own presentation of empirical evidence, that CO2 is the primary driver of warming even while acknowledging that other factors actually drove the warming.
as a scientist, I am interested in the use of such cases as surrogates for wider political disputes
I really don't care about your credentials any more than I care about Public Entelectual's. As far as you know I'm an entirely uneducated homeless guy typing from a Home Depot parking lot.
What matters is the quality of your argumentation and evidence, and both of those things are lacking.
But your declaration that "I am not an “alarmist.” I am quite relaxed about climate change" is belied by the fact that you seem to think the only reason anyone would fail to dismiss Curry is because they're merely using the debate as a proxy for politics (another fallacy, btw, but logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit - a surprisingly common problem with scientists).
IOW, if you truly are quite relaxed about climate change, what's your problem with Curry?
That joke of an article did nothing to "debunk" the rather considerable observational evidence that CO2 lags temperatures.
"Energy consumption is a good proxy for prosperity – a reasonable premise broadly supported by observations up to the Computer Era."
I thought so too, although computers and their peripherals all consume energy, the more intense the computation, the more energy consumed.
It seems you are determined to discount anthropogenic warming, in favor of the emergence (for undefined reasons) of northern europe from the little ice age.
Why is it I expect actual evidence rather than the usual right wing talking points?
Zero evidence of the points in this, but no surprise from Stossel
Why is it I know leftists know nothing about avtual climate science but blindly repeat weatherman narratives.
Question. So you consider models evidence?
Rush Limbaugh rightly compared environmentalists with watermelons, saying they’re green on the outside and red in the middle. That’s because all of the policy prescriptions to environmental problems are total government control and central planning i.e. socialism/communism.
Those are the real leftists.
It is a real word with a real meaning, and there are real leftists out there. Your use of the word as an epithet for anyone who disagrees with you politically cheapens the meaning and distracts from actual leftists. Leftists are bad. Very bad. They are a real threat that should rightly be resisted. Thought the likelihood of you actually recognizing one is on par with a stopped clock showing the correct time. It happens from time to time, but is based purely on luck.
I'd try to shame you but you're too stupid for that.
" That’s because all of the policy prescriptions to environmental problems are total government control"
Even the policy prescriptions proposed by Rush Limbaugh? Are the leftists any worse than the rightists, given their solutions all point in the same direction?
The "rightist" policy prescription would be to let the market handle it. People on the left hate that because it is undefined. It means letting millions of ideas compete and letting the best ones percolate to the top. You don't know what that will be. It's much easier to understand top-down control, as in one idea being forced upon everyone rather than letting the best ones win.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” -Hayek
"to let the market handle it."
That's not a policy prescription. It's a slogan. We need more than sloganeering. Mother nature doesn't care about left, right and our squabbles over how we divide our surpluses.
"“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” -Hayek"
It's a problem of physics and chemistry, we have to keep that in mind, first and foremost.
Mother nature doesn't care about global warming. Mother nature is going to be just fine. The problem with the claim of global warming is how it will impact humans, the planet doesn't care.
"The planet is going to be fine. We're fucked." -George Carlin
Leaving things to markets means letting millions of ideas compete to see which one is best. I don't know what the best idea is, and I doubt you do either. The problem with that approach is you don't know what the outcome will be. It's much more comfortable to have some politician or bureaucrat impose their idea upon everyone. You know what the idea is and what the intentions are. However the idea only has merit based upon the fact that the person imposing it is in a position of power. Not because the idea is good. Markets let the best ideas float to the top.
“Markets let the best ideas float to the top.”
What sells floats to the top. The best ideas may remain submerged. Markets are about buying and selling, not sorting out good ideas from bad ideas. It's a popularity contest. Basing public policy on popularity may not be the best way to do things.
Competition is the best means to generate the best outcome in most circumstances. That's what capitalism does.
Yes, I've come across this before. A person with the choice of 400 different breakfast cereals facing them in the supermarket is freer than the schlub with only 350. Bullshit Ideology. Wasteful, self indulgent and soul destroying.
This is a complete non-sequitur response to avoid the obvious.
Competition breeds innovation and refinement. Lack of competition breeds ambivalence and mediocrity. You can complain about it all you want (for whatever moronic reason), but that's the fact.
This is a complete non-sequitur response to avoid the obvious.
When in doubt, scream "Ideology!" As if screaming "Ideology!" renders one's own thoughts non-ideological.
Sarcasmic has a gift for justly saying what lard-brained looters have a gift for mistaking for an offered slight.
Physics and history show that the earth has never and will never have a static climate.
Science damnit.
When the Sun stops changing, MAGANS and Antifans will both blame Satan.
You seem displeased that your god will be cursed at.
The advocates of getting government heavily involved never recognize that naturally-occurring economic incentives align well with goals of energy efficiency. Households and businesses don’t want huge energy bills to pay. Clean, cheap energy from nuclear would be welcome in the energy marketplace.
It would be wonderful if climate change activists would accept nuclear as a solution.
In fairness, many do. It's a pretty good litmus test, actually, to determine whether someone's thoughts on the matter have at least a basic grounding in science or whether it's 100% politics.
If you believe CO2-driven climate change is an existential threat, but you don't support transitioning to nuclear power immediately, you are 100% political and 0% science.
Austin bought South Texas Nuclear Project debentures right after the Three Mile Island reactor frightened tens of millions of superstitious fools without harming a hair on anyone's head. Taxpayers actually profited, and there are four such reactors purring along today. (https://bit.ly/3WNx5B8)
Good on them.
I'll still forgive Jack Lemmon for making "The China Syndrome", but only because he is one of the great actors.
The rightist policy is to kill jews, rob, jail and shoot hippies, latinos and brown people and force bitches to squeeze out Hitlerjugend. Before taking power, Postive Christian Hitler asserted in a rare short sentence: "Political democracy, however, is analogous to Communism in the economic sector." This is the view Republicans take of drugs, sex, banking, medicine, rock concerts and the popular vote its candidates consistently lose absent the frenzy of a shooting war. Right&Left are both the coercive opposite of laissez-faire freedom.
No. It was James Dellingpole.
Anything is possible in the adjustocene. We just need the right model to fit our data to.
Rush Limbaugh was a scientific laughing stock long before Tucker Carlson took over the franchise:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-hard-act-for-mark-steyn-to-follow.html
That is not only true, is also reveals how disoriented Pubic is to imagine this is a venue for Christian National Socialists. They, like he, come here because all the looter mags toss them out teeth-first!
Go back to Climate Church.
He's talking to an actual expert scientist in the field of climatology. Shouldn't be hard to find her research.
Slight disagreement.
Why is it I expect actual evidence rather than the usual right wing talking points?
Per your own precepts, you didn’t expect actual evidence. You expected (performative) agreement.
^^^ BINGO ^^^. If Climate Change worshipers expected evidence the climate change hoax would've been forgotten by 1980 when it flipped on it's head from the Global Cooling scare to the Global Warming scare to the Just Changing scare.
For F'Sakes; what kind of 'science' is that? "The weather changes?" call in the bomb squad... /s
"Why is it I expect actual evidence rather than the usual right wing talking points?"
Why is it lefty shits continue to push a doomsday fantasy when, in the nearly 40 years of predictions, not a single, specific, prediction has been accurate?
Are lefty shits born stupid, or do they take a vow of stupidity when they decide to be a lefty shit?
Maybe go to Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com and read information for yourself. It's a very intelligent scientific website.
Zero evidence of the points in this, but no surprise from Stossel
Which points are unsupported, specifically?
After all, Stossel is not going to interview the numerous climate change scientists no less honest than Judith Curry who disagree with her.
And it's funny that she's accusing others of seeking fame and fortune. Pot, kettle...
Everyone in the world is already familiar with the catastrophic predictions about climate change.
Yeah, why should we listen to the few apostates without lining up a series of cult members to offer their "science"?
Obnoxiously arrogant lying pile of shit hardest hit.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Translation: "I can't actually deboooonk anything she's saying here, so I'm going to indulge in this rhetorical handwaving instead."
I notice you do this a lot when you can't actually engage an argument on its merits.
You notice no such thing but it's a convenient debating point.
It's a red herring, which tends to be your go-to debate tactic when you can't actually refute the argument.
I'd like to interview prominent climate alarmists. But they refuse. We've invited many.
Not surprising because, simply by branding these people as “alarmists,” you reveal yourself not as a serious journalist, but as a right-wing ideologue. Besides, why would anyone highly qualified in this field of science debase themself by getting into a phony debate about settled science?
Whether or not what they are being alarmist about is true, they are still alarmists.
And climate science is not in any way settled. It is a field still in its infancy.
Much better to sue the people who challenge your "science" for defamation rather than defend your work, right comrade.
But you just fall back into the lazy fallacies of justifying non-debate:
1. The moderator isn’t fair
2. The argument is settled, no reason to debate
3. I don’t want to give my opponent relevance or credit by debating.
At the end of the day, they all simply become excuses to cover for the fear of engaging in debate.
Anyone who claims the argument is settled is a science denier.
Of course these people will be quick to call others what they themselves are.
Imagine a random internet poster saying John Fucking Stossel isn’t a “serious journalist”.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
simply by branding these people as “alarmists,” you reveal yourself not as a serious journalist, but as a right-wing ideologue
Branding people "deniers," however . . . .
The term “settled science” is an oxymoron; science is a dynamic process where we have accepted theories which are only accepted until someone comes up with an experiment which calls it into question. As soon as I hear “all scientists agree”, I know a politician is talking and not a scientist.
Perhaps you should try to interview prominent climate scientists who are not alarmist - and try to do so without misrepresenting them as you do with the East Anglia emails, which is the kind of thing that deters legitimate scientists from appearing on such programmes.
Perhaps you could have been more critical of Dr Curry's claims about fame and fortune.
And have you interviewed Dr Richard Muller? He's even worked with Dr Curry - and was funded by Koch. (Surely I don't need to explain who he is.)
I love the spin on the East Anglia emails. It wasn't the temperature decline we were talking about, it was the trees!!!
Who? The Historical Theology guy who tried to learn physics from Luis Alvarez? What about him? I read Luis Alvarez' Physics Today articles on Bolides v Saurians all through the 1980s. His book shows him pro-defense and pro-energy. Still, one of Alvarez' former mathematical assistants lost the Freeze and Surrender argument to an Austin Libertarian in 1986. This only showed that Panovsky--like Mises and Hayek--never learned to think in American. The guy lectured on the contitution without having read it. Scientists, as Teller observed, are not so different from everyone else.
"I’d like to interview prominent climate alarmists."
Check your rolodesk prominent climate scientists. Your desire to interview alarmists might be prejudicing your search.
But that’s the thing. Judith Curry believes that warming is occurring. She doesn’t say that man-made climate change is not real, she just takes the position that with the information we have now, you can’t make the catastrophic claims that alarmist are making.
As such, the refutation to Curry is not someone who is going to say that human caused climate change is a thing, it has to be someone who is alarmist about climate change.
"she just takes the position that with the information we have now, you can’t make the catastrophic claims that alarmist are making. "
She doesn't know the future any more than the next scientist. If she claims that, she is suspect and ideologically motivated. In thrall to the status quo.
This response is just nonsense and very anti-scientific. Her position is that the information we have right now does not warrant the alarmist claims. That’s making a decision based on the known information. The alarmists are claiming that the way things are now is going to catastrophically change for the worse in the future. Such a claim needs to be supported in order to assert.
You’re now clearly just grasping at straws to have a disagreement with Dr. Curry. That must mean that you believe in the alarmism, which makes you the biased one, not the person who is saying we need more information to decide, which is specifically an unbiased position.
This response is just nonsense and very anti-scientific.
Note, also, that it's clear that the only reason this particular scientist doesn't know the future is that she doesn't agree with mtrueman. The "next scientist," if he's willing to predict world destruction, does, in fact, know the future.
"Note, also, that it’s clear that the only reason this particular scientist doesn’t know the future is that she doesn’t agree with mtrueman."
Any scientist who claims to know the future is having you on. They typically give a probability for a variety of outcomes and avoid emotion laden language like alarmist.
They typically give a probability for a variety of outcomes and avoid emotion laden language like alarmist.
So by what terms are you deciding which predictions of the future are bunk and which ones necessitate retooling the global economy?
"This response is just nonsense and very anti-scientific."
Fortune telling and predicting the future is typically nonsense and anti-scientific. 'Alarmist' is not a scientific word. It's a value judgement and an appeal to emotions. Proceed with caution.
Yet, you keep siding with the people who claim to know what's going to happen in the future and act alarmingly about it (thus "alarmist") and are actively arguing against the scientist that says we don't know enough to make future predictions.
The irony of your positioning cannot be overstated.
"act alarmingly"
You're sure about that. To me an alarmist is someone who sounds the alarm, typically without cause, which is why it's used derogatorily. I don't think it's unwise to consider the effects on the planet if everyone consumes as much energy as the wealthier nations do today. We'd have to increase it by 20 fold, or there abouts. The middle east has been fine fueling the civilized world. But if the entire world gets in on the game, conflicts and squabbles over oil will spread and turn the world into a permanent conflict zone, like the middle east today. You see I have objections to fossil fuel that have nothing to do with the climate, yesteryear, or the future.
So, you use climate change as a proxy for your real concerns. You don't know how funny this admission is.
You don’t know how funny this admission is.
He also doesn't understand why people regard him as dishonest.
John has defected to the loosing side in the war against cliche'
He's been on the Heartland Institute 's side in the climate wars since he starred in their first confabulation twenty years ago.
Pubic here is a baffled by losing as by intel...
Most climate change scientists refuse to debate or discuss. That's a huge part of the problem, actually.
Do you want them to risk expulsion from the Church?
It's not expulsion but exposure of the tenets that they avoid.
I've followed Curry's blog for years now. The anarcho-communists are doing to her exactly what the christianofascists did to Ayn Rand ever since she rejected mystical prohibitionist girl-bullier Ron Reagan and denied him her vote. From that day forward, Nambla-Boy at The Intellectual Activist attacked the libertarian "movement" the way Rand herself had while stumping for Tricky Dick Nixon. anarco-looters like Rotbutt cultivated goosestepping Mises marchers and Hayeck hacks to worship second-hand Germanic mercantilist dullards. So... how about them libertarian Ohio ballot counts?
I doubt she is financially any worse off for deserting the climate alarmist camp. There’s plenty of oil money supporting her views.
Even a libertarian can get behind reduction of pollution by reducing burning of fossil fuels leading to hundreds of thousands of premature deaths every year in addition to the carbon problem.
Can you show the information that supports your claim? You should watch this:
https://youtu.be/R00TO3D3f5A
net zero = the sum total of all college level chemistry and physics classes taken by al gore and bill mckibben
This is what differentiates global warmunism Sharknado shriekers from people conversant with basic math and the dimensions of the units of the four forces of nature. Ayn Rand never argued with mystics. I ask interlocutors to state the definition of energy, or the definition of power. Those baffled by THAT are not competent to argue the subject. Tales of the White Hart contains a splendid example of suffering fools.
The earth goes through cycles of warming and then cooling and then warming and then cooling.
Politics can't change that.
And, oh by the way, the earth is not flat.
Yes. That doesn't mean that there can't be more than one cause of warming.
It's good of you to admit that.
Hey the work has been done, congrats doomsayers. we get new tax increases this year because of the need to help the climate with out even a clear path of spending.
This article is severely lacking in supporting evidence. It’s only purpose is to confirm what we think we already know, give us a pat on the back for being independent thinkers, and that is not very useful. There was an opportunity here to produce evidence that might help people inclined to believe there is a scientific consensus in favor of climate change alarmism to change their mind.
For example, why not investigate the so-called scientific consensus. Who says there is consensus? What data are they relying on?
From what I can gather, the consensus is the result of surveys to scientists researching some aspect of climate, asking them to agree or disagree with matters of fact they have not researched, studied, or published papers on. It’s like going to Ford, speaking to the guy who only designed the brakes for the 2023 model f-150, and survey him about how good or bad other systems of the car are, and how the car as as a whole is.
Instead of raising that point, we get this lazy article about how a preacher turned skeptic, as if people changing their mind is evidence of anything other than their state of mind.
How about those claiming doomsday offer ONE accurate prediction?
You mean the one about infrared radiative forcing raising global temperatures as CO2 turns the sky into a blanket?
Tony, is that you?
LOTS of no-physics parrots believe CO2 is an abbreviation for Cotton. I think it might be because of the two tees. But since the nazi conservatives just got their gums kicked in in Ohio, I'm noticing a healty uptick in nonnational socialist spewings. Reason is the only place anonymous antifans can flock to go "nanny nanny boo-boo" at the christianofascists. The notion that Republicans know anything about energy or economics is a lie that helps them pretend to pall up to libertarians. Casual browsers may at least no longer see this as a Klan rally of girl-bullying Trumpanzees.
That one's not accurate. There's data indicating that ~0.02-0.04% got us to where we are today. There's (some) data indicating that Mars and Venus going from ~0 to 95% turned them into the mean -63 degree and 864 degree (respectively) surface temps they're at today, but every radiative forcing model trying to resolve down below 1%, especially for a planet with biome actively turning over a significant portion of that 1% every decade, has proven to be inaccurate.
The ability to absolutely predict and/or control the biome would represent an order of magnitude more control and predictability over climate change on a strict radiative forcing level than the ability to (not) predict and (not) control our current emissions and, even then as indicated, it's not entirely clear that we wouldn't have to exert such control for a couple hundred years in order to have a discernible (by today's standards) effect.
The climate dogma you cling to is akin to saying that, "According to Universal Gravitation, gravity affects birds less than it does people, so if people just flap their arms hard enough they should be able to fly." The fundamental theory about humans, birds, and gravity is accurate, but the leap from your conclusion of "Humans should be able to fly." back to it is grossly inaccurate.
For example, why not investigate the so-called scientific consensus. Who says there is consensus? What data are they relying on?
Your side did, for several years in fact. "Eleventy jillion scientists say that global warming is the greatest threat to human civilization we've ever seen!", followed by a citation of a petition from the commies at the Union of Concerned Scientists, many of whom weren't even actual climate scientists. Starting from the question-begging assumption that "global warming" is always bad gives the game away.
Doesn't sound like he's on the side of the people promoting the fake consensus.
Can't an article/video blurb just be about a preacher turned skeptic without a dissertation on climate?
Not to the true believer. Or even just the cranky complainer.
Right. That was my point. If you clicked on the article expecting a deep dive into the data by Noted Climate Scientist John Stossel rather than the ABCNews, 20/20, GMA, sit-down-interview, behind-the-scenes, investigative-journalist John Stossel, I blame you.
I helped gather signatures for Petitionproject.org whereby 30000 actual scientists with degrees and several Nobel Laureates blocked ratification of the Kyoto Kamikaze. The looters went bananas, but cannot come up with a tenth as many brainless bamboozlers and autistic children to sign a petition, and no actual scientists whatsoever, so they snigger and carp about ours. Their strongest allies are mystical girl-bulliers who likewise can't differentiate a constant yet support U.S. energy because foreign communists fear it.
"She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue "fame and fortune."
If you can't dispute the science, question the motives of the scientists.
What science? Once upon a time science was about the discovery of reality not delusions. How do you dispute a delusion? There is no science behind climate change; that 'discovery' has been proven FALSE time and time again.
"What science?"
The science of observing and measuring the temperature, composition and behavior of the atmosphere and oceans. That science.
" There is no science behind climate change"
Tell that to Judith Curry, an actual climate scientist.
One accurate prediction, please. 40 years and not a single specific prediction has been accurate.
That's not science, that's arm-waving.
"40 years and not a single specific prediction has been accurate."
Dude, 40 years was a whole Fahrenheit degree ago.
Hotter atmosphere, hotter oceans. That's two for two.
No and no. See above. The null hypothesis already predicted warming. The anthropogenic climate change hypothesis predicted even more warming - which has notably not yet been observed.
To explain that more clearly, if I have a hypothesis that miracle vitamin X will increase children's growth, I have to show that it causes an increase more than the amount they would have grown anyway. It is nowhere close to sufficient to say "see, they are now taller - it must be because of my wonder drug".
"The null hypothesis already predicted warming."
So has the addition of green house gases. I don't see why you reject it.
We are learning more about ocean temperatures. Recent findings show they are warmer at greater depths than previously though.
We are learning more about ocean temperatures. Recent findings show they are warmer at greater depths than previously though.
Only an ignorant person would promote this as evidence. How could anyone ever supply evidence that deep water temperatures were lower in the past? So you are limited to at most 20-25 years of data and the Earth is 2/3 covered with water. Even a large number of samples is going to leave you with huge margins of error because of the enormous volume of water.
The fact that climate scientists resort to such nonsense is proof to me that they are not to be taken seriously.
We are learning more about ocean temperatures. Recent findings show they are warmer at greater depths than previously though.
So . . . are you suggesting that we don't actually understand the way heat circulates on our planet quite as well as is commonly claimed?
Exactly. They point to data they failed to predict and claim that it is evidence their hypothesis has validity.
We're learning more and more with research. Isn't thee key to wisdom knowing how little we know? That doesn't mean we should ever ignore what little we do know.
That doesn’t mean we should ever ignore what little we do know.
So why ignore Curry?
If the key to wisdom is knowing how little we know, how can you take the position of settled science? Why do you argue against a scientist like Curry who is specifically making that claim?
re: “I don’t see why you reject it.”
Do you actually understand what a null hypothesis is?
...
And based on your comment below, you don't. Okay, at least we know what the problem is. Unfortunately, until you get at least a basic grounding is scientific theory further discussion is not going to be fruitful. I recommend you start with Karl Popper, though any of the more popular books by Richard Feynman would also be good. Let us know when you know what a null hypothesis is and we can pick the discussion up again.
"Do you actually understand what a null hypothesis is?"
I have an idea. Trouble is I don't know what your idea of the null hypothesis is, and if it comports with mine. That leads us to an impasse as neither of us is willing to define our terms. Richard Feynman isn't going to be of much help as long as neither of us are willing to discuss the issue in good faith.
That leads us to an impasse as neither of us is willing to define our terms.
Actually, Rossami was quite clear about his understanding of what the null hypothesis is.
Only one of the two of you is in fact "willing to discuss the issue in good faith," and by your own admission, it isn't you.
"Only one of the two of you is in fact “willing to discuss the issue in good faith,” and by your own admission, it isn’t you."
If you are unwilling to define terms or art and instead recommend reading Popper and Feynman you're not in good faith. You're putting on a performance. That's what it is. It's a performance you've enjoyed up to now, but it's time for me to draw the curtain.
If you are unwilling to define terms or art and instead recommend reading Popper and Feynman you’re not in good faith.
But . . . he did define his terms. You're the one who refuses to do so.
As several people have already pointed out, I defined the null hypothesis precisely. If you don't understand it, at this point that's up to you to fix.
In your view is 101 degree water hotter or colder than 90 degree water?
Two decades ago , 90 degree Gulf water revved up Hurricane Katrina and the Big Easy went under. Two years ago the same peak temperature revved up Ian and Tucker Carlson's beach house went glug glug.
Do the bloody math!
So I guess your extensive climate science expertise doesn't extend to realizing that hurricanes haven't actually been gaining in either power or frequency. Or to knowing that the global warming is actually expected to if anything decrease the power of tropical storms, which gain their power largely from the difference in temperature between the temperate and tropical zones, a difference that global warming is diminishing. Or to knowing that the average temperatures in the tropics haven't really been increasing, and that the warming is actually happening most dramatically in the polar regions.
She did dispute the "science". She reinvestigated the data leading to her early conclusions and reversed her position when "[s]he realized that the critics were right." Read the damn article.
Or even better, go read her actual published articles and their supporting data rather than just Stossel's snippet summary. Her work is not hard to find.
" Read the damn article."
The article claims that climate scientists are in it for the fame and fortune. I'm not persuaded by ad hominem arguments. You shouldn't fall for them either.
"She reinvestigated the data leading to her early conclusions"
She did so because she's a dedicated scientist. Not out of any desire for fame and fortune.
There is a huge problem in science of lack of reproducibility and groupthink. This is well known and studied. Most scientific papers published are simply wrong. Looking at the incentives that encourage scientists to produce the work that they do is absolutely a valid exercise. And a huge incentive is in how research grants are distributed and that has a lot to do with producing work that supports the current narrative, particularly in areas with a lot of public attention and political consequences.
And when you are looking at climate science there is a good dollop of outright fraud.
"There is a huge problem in science of lack of reproducibility and groupthink. "
It's a huger problem in any human endeavor. Think Iraq war.
"Most scientific papers published are simply wrong."
Doesn't make sense. Better to say the studies contradict each other, rather than assume they come up with an answer that is incorrect.
I don't see anything nefarious in funding research in areas that are of current interest, where our knowledge is superficial at best. I'm sure you'd agree. It's the implications of the results, a move away from fossil fuels, you take issue with. Not the funding itself. Oil companies also fund research into climate science and the results aren't different. Although the oil companies don't have any desire to move away from fossil fuels.
The question of the quality of the science and what we should do with fossil fuels are mostly distinct. The benefits of fossil fuels are enormous. You have to weigh that against the downsides. You also need to consider how likely any proposed intervention is to actually succeed.
" You have to weigh that against the downsides."
How do you propose to do that? Especially if you refuse to take any modelling into account.
You don't need modeling to tell you that decreasing the supply of fossil fuels will lead to human suffering. You can just compare to the history of human suffering before the introduction of fossil fuels.
Especially if you refuse to take any modelling into account.
Who's refusing to take modelling into account? Mostly what I've seen from "deniers" is not "I refuse to look at your model" but "your model doesn't match empirical reality."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Models have been consistently WRONG in their predictions. Models can be taken into account, seemingly to demonstrate how poorly they actually represent reality and how deficient we are in understanding negative and positive feedbacks. The downsides of limiting fossil fuel use globally, especially in developing nations are much more reliably predictable than the preached downsides of CO2e impacts. Climate alarmists consistently deny any positive effects of potential warming (i.e., longer growing cycles, more viable farm land in more places, higher crop yields, higher rainfall in some places, decreased mortality during winter months – much more of a killer than summer heat; more biodiversity) and also deny that use of fossil fuels and the technology they enable would allow humans to mitigate many of the negative effects of warming (potentially higher sea levels, warmer summers, less rainfall / more drought in some places, etc.). Even more importantly, measures to date taken to curb emissions through limiting fossil fuels consistently hit the poor hardest – higher food costs, higher heating and cooling costs, higher construction and housing costs, reversion to burning wood for fuel (which is actually emits more CO2e than fossil fuels because it releases sequestered carbon while simultaneously removing carbon sinks!), poorer air and water quality. It makes me want to ask alarmists “why do you hate poor people so much?”
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I don't see anything extraordinary in the claim that hear trapping gases trap heat.
"The downsides of limiting fossil fuel use globally, especially in developing nations are much more reliably predictable than the preached downsides of CO2e impacts. "
I disagree. I think the economies most invested in the exploitation of fossil fuels will suffer most from curtailing their use. USA, Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc. Those with less developed economies are seeking other alternatives. China, Kenya, India and others are looking to a future independent of imported fossil fuels.
I don’t see anything extraordinary in the claim that hear trapping gases trap heat.
^ This is what's known as a "motte-and-bailey," a special form of equivocation.
This is the standard response when someone says "I don't believe your claims that the world is ending," i.e. to pretend that the argument is about some basic scientific fact rather than the broadly hysterical apocalyptic claims.
Those with less developed economies are seeking other alternatives.
And not finding them. But I'm sure the people of Kinshasa will still be pleased with your assertion that their extreme poverty is an advantage, actually, and take heart knowing that they're doing the Right Thing.
I don't see anything extraordinary in heat trapping gases trapping heat. Call me jaded.
"And not finding them. But I’m sure the people of Kinshasa will still be pleased with your assertion that their extreme poverty is an advantage, actually, and take heart knowing that they’re doing the Right Thing"
They have the option of skipping over stages of development. Skipping over terrestrial broadcasting going directly to satellite, for example. Their potential is not much different from everyone else. I pointed out elsewhere that Kenya has decided not to put a lot of resources into importing and burning fossil fuels, but doing nuclear and geothermal.
I don’t see anything extraordinary in heat trapping gases trapping heat. Call me jaded.
Wow.
So your response to me pointing out the fallacy that you’re engaging in here is to simply repeat it.
Do you think anyone reading this debate between you and I won’t notice? Or is you yourself the only person you’re interested in persuading?
Also, as I point out above, it's not simply fossil fuels vs. windmills and solar panels either. The amount turned over by the biome every year is an order of magnitude larger than annual FF emissions and the amount stored in the biome is an order larger still. If you cut down all the trees and completely replace FF with windmills and solar panels, you wind up emitting more acutely and chronically and, likely, still don't make a blip in the historical record for at least several decades, if not centuries.
If we are to avail ourselves of current wind and solar technology we will have to do with less energy and newer possibly worse forms of pollution. Much the same with nuclear. To maintain current or growing energy consumption, controlled fusion may be our best bet. I like geo thermal but it doesn't seem as commentworthy.
""Doesn’t make sense. Better to say the studies contradict each other, rather than assume they come up with an answer that is incorrect.""
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the scientific method.
If you think understanding incentive structures is ad hominem, then you really need to adjust your line of thinking.
I'm sure you would be the first to cry foul if I presented you with a paper that claimed there is no such thing as global warming that was produced by Exxon.
The article claims that climate scientists are in it for the fame and fortune.
SHE (Judith Curry) is the one who made the claim. You fucking imbecile. Who are you to question her lived experience?! Fucking sexist, racist, woman-hating lefty shit.
"HE (Judith Curry) is the one who made the claim."
About other scientists, not herself whose motives are pure. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Don't be taken in by them.
How often do you hear anybody questioning the "science" deescribed as "deniers" and "on the payroll of fossil fuels"?
It's hardly rare.
Some are in it for their egos - they made models and predictions and don't want to admit they are wrong. Many more are in it for survival; if they buck the system that is dominated by AGW believers they will not get funded or will get pushed out of their jobs. A few are in it for fame and fortune; Al Gore for example, although they are often true believers.
“She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.”
Funny how you left that part off your quote.
"If you can’t dispute the science, question the motives of the scientists."
Isn't that what happens every single time someone questions climate change? Hell, it's happened in this very comment section!
Isn’t that what happens every single time someone questions climate change?
No, no, no. People who question climate change are paid shills of oil companies that want to genocide black people. It's a simple statement of fact.
You're being sarcastic right cause I can't tell anymore?
Fair point. Yes - I'm being sarcastic.
The real narrative behind the climate change hoax.
"Only Gov-Gods packing Guns can change the weather."
Climate predictions from the so called 'scientists' has FAILED over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
No; that's not science that is either stupidity or a faith in a religion.
But grant money.
"Climate predictions from the so called ‘scientists’ has FAILED "
You're being too hard on them. They've predicted increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean. Increased temperatures have been observed, measured, analyzed and reported. What more do you want from them? That said, climate is a chaotic phenomenon which is inherently unpredictable. That's why we can't accurately predict the weather tomorrow.
"They’ve predicted increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean. Increased temperatures have been observed, measured, analyzed and reported."
And the result has been pretty much nothing. But we should ruin the economy anyhow, right?
Models need to make testable predictions that can't be explained by other means. Saying that temps will rise is not sufficient to validate the models. There are lots of reasons temps can rise that the models may not be addressing or accurately representing. You are right that chaotic systems are really hard to predict and understand. That's exactly why it is unreasonably arrogant to claim we understand climate well enough to think we understand the causes of what we see well enough to try to change it.
"Models need to make testable predictions "
The climate is chaotic, That means unpredictable by definition. Not random, but not predictable. Nevertheless, increased temperatures and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans have been predicted, observed, measured etc.
"That’s exactly why it is unreasonably arrogant to claim we understand "
The heat trapping character of green house gases is well understood.
Probably less so than most people think.
There are many possible explanations for observed warming. The fact that there is warming going on and that you have made a model that predicts warming does not validate the model because you could also make any number of other models, considering different factors, that would also predict warming. Climate warming has happened many times in human history before industrial levels of CO2 emissions started happening.
"There are many possible explanations for observed warming."
True. Judith Curry seems to blame 'natural variation,' which seems a cop out to me. What exactly is natural variation and where can it be observed and measured? I think that increased concentration of CO2, a heat trapping gas, are a reasonable place to start.
It’s funny, because the alarmist scientists you taught can’t actually answer the natural variation question either. Right now, the alarmist scientists claim they know the ranges of natural variability, but can’t actually delineate the values for natural variability. It’s very much an ongoing debate.
And that’s one of Dr. Curry’s positions; you can’t claim settled science that one factor is the control knob when you admit you don’t know the impact or values of the other factors.
"answer the natural variation question either."
Because it's not science. Things cause other things. Blaming 'natural variability' is not a hypothesis, the first step on the road to science, one she doesn't want to commit to.
Models aren’t science and they aren’t conclusions.
If your model (hypothesis) fails or doesn’t consider other variables or can’t be reproduced, your hypothesis was fucking wrong.
Perhaps you are trying to model something that is inherently unpredictable. Like climate.
Then your model is almost certain to be wrong.
"Then your model is almost certain to be wrong."
But less wrong than your model. That's the best we can hope for.
It may be the best we can hope for, but it's not science. In science if your theory (i.e. model) doesn't make accurate testable predictions, then you need to revise your theory, not just run with what you have now.
" but it’s not science. "
Science is about naming, observing and measuring natural phenomena. It can't tell us with any certainty about the weather tomorrow or the climate a hundred years from now. Ultimately it's a political question, how we generate the energy that drives civilization. It's not difficult, it's a question that humans have faced since they came down from the trees.
It can’t tell us with any certainty about the weather tomorrow or the climate a hundred years from now. Ultimately it’s a political question, how we generate the energy that drives civilization.
Yes - that's what everyone is trying to explain to you.
Wait, are you really taking the position that natural factors are not important in determining the climate processes of the earth?
Are you saying things like water vapor/clouds, aerosols, and solar radiance have no bearing on the earth's climate?
I just want to get this right as you say understanding natural variation is not science. This is such a remarkable statement to me.
"Are you saying things like water vapor/clouds, aerosols, and solar radiance have no bearing on the earth’s climate? "
No, I'm saying that blaming some vague, unnamed 'natural variation' for climate change is a cop out.
No, it's a null hypothesis concept. If you don't know what causes warming naturally, you can't then claim that one factor (i.e. C02) is the control knob for temperature.
If you actually read her work and blog, you would know that she is firmly in the "we don't have enough information to justify the claims being made" camp. And one giant issue is the inability of climate scientists to be able to attribute and quantify the causes of warming, whether natural or artificial.
"“we don’t have enough information to justify the claims being made”
How much information is enough? We already know that more information isn't going to translate into flawless modelling. Science isn't going to tell us when to act, when to take the leap of faith, that's a political decision.
Well, for starters, understanding natural variability and natural warming factors would go a long ways. But that's not what you consider science. Instead, you just like the alarmism portion of it.
Science isn’t going to tell us when to act, when to take the leap of faith, that’s a political decision.
Yes. That's the point.
Spoiler alert: you're not actually allowed to force people to adopt your faith.
"If you don’t know what causes warming naturally,"
There's nothing unnatural in CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere. This 'natural variability' is nothing but a cop out. Look at other skeptics. They are often driven into a corner, resort to their natural variability 'explanation' that explains nothing.
There’s nothing unnatural in CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere.
There's that motte-and-bailey again.
Asking for a massive change to human society based on a model that does not provide any predictive value whatsoever nor any actual replicable results seems like a foolish idea to me.
If it's less foolish than maintaining the status quo out of laziness and incuriousity, maybe it's the best course of action.
If it’s less foolish than maintaining the status quo out of laziness and incuriousity
No, it really isn't. Deciding to torch your entire way of life because of some unlikely, unproven, panic-driven scenario is not less foolish than not doing so.
"Deciding to torch your entire way of life because of some unlikely"
Your reaction is shrill and your appeal to emotions is not persuasive. So you ride a bus instead of driving your SUV. Big fucking deal.
So you ride a bus instead of driving your SUV
I drive a hybrid, actually, which is much cleaner than a bus.
And setting aside your 100% unsupported assertion that this will be the only consequence of what elsewhere you describe as all of us embracing third-world extreme poverty:
This is not your choice to make on my behalf.
“If it’s less foolish than maintaining the status quo out of laziness and incuriousity, maybe it’s the best course of action.”
Lucky for us, maintaining the status quo is not less foolish than your preferred scenario spurred by emotion and religiosity.
Fuck off, slaver.
"describe as all of us embracing third-world extreme poverty:"
What if that turns out to be the best choice on offer? What then? When Soviet Russia fell the death rate skyrocketed and life expectancy plummeted. Mostly middle aged and older men succumbing to despair, alcohol and suicide. Something similar I fear is in the cards for a lot of us.
What if that turns out to be the best choice on offer?
Wait a minute - you just now said that this would only involve me having to give up the icky SUV you assume I have and join the poors on the bus. Why are we back to stone-age poverty all of a sudden?
"Wait a minute – you just now said that this would only involve me having to give up the icky SUV you assume "
Who knows what the future will bring? Not me.
The heat trapping character of green house gases is well understood.
Not on a planetary scale. Physicists have trouble properly describing the transfer of heat from the ocean to the air.
Not on a planetary scale.
^
CO2 isolated in a box, yes. CO2 as one of many, many factors in a fundamentally chaotic system, no.
It is uncommonly dim of Chuck to project his incomprehension of thermodynamics on physicists who understand it for a living.
Haven't really been following the developments on ocean-air heat transfer, either, I see.
Next he will tell us that physicists can indeed know both the exact current position and predict the future position of an electron because they understand it for a living.
Every single model has been wrong. And not by a little, by more than twice the standard variance, i.e. they are less than 2% likely to be right.
The most accurate model is based on sunspots, but it is not as well characterized.
They predicted dramatically increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean. The null hypothesis also predicts increased temperatures as the planet continues to emerge from the Little Ice Age. The observed temperatures are consistent with the null hypothesis. The "anthropogenic climate change" predictions have significantly and consistently over-shot the temperature observations.
"The “anthropogenic climate change” predictions have significantly and consistently over-shot the temperature observations."
They've also failed to predict or observe the dramatic increases in ocean temperatures at the mid levels, below the surface, some couple three hundred meters down. This has been thought of as a solution for the 'missing increases'.
So they are garbage models. If your model fails to make useful, specific predictions, it is junk and you need to try again.
"So they are garbage models."
The map is not the territory.
They are models, the best we can come up with given limited resources and knowledge.
"specific predictions"
Chaotic systems resist specific predictions. Not random, but not predictable. Think tomorrow's weather forecast.
Given your admissions here, are you also ready to admit that the models are not competent for the policy recommendations they are being used to support?
"are you also ready to admit that the models are not competent for the policy recommendations they are being used to support?"
Have you got better models in mind? It seems the models we're discussing are the best available. Is your policy recommendation to keep the status quo until better models exist? That seems a recipe for inaction, given the chaotic inherently unmodelable nature of climate.
re: Have you got better models in mind?"
Yes, the null hypothesis.
And yes, my policy recommendation is strongly to keep the status quo until better models exist and can give at least some confidence that the purported benefits of a given policy change will outweigh the negatives.
"Yes, the null hypothesis."
Not sure what you mean. Do you reject the hypothesis that adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere with make it warmer, despite the observed increases in both temperature and CO2 concentration?
re: "Not sure what you mean."
We've identified the problem. See my reply above, please.
When you are not sure if your proposals will be a net benefit or harm, inaction is often the best option.
"inaction is often the best option."
Continued CO2 emissions is not inaction. It's adding heat trapping gases to an atmosphere that is observably and measurably growing warmer.
"Have you got better models in mind? It seems the models we’re discussing are the best available. Is your policy recommendation to keep the status quo until better models exist? That seems a recipe for inaction, given the chaotic inherently unmodelable nature of climate."
The problem right here. You know the models are not good and don't give good answers, or even really let us know if we (humans) are really the issue. You are taking that last point of faith, not evidence. Don't say there is, you have admitted many times above that the models don't work ("they are the best we have though") because it is a chaotic system. Believing what the "alarmist" say without having actual, proven, and corroborated evidence is faith.
So, because of your faith, you are ready for us (the world) to just jump on some action that will cost billions, probably ruin countless lives (this is the government after all). What a f'n idiot.
"Believing what the “alarmist” say without having actual, proven, and corroborated evidence is faith."
By the same token you have no evidence disproving the most dire predictions.
you have no evidence disproving the most dire predictions
I want you to read this over and over again very carefully as you ponder whether you really are on the side of logic and science in this debate.
""By the same token you have no evidence disproving the most dire predictions.""
There is a history of dire predictions that did not happen as expected.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/
Btw, the onus is not on people to disprove you. the onus is on you to prove.
Yes, that's my point. We can't trust the models. They are no good. The fact that climate is difficult to study doesn't make the models any less wrong. If you want to do something hugely disruptive and expensive, you had better be damn sure it's going to work.
" We can’t trust the models. They are no good."
They're the best we got. What do you propose to use in their place? All models are wrong, if you get down to it. All maps are inaccurate. Do you propose we stop using maps on that account? This skepticism of models seems a convenient way of misdirecting us away from your true objection to climate change, your inability to contemplate a world deriving its energy from something other than fossil fuels.
Maps are demonstrably useful. Climate models are not. That doesn't mean the whole idea should be discarded. It just means that the science is not mature enough to draw definite conclusions from.
I have no objection to climate change (or the notion that it is a real phenomenon). Nor to the use of other sources of energy. I do think that a rapid, coerced shift away from fossil fuels would cause enormous harm to people, particularly the poorest people in the world, and that current proposals to address climate change are almost certain to have little or no effect on climate and will make people poorer and less able to adapt to changes that do happen. Climate is going to change and people will have to adapt. We should be doing what will allow us to adapt best to changes. The best thing we can do to make people more resilient to climate change is to encourage economic growth that will make everyone materially better off.
"Maps are demonstrably useful. Climate models are not."
So far climate models have been predicting warmer temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. They've been correct. Last month was the hottest on record. Planning for hotter temperatures in the future seems a reasonable response, something useful.
" I do think that a rapid, coerced shift away from fossil fuels would cause enormous harm to people, particularly the poorest people in the world"
I agree but the poorest only consume about a 20th of the energy of the wealthiest. It's the wealthiest who would be most inconvenienced, it's the wealthiest who have most invested in the status quo. The poorest are already making the transition. See Kenya with it's exploitation of geothermal and nuclear, high speed rail etc. Expecting these nations to step back into a time of relying on fossil fuels imported from abroad is not what's happening.
"to encourage economic growth that will make everyone materially better off."
Economic growth has meant increasing the burning of fossil fuels. That looks increasingly bad considering the role it plays in increasing green house gas emissions. If we could have economic growth without increasing energy consumption, that would do the trick. The prospects of this look dim. More realistic is a redistribution of wealth. Again the prospects for this are dim, given the sacrifices required of the planet's wealthiest, but famine and drought and starvation have long been engines for radical change in how humans organize societies.
So far climate models have been predicting warmer temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. They’ve been correct.
This is exactly like saying "I predicted 30 years ago that the Dow would be higher today than it was 30 years ago, and I'm right, therefore I'm right that this specific obscure stock is going to make you rich, on account of how good my model turned out to be."
It's also the wealthiest who are the most gung-ho for this stuff.
You might want to investigate WHY they are so on board with changing everything for a science that cannot provide any predictive value.
You might want to investigate WHY they are so on board with changing everything for a science that cannot provide any predictive value.
Weirdly, this is precisely where mtrueman stops thinking like a Marxist.
"This is exactly like saying "
It's not like that at all. Scientists have predicted increased temperatures and CO2 concentrations. The predictions have been observed and measured.
"It’s also the wealthiest who are the most gung-ho for this stuff."
Not surprising. The wealthiest are better educated and tend to think in longer time horizons. The poor often can't afford school or the time to study and concentrate their attention on scrounging for their next meal.
It’s not like that at all.
No, it is, actually.
Really, this is just another motte-and-bailey of yours. You claim catastrophic warming is happening because of CO2 but when challenged you pretend your challenger is denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
As I said elsewhere and you ignored, any climate model built on data from the last 10,000 years is going to predict future warming whether humans even continue to exist or not.
To try to be even more brutally clear:
There is a clear, undeniable long-term, geologic-scale warming trend that has lasted literally throughout the history of human civilization.
The rate of warming is absolutely central to the argument that recent warming is catastrophic and human-caused.
Nevertheless, you keep pretending that the debate is about whether warming is happening regardless of the rate at which it is happening.
Show me that you're not completely dishonest by acknowledging what the debate is actually about.
The poor often can’t afford school or the time to study and concentrate their attention on scrounging for their next meal.
Your total ignorance of what life is for the poor says a great deal about you and where you're coming from. And is very interesting combined with your declaration that the developing world will be just fine continuing in poverty.
This summer has been unusually hot in much of the US and Europe. That was completely expected. The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15 2022 sending an enormous amount of water into the atmosphere. Water vapor traps heat.
There is also an el nino (that was predicted back in 2005) that increases heat in the Pacific.
What we are experiencing this year is largely due to that extra water vapor and el nino.
https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming
Ask a weather forecaster to use a model to predict the weather 10 years from now. Heck, ask them to use a model to predict the weather 10 months from now. They will laugh in your face and explain that outside of 10 days, weather models are not remotely reliable.
Ask them the average temperature 2000 years ago and watch the painful grimacing of ignorant superstition.
My humble superstition is physics.
What do you call the one that makes you grimace so painfully when confronted with big thick books and journals with "palaeoclimatology on the cover?
“Chaotic systems resist specific predictions.”
Then maybe your fellow travelers should stop making specific predictions…
If you can't test your model in a controlled environment your confidence your models' algorithms are correct are low. The earth is coming out of an ice age, CO2 was much higher in PPM in the past than today...we don't have temperature data through orbital or land sensors before a few decades ago with any accuracy. We used to say when I worked in plasma physics and created models "Garbage in, gospel out" when we wrote up grant proposals. Does this mean we shouldn't focus on moving away from fossil (for the very least that they tend to cause wars and result in other degases/refinery waste as CO2 really isn't a pollutant but necessary for life). Wind and solar are problematic. As much as I don't like nuclear due to human failures, fission should be brought into the picture again.
This has been thought of as a solution for the ‘missing increases’.
Except that nobody has any idea whether or not that heat was already there.
They’ve predicted increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean. Increased temperatures have been observed, measured, analyzed and reported. What more do you want from them?
As has been pointed out to you again and again, increased temperatures would be expected whether humans were here or not.
The rate of change is what is important. How well have the models been doing on that front?
"The rate of change is what is important."
Not in the long run. In the short run slower warmer could give us time to sort things out.
Lol. You're not even responding to the point at hand. You must be getting pissed.
Let me remind you what you said one whole comment ago (which I also quoted in the comment that you're responding to):
They’ve predicted increased temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean. Increased temperatures have been observed, measured, analyzed and reported. What more do you want from them?
I can't speak slowly on the internet, so I'm just going to have to ask you to read this really slowly, maybe a couple of times:
You weren't talking about predicting the future. You were talking about the ability of the models to predict the temperatures we have right now.
Do you have that much? If not, please read it again, slowly.
Good. Now let's proceed:
"The models showed warming and we saw warming" is not a statement that the models were accurate in any way other than confirming the tens-of-thousands-of-years-long warming trend up to today.
Still with me? Again, if not, please re-read slowly until you're up to speed.
To continue:
What the models are attempting to show, and what you are arguing using the models as your evidence is that there has been a change in the rate of warming, and that this change is human-caused.
Declaring that "warming happened" does not address this point. Declaring the models to be accurate because "they showed warming" elides the fact that they do not in any case correctly predict the rate of warming. Which, as I hope you remember from the preceding paragraph, is central to the question of how much warming is anthropogenic.
Predicted response from mtrueman:
"Well, you can't deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas . . . . "
"You weren’t talking about predicting the future. You were talking about the ability of the models to predict the temperatures we have right now."
I'm not sure what you're driving at. We don't need models to tell us the temperature now. We have thermometers for that. Granted, a thermometer models temperature, but that's not the kind of model you're worked up about.
"What the models are attempting to show, and what you are arguing using the models as your evidence is that there has been a change in the rate of warming, and that this change is human-caused."
You think the models used by the oil companies are attempting to show that? I think the incentives that drive the funding would be to attempt to show the opposite. Yet they came to the same conclusion anyway.
"Declaring the models to be accurate because “they showed warming” elides the fact that they do not in any case correctly "
I've never declared models to be accurate. Just the opposite, repeatedly. Models are inaccurate by definition. Your watch models the passage of time. But not accurately.
"is central to the question of how much warming is anthropogenic."
An interesting question, and the answer is not clear. I think it's safe to say that with increased CO2 emission from fossil fuels, man made climate change will get a bigger piece of the warming pie.
In the end we may never know. It might get so warm that we're beyond fussing over the exact causes and focus our attention of surviving the day. For what it's worth, my word of advice, head for the hills. 2000 meters is a nice round figure.
I’ve never declared models to be accurate.
Please reread this thread, slowly.
That the models are accurate is what you are arguing literally right now.
"That the models are accurate is what you are arguing literally right now."
Are you confusing me with someone else. Maybe it was a typo of mine that confused you. Models are not accurate. For the same reason that maps are not accurate: they're models. Models can give correct predictions, but accuracy? Very unlikely in a chaotic system like climate.
Are you confusing me with someone else.
This entire subthread is you maintaining that TJJ2000 was wrong to say that the models have failed in their predictions, and in order to do that you're having to pretend that the only thing the models claimed to show was "warming."
Dishonest, or deluded? I'll let you pick.
"This entire subthread is you maintaining that TJJ2000 was wrong to say that the models have failed in their predictions, "
Predictions is one thing. Accuracy is another. Models are inherently inaccurate. But they can make correct predictions. Predicting increased temperature and CO2 concentrations, for example.
I've come to the conclusion that this subject is way outside mtrueman's ability to understand and discuss.
I’ve come to the conclusion that this subject is way outside mtrueman’s ability to understand and discuss.
The key to dealing with mtrueman is to realize that he doesn't actually have a point, and isn't pursuing a coherent argument - he simply nitpicks whatever your most recent comment was without awareness/concern about what the overall discussion is actually about.
"I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star," Curry recounts. "Flown all over the place to meet with politicians."
Yeah, it's a racket. All this scientific research is dependent on funding to make it possible, and the funding is largely coming from groups with a vested interest in promoting the anthropogenic global warming doomsday narrative. It's been that way at least as long as Mann's hockey stick and the shitty GIGO model he used.
The whole point is to socially engineer behavior in the First World in service to the environmental faction of the rad-left, limit choices on consumption, and reduce the overall standard of living for everyone on Animal Farm except for the pigs. That's why everyone in Europe and the Five Eyes nations needs to cut back on their emissions, but not India or China.
" All this scientific research is dependent on funding to make it possible, and the funding is largely coming from groups with a vested interest in promoting the anthropogenic global warming doomsday narrative."
The oil companies also fund their own research and come to the same conclusions as the UN and other groups. The oil companies have no vested interest in anything but maintaining the status quo.
The oil companies also fund their own research and come to the same conclusions as the UN and other groups. The oil companies have no vested interest in anything but maintaining the status quo.
You talking about ExxonMobil?
""This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how "Exxon Knew" are wrong in their conclusions," the company told BBC News."
Not really a surprise from "climate scientists" who start with a conclusion and then work backwards to confirm their bias.
You talking about ExxonMobil?
Shell and others, as well.
Cite, trueman? Your word is NWS:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
You mean the oil companies who produce natural gas that has been the single greatest reducer of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet who also compete with coal companies for profit? Those oil companies?
If you burn natural gas, CO2 is inevitably released. Likewise with coal or any other fossil fuel.
Um, yeah. I see you completely missed the point. Not sure if it was on purpose or not.
Natural gas, though releasing C02, releases much less C02 than other fossil fuels, especially coal. As such, many have increased the use of natural gas to lower C02 emissions. And oil companies have been fighting coal companies for profit, and a great way to do that is support the movement that will shut down your competition.
Burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. There's no way around this.
"And oil companies have been fighting coal companies for profit,"
The oil companies also spent to fund the opposition to nuclear power much for the same reason.
I really can't tell if you're this obtuse. Yes, burning fossil fuels releases CO2. Yet, if I rely on coal to power my city and it releases 100 tons of C02 a day and then switch to natural gas that emits 50 tons of C02 a day. That's actually a decrease in C02 emissions.
The vast majority of the decreases in C02 emissions in the US has been the result of changing over from coal to natural gas.
Burning fossil fuels increases the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. It's not even rocket science. It's climate science. Drink a bottle of diet coke. Your calorie intake increases, not decreases.
When people talk about CO2 emissions, they are talking about a rate, not a cumulative total. It is completely impossible to reduce the cumulative total emissions. So what is your point?
"So what is your point?"
The point is burning fossil fuels adds to the cumulative total of CO2 in the atmosphere. Not unlike drinking a diet coke adds to your calorie intake. You're not fooling anyone by claiming otherwise.
No one has claimed otherwise. Though there are negative feedback on CO2, such as increased plant growth.
So, you are purposefully not understanding? That's all I can figure at this point.
That's the problem with mtruman. He seems like he's almost smart enough to have an interesting debate with, but he always ends up going in circles.
"but he always ends up going in circles."
You're the pretending that burning natural gas doesn't emit CO2 into the atmosphere. It does. Does it emit less than coal? Yes, that's why it's called a 'transition energy source,' one step on the road toward to 'zero carbon.'
“You’re the pretending that burning natural gas doesn’t emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”
See, I nor anyone else ever claimed this. This is a great example of why I can’t tell if you are being purposefully obtuse.
I wrote:
"If you burn natural gas, CO2 is inevitably released. "
You couldn't bring yourself to concede the point. None of this refutes my comment that oil companies have funded research into climate science and found no disagreement others who don't have the incentive to maintain the status quo.
“You couldn’t bring yourself to concede the point.” I specifically said that burning natural gas releases C02.
Again, I can’t tell if you are really this obtuse or just pretending to be.
I’m starting to think this subject matter is a little out of your wheelhouse.
I can’t decide if everything is out of their wheel house or if they’re playing at some kind of intellectual game, presenting the stupidest possible takes to get us to refute them.
I'm right there with you. I almost feel like it's a game at this point. A person can't be both this genuine in their discussion while also clearly not understanding it to the point of circular absurdity.
I really can’t tell if you’re this obtuse.
He is, yes, but rest assured that it's intentional.
I try to avoid unintentional obtuseness. If you find anything I write to be obtuse, it's certainly intended.
There's nothing, however, obtuse in my observation that oil companies have studied climate and reached the same conclusions that everyone else has. Too obtuse for you? That's your problem.
No, the obtuseness is the refusal to acknowledge what the debate is actually about.
Really I'm not surprised to find that it's deliberate on your part. It's what I always see you do in debate when your feet can't find solid ground.
I'm pointing out that oil companies fund research into climate change and their results don't differ from studies with other funding. Do you have a response to that or just what to rake over my many character flaws?
I’m pointing out that oil companies fund research into climate change and their results don’t differ from studies with other funding. Do you have a response to that or just what to rake over my many character flaws?
What are the results that you're referring to, specifically?
Before you say, let me guess:
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas."
"What are the results that you’re referring to, specifically?"
The specifics of any two studies will differ, It's the generalities that match up and refute Curry's claim that funding has corrupted climate science. If the oil companies can't come up with studies that refute the basic claims of academic/government climate science, that weakens Curry's thesis or destroys it even.
The specifics of any two studies will differ, It’s the generalities that match up
What "generalities," specifically? You have yet to answer this.
"What “generalities,” specifically?"
Their findings are in agreement with those funded by academia and government. You are free to study their studies if you think it's worth your time.
Dude, just ridiculous platitudes and amorphous appeals to authority.
This subject is beyond mtrueman's ability.
You are free to study their studies if you think it’s worth your time.
I have, which is why I'm curious to discover what conclusions you think everyone has come to. You seem weirdly reluctant to provide any specifics.
His conclusion id this: "“If you burn natural gas, CO2 is inevitably released. ”" Therefore, we have Global Boiling and the State must take over to save everything.
“I have, which is why I’m curious to discover what conclusions you think everyone has come to.”
If you have read these studies, then you must know they don’t contradict the studies funded by government/academy. Curry would have us believe otherwise. Curry tells us that studies inevitably reflect the biases and desires of those who fund them. But here they both reach the same conclusion. You’ve read the studies, how do you explain? Or perhaps you don’t want to concede my point out of tribal loyalty to Curry, the oil companies, or whoever it is you are in thrall to.
You speak on this matter with clearly no actual substantive knowledge. You claim that other studies (of which you are never specific) contradict the beliefs of Curry, a person who you know almost nothing about and haven’t read a single thing she has written.
You are trying to boil a subject down to black and white when the subject is steeped in gray. You really need to understand that all you are doing is being a contrarian with no point, just parroting platitudes and overly-general statements with no actual understanding of the subject matter.
“You speak on this matter with clearly no actual substantive knowledge.”
Nobody has contradicted my take on the subject. The bulk of the responses to me have been personal invective and quibbles about how natural gas reduces CO2 emissions.
“You are trying to boil a subject down to black and white when the subject is steeped in gray. ”
It’s Curry who claims that funding has corrupted climate scientists. This despite the fact that oil company funded research comports with the research she claims is corrupt. I hope you understand what I mean. If two groups with opposing agendas agree on the issue, the agreement indicates a lack of corruption in the research. That's my take. And you are correct though, that I'm not an expert in the field. Or any other field, unfortunately.
Your "take on the subject" has been contradicted many times. Heck, you've flailed all over the place and rarely make a true point. And when you try to make a true point, you just spout platitudes and generalities. And then when really pressed you form Motte and Baily arguments.
Curry is explaining that the incentive structure in climate science is geared towards awarding those who agree with climate change positions. That's irrefutable and to even try shows you don't care about reality, but only care more about your contrarian position.
And you keep saying oil company studies agree with activist studies, but you never specify on what the agreement actually is. You never cite papers. You just vomit general statements that aren't remotely correct or even relevant.
And if you think there isn't an incentive for oil companies to agree with the claims of climate change, then you have shown you ignored all the information I previously provided to you and don't understand energy sector dynamics either.
At the end of the day, you are not informed on this matter, don't care about reality and facts, are dishonest in your arguing, constantly deflect and change the argument, provide no substantive information, and are only driven by the desire to disagree with Curry even though you are so far from having her credentials and knowledge on the subject that it's comical to think you possess any ability to level any type of judgment against her.
"Your “take on the subject” has been contradicted many times. Heck, you’ve flailed all over the place and rarely make a true point."
I disagree. Nobody has contradicted the fact that studies funded by oil companies comport with other studies. Instead, I get insults and quibbles.
Oil companies don't have an incentive to produce results that call into question the burning of fossil fuels. Yet their studies do in any case. This clearly undermines Curry's argument, which is not scientific at all, but relies on her dubious mind reading skills. I understand your motivation for wanting to carry water for her, so I don't expect you to agree with me. You will continue to insult and quibble instead.
That said, I'm glad you think it worth your time to read my comments.
Are you nuts, squirrel ?
Global CO2 emission has risen despite the rise in gas production , because coal production continues to rise in China and India
And the methane that leaks unburned into the air is twenty times more heat absorptive as CO2.
This is not exactly news either—
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2014/10/climate-wars-salt-talks.html
He said that swithing from coal to gas reduces emissions. That is true. Some countries increasing their use of coal doesn't contradict that.
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, but it breaks down fairly quickly so has less cumulative effect.
Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, but it breaks down fairly quickly so has less cumulative effect.
And I've always found it noteworthy that the people who politicize this issue only ever want to talk about methane in the context of natural gas drilling, but crickets when anyone mentions factory farming.
The oil industry is hated by a large swath of the public. People think that they take something that should belong to everyone and sell it at a huge profit. People hate that they are dependent on oil.
Oil companies have a PR problem. So, of course, they will do whatever they can to show that they 'get with the program' on global warming. Most of it is greenwashing - doing a few things to seem virtuous. Progs, in particular, should be familiar with this - it's called virtue signaling - and they do it all the time. Recall the Black Lives Matter signs in people's yards, the Ukraine flags in their windows, and the 'coexist' bumper stickers? These cost nothing in money or actions, but allow them to show off their 'virtue.'
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Wrong link. Try libertrans.blogspot.com
If you need solid evidence that the climate change cult is mostly full of shit, ask their followers, including and especially the “science” clergy about nuclear power and geoengineering-two things that could work in the NEAR future to slow climate change, while we find better alternatives for fossil fuels. They don’t want solutions -they want everyone to pay for their original carbon sin and punish the sinners (oil companies) to redistribute their wealth-this is a combination of Marxism and religion.
Communism was shown, finally, to be a failure, as predicted by those not 'of the faith'. But, damn it, the 'smart people' should be able to tell hoi polloi how to run their lives!
And you're right; if nuclear power is off the table, these are not serious people.
Do tell us more about your role in the Evil Empire's overthrow.
Tell us more about your abysmal idiocy. oh, lefty shit.
Catholic church had indulgences centuries ago. No real difference.
I thought the high temperatures were due to draining the aquifers which is causing the earth to tilt more (31.5 degrees) towards the sun. Thus making summers hotter.
I'm pretty sure we'd have noticed an 8 degree change in the earth's tilt.
>>Judith Curry.
lol answers my question from the other day, Zeb
Just as with covid stuff, there are a lot more dissenters out there than the comfy establishment would like you to believe.
Political ranting is not the solution to the politicization of science.
How can one address the politicization of science without discussing the politics that affect science?
You seem to prefer to address it without reading the science in question. When did you last lay eyeballs on a climate science journal?
Hey, we got a live one here! After 40 years of this bullshit and the 'pandemic', this lefty shit thinks government-backed "science" is to be taken at face value.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Is it the Ivermectin talking or the chloroquine?
If climate change alarmists in the US truly desired to reduce global carbon emissions, they'd have been picketing and protesting the Chinese embassy in DC daily for the past 20 years.
While the US has reduced carbon emissions 25% during the past 20 years, China's carbon emissions have more than quadrupled and greatly exceed US emissions.
In fact, even if the US totally halted all carbon emissions, which would destroy our nation and decimate our population, global carbon emissions will continue increasing until/unless China, India and Africa stop increasing their emissions.
Last time I had bothered checking out output was below the limits that Kyoto wanted to set.
” Read the damn article.”
"The article claims that climate scientists are in it for the fame and fortune. I’m not persuaded by ad hominem arguments. You shouldn’t fall for them either.
“She reinvestigated the data leading to her early conclusions”
She did so because she’s a dedicated scientist. Not out of any desire for fame and fortune."
Since when have having mediocre scientific track record and being a climate contrarian been mutually exclusive?
Steve Koonin is a vastly better scientist , and as such has written a slightly more persuasive apologetic- Unsettled that John & Ron have praised in Reason.
But then, he used to be Chief Scientist at British Petroleum.
Lobbying Happens.
As does abysmal stupidity; see just above.
But then, he used to be Chief Scientist at British Petroleum.
So, pretty damn smart, then?
Sure knows how to defend the value of the BP shares he earned
As I noted in a previous thread, there are more than the two positions, "we insist that it's nothing to worry about because it's not happening and if it is it'll be good for us" and "it'll be like a John Martin painting". But the former position appeals to the hysterical right, who paint everyone not in accord with their denialism as catastrophists, and the latter appeals to the hysterical left, who think that the best way to get people to respond to a threat is to make the threat appear as dramatic and immediate as possible.
Neither represents either reality or a reasonable response.
BTW as a side issue, imagine a world where the US did not give a shit about ME oil.
if the cost of climate mitogation through cutback in use of carbon-based fuels is only a few trillion, that is entirely comparable to the trillions spent on foreign "policy" to protect oil supplies. If we had had alternatives/renewables in the 40s, would we have bothered to overthrow Mossadegh and get involved in sundry other ME conflicts? Nope. Well, as long as we rely on oil, we'll be spending trillions indirectly on protecting supply. I'd rather it went on alternatives - nuclear, solar, etc. YMMV.
Convince people that nuclear is the way to go and we might get somewhere. Until that happens, we aren’t going to be able to stop using fossil fuels without causing a lot of harm to a lot of people. Now, you might say that climate change will also harm people. And that is certainly true. But I don’t think we can be at all certain about the effectiveness and political feasibility of the currently proposed mitigations. Nor can we expect the developing world to stop developing (and that is where all the increases in emissions are coming from). So my position is that we are very unlikely to stop whatever climate change is going to happen and therefore, the best thing to do is whatever helps people become most resilient to the effects of climate change, which is to make people wealthier and freer.
We've already spent (thrown away, I'd say) well over a few trillion on this. I think we are talking 100s of trillions to do what is being proposed to eliminate fossil fuels.
And think of all those solvable environmental issues that could have been addressed with all that money that has been spent on fighting climate change.
Climate hype began in earnest with the marketing campaign for “nuclear winter” — Carl Sagan hired a PR firm before publishing the paper. So who blew the whistle on his hype?
Climate scientists, starting with Steve Schneider, the founding Editor of Climatic Change
Science is about changing your mind if the evidence changes, and Curry , like Stossel has been mighty picky in choosing it to please her sponsors.
"Science is about changing your mind if the evidence changes, and Curry , like Stossel has been mighty picky in choosing it to please her sponsors."
Comment from one of the political "science" faithful.
No, science is a search for better knowledge of reality; it has no business being political at all, except to lefty shits attempting to tell others how to run their lives, lefty shit.
Climate hype began in earnest with the marketing campaign for “nuclear winter”
First, "nuclear winter" requires the detonation of bombs and is completely irrelevant. There was plenty of speculation in the 70s and 80s about atmospheric particulate pollution accelerating the coming of the next ice age.
Second, "climate" hype began in earnest after the missions to Venus revealed a planet that was nothing like what was expected and scientists fell all over themselves trying to explain why. Specifically why the location of Venus does not predict surface temperatures that exceed that on Mercury. They immediately postulated that given different atmospheric composition the Earth could have similar temperatures. Which is foolish because there are simply too many variables to come to any conclusions.
People still remember these things. You will have to wait until we die to rewrite it.
Second, “climate” hype began in earnest after the missions to Venus revealed a planet that was nothing like what was expected and scientists fell all over themselves trying to explain why.
^
It's a classic case of "we just realized this thing can happen, therefore we assume that it is happening."
Very much like the more recent hysteria about life on earth being wiped out by a huge asteroid. One may have come close to doing so 65M years ago, therefore we must assume it's very likely to happen again at any moment.
"Nuclear Winter " as originally advertised , didn't require much of anything inasmuch as it was just a name Sagan coined for the output of a one dimensional model purpose-built to produce it.
Which is why real, 3-D world , climate , modelers were the ones who read him the riot act in Foreign Affairs,
Your suggestion that Venus figured in the controversy is clueless , as its atmosphere is two orders of magnitude denser than ours
Your suggestion that Venus figured in the controversy is clueless
I don't think you fully understand what he's talking about.
Gibberish is indeed hard to understand, but that does not detract from the fact that Sagan invoked Martian dust storms as analogous to it being cooler in the shade of terrestrial mushroom clouds. Trouble then was that the optical depths he front loaded into the 1D TTAPS model were twenty powers of e higher than his analogy could support. He went on to tell Nightline host Ted Koppel that nuclear cooling would be "exactly" as bad as the K-T impact event, an analogy that overstated the megatonnage of real-world arsenals by a factor of a cool million.
Please refrain from beclowning yourself further.
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Look, we get that you're a physicist and that you think that makes you really, really special. I'm guessing a professor based on your notion that a limited and focused expertise in one topic makes you an expert on everything.
But actually, you fail to understand the sociological point that Chuck is making, precisely because you assume that you're so smart and everyone else is so dumb.
In my experience the problem in climate discourse is exactly the opposite- An emeritus Nobel solid state physics laureate like the one Stossel has on call may know roughly as much about the atmosphere as a Nobel Peace Laureate like Al Gore knows about qbits.
It is less an assumption than an observation that few blog commenters left or right know or care what they're talking about
Did you have a point there, Public Ignoramus, other than you don't know WTF you're posting about?
Fuck off and die, asshole. Your dog will be pleased.
A Nobel physics laurate is required to know an awful lot about thermodynamics and complex systems analysis. A Nobel peace laurate is required to know nothing.
Are all your analogies this ridiculous, or just the ones where you try to discredit people who have actually read more than the alarmist talking points?
It is less an assumption than an observation that few blog commenters left or right know or care what they’re talking about
Yes, that's true.
What does that have to do with you not understanding what Chuck was saying?
He is just a dickhead repeating talking points from alarmist blogs. "Runaway greenhouse effect" was indeed a thing that sprang into being from speculation surrounding the data from Venus. Prior to that it was nothing more than a dusty thought experiment that had sat on the shelf for 40 years.
Even wikipedia says so.
Here is NASA, back in 2001, projecting that if it happened on Venus it could happen here.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020002197
Scientific American ran a story claiming "A new study suggests human activity could, in theory, bring about the end of most life on Earth" in 2013 comparing Earth to Venus. Fact or Fiction?: We Can Push the Planet into a Runaway Greenhouse Apocalypse.
Are we still "beclowning" ourselves?
Public Anti-intellectual might have missed the fact that Judith Curry was essentially chased out of Georgia Tech, where she had a tenured position, because she wouldn't dance to the tune of the warmists.
Curry is a courageous, brilliant, and humble scientist.
"BTW as a side issue, imagine a world where the US did not give a shit about ME oil."
Or, as a side issue, imagine this obnoxiously arrogant lying piece of shit didn't engage in conspiracy theories.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
As I noted in a previous thread, there are more than the two positions
That's weird, because in the most recent thread I saw you on, you only would acknowledge "humans have caused all of the post-industrial warming through fossil fuels" and "there is no warming happening at all."
If we had had alternatives/renewables in the 40s, would we have bothered to overthrow Mossadegh and get involved in sundry other ME conflicts?
Yes. The point of controlling ME oil is only partly to make sure we get it. It's also to make sure other people don't get it.
Dear Freeodom Lovers:
Remember to keep both lips firmly attached to the ruling class's cock while your children's world burns for their sake.
Thanks for the laughs, you submissive chumps!
This from a pile of lefty shit firmly sucking on the asshole of political "science".
Fuck off and die, asshole; make the world a better place.
Libertarians are dickless losers
A handle that screams "take me seriously!" if I ever saw one.
So are you really completely incurious about whether the huge amounts of money being spent on "green" programs is actually doing any net good?
Of course not.
Thanks for sharing the fruits of your intellect, such as it is.
The Narcissist's Prayer:
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
We are currently on #3
This will end in the rationalization of mass suffering and murder.
I can only assume you are referring to the alarmists in your post. Because you are right, eliminating fossil fuels without an economically viable substitute (such as nuclear, for example) will very likely result in mass suffering and death. I suppose calling it murder is appropriate since the outcome of such measures is imminently predictable, therefore premeditated.
It's why power plants are prime military targets, and why the media and libertarian parties are infiltration takeover targets BEFORE initiation of open hostilities.
The libertarian impersonator fallacy goes like this: If Libertarian, then Dickless loser. Dickless loser, thus, Libertarian. One expects affirming the consequent and stupidity and from advocates of initiating deadly force. This one imagines he's embarrasing fellow looters over at National Socialist Review.
I don't think the U.S. women's soccer team is Libertarian.
It happened to me. As an engineering student I was bombarded with antinuclear dinning. Then when I questioned, nay, jeered at a Jerry Pournelle article on nuclear eletricity, he paddled me so effortlessly that I published an open letter thank-you note in a Sci-fi mag admitting I'd been wrong when he was right all along. Pournelle recommended Access to Energy, where I landed a job.
So, why aren't we painting every rooftop on earth with that reflective white paint developed by Purdue and are, instead, talking about shooting moon dust into space with a cannon?
Because shooting moon dust into space with a cannon is way cooler.
Didn't the recent Nobel winner in physics just get cancelled by the media because he pushed back on the climate zealots? He won the prize on quantum entanglement which is something most physicists still get wrong. The issue is "climate" is a very complex nonlinear system and you can't test your theories in the lab (controlled conditions) so you make models which have all sorts of assumptions including interactions of the sun, earth's crust, oceans, and yes man made increases in CO2(although you need CO2 to break down Methane a much worse "warming" gas). The models can't be tested in years but decades which pretty much wraps up the absolutes of the "science." This religion seems to have started in the late 60's when the marxists stopped supersonic travel as it was alleged supersonic jets did this or that to the atmosphere. After they won that battle they had to find another battle (which is typical of the bolshies from the 60s) to control society. Global warming lost credibility so now it is "climate change." Follow the money..it is pushed by the usual suspects. They tend to be the same ones saying the best way to treat child mental illness is to sterilize them.
Yep.
Precisely. They keep trying new scams to get people to try socialism.
Climate fanatics, including the ones with Phds, are really indulging some basic human biases and fallacies. To wit:
Whatever they perceive happening in the physical world, they assume that humans must be the cause, since humans (and especially their buddies and themselves) are the center of the universe.
They then assume that only human action can save the day--and the right actions WILL make the critical difference.
Whatever they think is happening is a crisis. Make that CRISIS!!! This is a companion delusion to my first point. And who does not want their life to be associated with the mostest, biggest crisis of all time?
Speaking of time, the fanatics have a common human deceit of judging the correct time scale to characterize natural phenomena as something less than a human life time. And, of course, the most immature ones can only think in very limited terms, at most a decade (hence all the apocalyptic predictions always 10 years out), and more commonly comparing something observed today to maybe last month or last year.
Finally, they think that there is some "proper" climate that is best for, well, everyone and everything. And the proper climate would be as it always has been, except for the actions of bad people. Perhaps some of them also actually think the climate has never changed, or if it did change, it was only in the dream time--but not in the modern world they want to live in.
They want to believe it's a human problem that humans can do something about. It makes them feel useful.
Humans may contribute, but the earth does it on its own. Anyone who disagrees with that is disagreeing with earth sciences regarding the history of this planet.
There is a natural carbon cycle that circulates carbon from the atmosphere down to the depths of the earth's crust and back again. It takes thousands, even millions of years. The human contribution is to speed up the cycle, taking carbon sequestered deep underground and releasing into the atmosphere in a matter of days.
All that carbon locked in coal and oil deposits came from the atmosphere initially because there were no plants or animals to make the coal and oil. We are ever-so-slightly changing the balance. But you can get a measure of the balance by looking at the oxygen content of the atmosphere 19%. That is all biogenic. Each O2 came from one CO2. So it tells you that there is much, much more carbon locked up down below - enough to convert all the O2 back to CO2.
GPT can generate better gibberish.
OH radicals are the rate determining species in atmospheric CH4 oxidation.
Public Ignoramus delivers bullshit and lies on demand.
Fuck off and die. Make the world a better place and your family proud, asshole.
We have here a claimed "existential threat", which, over the past 40 years of claims and predictions, has succeeded thus: The atmosphere and oceans seem to be heating at some rate far less than predicted.
Don't bother with the increased insurance payouts for the increased values along the coasts, nor the increased wildfires where the forests had been managed by logging companies before the green-shits ran them out of CA (for example) to save the 'three-spotted worm' (whose existence is oh, so important)
We also have here the predictors of that existential threat ignoring the one solution which would erase the issue in a New York minute; nuclear power.
The last alone says simply that these are people not serious regarding the claimed mitigation.
Fuck off and die, steaming piles of lying lefty shit; we got your number.
ffs, would someone put a log on the fire under the Reason steam-powered server?
Or would someone had Welsh the pink slip he so richly deservers?
Fuck off and diem asshole.
"...Part of it is natural climate variability."
Some of us call that "weather."
People are always saying "follow the money." That's a good strategy. Where do you think most of the money resides on this issue?
Global oil reserves are estimated to be about 1.6 trillion barrels. The current price per barrel is ~$85. You do the math & tell me where a scientist is likely to make more money. Grubbing for grants or prostituting for the oil companies?
Steven Milloy is a prominent climate skeptic. His web site has revenues of about $15 million/year. Do you think he'd rather be fighting for grants?
Here is an incontrovertible fact:
Since the dawn of the industrial age, human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 by 50%. CO2 may be labeled as "trace" but it is the 3rd most plentiful chemically active constituent of the atmosphere. It plays a huge role in biological activity & it is the 2nd most powerful (& the most persistent!) greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Humanity is engaged in a global experiment in "terraforming" with our only habitable planet. We need oil for now but we had better work harder on alternatives.
Where do you think most of the money resides on this issue?
Climate-mitigation projects in corrupt third-world countries?
Global oil reserves are estimated to be about 1.6 trillion barrels. The current price per barrel is ~$85.
And how much of that is profit that the oil companies can afford to squander on propagandizing?
And how much tax revenue do governments take in, and how much of that can they decide is disposable enough to sink into propaganda, given that they can always take more by force?
The answer to the second question is several orders of magnitude higher than the answer to the first.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, human activity has increased atmospheric CO2
^ True
by 50%.
^ Smells of the butt it was pulled out of.
"Climate-mitigation projects in corrupt third-world countries?"
Or straight out bribery in 'first world countries.' The oil lobby is the biggest of its kind in the US. And it's not just politicians, either. Reason is funded by oil, just like the Kochs. What I found interesting though, is that the oil industry funds studies on climate change. Even more interesting is that their finding comport with studies conducted by academia and government, contrary to Curry's claim that funding and the incentives behind it have corrupted climate science, and even corrupted the scientists themselves.
Reason has sub-par climate change takes, but checks out given that it’s a Big Oil funded publication. I’d recommend looking elsewhere for climate news!
NOAA weather stations are having problems, 96% failed inspection. Seem to show a + 2 degree Celsius bias. Too many heat sources near the stations that were not there before.
I am sure the people in Hawaii will be very interested in this dissenting opinion, as are those of us living through the Southwest Megadrought, worst since the 8th century. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think climate change is a hoax.