User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

  1. #1
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

    Climatologist Judith Curry says she quit academy and government-funded research because it stopped being scientific and became political. "It’s time to be scientific about global warming, says climatologist Judith Curry."

    Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

    ...This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it.

    Scientific research should be based on skepticism, on the constant reconsideration of accepted ideas: at least, this is what I learned from my mentor, the ultimate scientific philosopher of our time, Karl Popper. What could lead climate scientists to betray the very essence of their calling? The answer, Curry contends: “politics, money, and fame.” Scientists are human beings, with human motives; nowadays, public funding, scientific awards, and academic promotions go to the environmentally correct. Among climatologists, Curry explains, “a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”; think differently, and you’ll find yourself ostracized. “Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”
    The author, Guy Sorman, adds, for example:

    In 2005, I had a conversation with Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian railway engineer, who remade himself into a climatologist and became director of the IPCC, which received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize under his tenure. Pachauri told me, without embarrassment, that, at the UN, he recruited only climatologists convinced of the carbon-dioxide warming explanation, excluding all others. This extraordinary collusion today allows politicians and commentators to declare that “science says that” carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming, or that a “scientific consensus” exists on warming, implying that no further study is needed—something that makes zero sense on its face, as scientific research is not based on consensus but on contradictory views.

    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (10-30-2019),NapRover (10-25-2019),Peter1469 (10-25-2019),Refugee (12-25-2019),Sunsettommy (08-12-2020),The Sage of Main Street (10-25-2019),Toober (11-14-2019)

  3. #2
    Points: 92,612, Level: 74
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 2,138
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Common Sense's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    931196
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    41,841
    Points
    92,612
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    14,236
    Thanked 16,117x in 11,350 Posts
    Mentioned
    544 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's interesting how your views on climate change alter once you start working for the fossil fuel industry, like Curry does. But I'm sure the fact that much of her research is funded by the oil and gas industry has had no effect on her conclusions.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Common Sense For This Useful Post:

    Crepitus (10-25-2019)

  5. #3
    Points: 41,437, Level: 49
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 413
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial25000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Lummy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    6307
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    12,618
    Points
    41,437
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    4,948
    Thanked 6,307x in 4,359 Posts
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They have set the entire scientific endeavor back centuries. The credibility of any of it is being called out and questioned.

  6. #4
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    It's interesting how your views on climate change alter once you start working for the fossil fuel industry, like Curry does. But I'm sure the fact that much of her research is funded by the oil and gas industry has had no effect on her conclusions.
    She was the same before when she was in academia with a government-funded job.

    Great to see you still haven't quit that bad habit of ad hom.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Sunsettommy (08-12-2020)

  8. #5
    Points: 92,612, Level: 74
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 2,138
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Common Sense's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    931196
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    41,841
    Points
    92,612
    Level
    74
    Thanks Given
    14,236
    Thanked 16,117x in 11,350 Posts
    Mentioned
    544 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    She was the same before when she was in academia with a government-funded job.

    Great to see you still haven't quit that bad habit of ad hom.
    Oh, that's right, we can only question the motivations of those who warn of climate change.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Common Sense For This Useful Post:

    Crepitus (10-25-2019)

  10. #6
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496561
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,215
    Thanked 147,571x in 94,411 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Judith Curry is impeccable, although that does not prevent the warmist cult from attempting to do so.

    My words, not hers, climate science is a soft science like economics.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. #7
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    Oh, that's right, we can only question the motivations of those who warn of climate change.
    I have not done that.

    When you have no evidence then it is mere sophistry on your part. In your accusations toward me and Curry.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Sunsettommy (08-12-2020)

  13. #8
    Points: 124,894, Level: 85
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 1,156
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Crepitus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1255215
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    41,416
    Points
    124,894
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    17,385
    Thanked 13,440x in 9,812 Posts
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    People who think a movie about plastic dolls is trying to turn their kids gay or trans are now officially known as

    Barbie Q’s

  14. #9
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433311
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,983
    Thanked 80,900x in 54,717 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Crepitus View Post
    Not the argument here. The point of the OP is science, specifically, climatology, a lot of it, is no longer scientific.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Sunsettommy (08-12-2020)

  16. #10
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There is one paragraph in this article that interests me and I went to Judith Curry's blog to learn more about it. I have also consulted other sources for information. The first half of the 20th

    century is a bit of a conundrum. I will post another message or 2 when I get a better understanding. This is the paragraph:

    Between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one

    Natural factors were part of the cause. Even Judith Curry acknowledges that so the author is stretching the truth to claim that only natural factors can account for global warming in the first half

    of the 20th century. Some analysis have shown that approximately 50% of the warming was due to anthropogenic causes. There are also questions about the accuracy of the observations and

    Judith Curry picks a relative minimum point (1910) to begin the time period under analysis and ends the analysis when there was an anomalous spike in temperature. That produced a 1.2

    degree F. temperature increase which could overstate the temperature rise.
    Some computer models of the climate have reproduced the early 20th century fairly well. Some of the cooling during the middle of the 20th century has been attributed to stratospheric

    aerosols caused by increased air pollution following economic recovery after world War II. Magazine covers predicting a "coming ice age or a deep freeze" was not representative of the opinions

    of the climate science community during the 1970's.

    Sea level rise has been accelerating, contrary to what was stated in that article

    What myth or myths has Judith Curry busted? The author never states what the myths are. She has raised questions about climate science but it isn't clear to me that she has debunked

    anything.
    Last edited by skepticalmike; 10-28-2019 at 07:56 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts