‘CRAZINESS’ in climate field leads dissenter Dr. Judith Curry to resign

Typical, you cannot refute anything I posted but just repeat yourself with information that does not refute anything I have posted.

 

Tell you what I will provide a link to my research saying the tropics will become drier if you will validate your claim

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8627

- - - Updated - - -

Deserts are also warm

Oh! Dear! An NWO conspiracist! Where are the tin foil hats when you need them

PS welcome to my RIR list - Read Ignore but Report those that break the rules

 

It needs to have substance and some sort of connect with reality to be refuted

 

Where do more people live and things grow ? Where its warm or cold ? Do you think those in Canada fear a bit of global warming ?

The NWO as in globalism. A world with no borders as Kerry says

 

So what exactly do you know about Curry's actual writings assuming you have read them.

 

Volcanic effects on the tropics? Really?

- - - Updated - - -

So you are not a fan of facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Evidently much more than you.

 

So, who do you think is more involved in NWO = multinational corporations like Exxon or a couple of grad students working on thier PHD in climatology?

 

Advanced man made bear global climate pig warming change is about temperature, ice, and carbon right up until the moment when...

...the temperature is cold...

...the ice growth is increasing...

...and somebody points out that the size of man's addition of carbon into the atmosphere versus the amount of natural carbon emission is comparable to the size of one star versus the size of the entire damned universe.

At that point it becomes about nothing more than having a meltdown and calling people "deniers" then walking off and patting one's self on the back while hypocritically having just denied reality.

 

This old debunked rubbish??

Man's contribution is IN ADDITION to the natural cycle ergo it is accumulating

83 million barrels of oil burnt per day - and you think that would NOT have an effect??

 

how about the old non debunked non rubbbish of intermnittent ( solar, wind) needs a reliable backup for when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. So you have to build two energy sources, the unreliable one and the reliable one which increases energy costs for the poor and middle class

or

all the EU and Australia did was outsource their steel and other industries to China and India. The pollution is still there , in fact probably more than if they had kept that cheap energy and used it in a more efficient manner. China and India share the same atmosphere as the rest of the world

 

On the contrary, Einstein's theory of special relativity was rather well received. There were attempts to prove it wrong no doubt, and rightly so, but by and large it was broadly accepted.

I agree with your point as I see it though - that we shouldn't take the academic authority of researchers as a logical basis for the validity of their claims. Peer review is useful and has its place, but even if you pick a million green apples out of the bag it doesn't mean that the next won't be red. This is why we need deductive reasoning to back up our theories.

There simply is no substitute in science to confronting the evidence and argument directly. You cannot delegate this responsibility to others who you then trust.

 

Saw a great article over at WUWT . Here is a quote from William Happer who is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, in the Department of Physics at Princeton University. He sums it up nicely

The William Happer Interview

Global warming is a well-established fact. This statement is only half true. A more correct statement would be “global warming and global cooling are both well-established facts.” The earth is almost always warming or cooling. Since the year 1800, the earth has warmed by about 1° C, with much of the warming taking place before much increase of atmospheric CO2. There was a quite substantial cooling from about 1940 to 1975. There has been almost no warming for the past 20 years when the CO2 levels have increased most rapidly. The same alternation of warming and cooling has characterized the earth’s climate for all of geological history.

…more CO2 will be a benefit to humanity. The predicted warming from more CO2 is grossly exaggerated. The equilibrium warming from doubling CO2 is not going to be 3° C, which might marginally be considered a problem, but closer to 1° C, which will be beneficial. One should not forget that the “global warming” is an average value. There will be little warming in the tropics and little warming at midday. What warming occurs will be mostly in temperate and polar regions, and at night. This will extend the agricultural growing season in many countries like Canada, Scandinavia, and Russia. More CO2 greatly increases the efficiency of photosynthesis in plants and makes land plants more drought-resistant. So, the net result of more CO2 will be strongly beneficial for humanity.

 

Earth's CO2 levels can be measured back 800,000 years using Antarctic ice cores. The quote directly below is from 2011, so the numbers at the end adjust upward, with growth per year, to the second quote.

If you can explain the CO2 levels fluctuating from 170-300 ppm for the last 800,000 years to 405.6 ppm in November without considering burning fossil fuels, please do so. The CO2 levels have never been this high before, at least not going back 800,000 years.

The trend from 1950 is disturbing.

 

Direct measurements are not the same as proxy measurements. To measure accurately one must use current proxy measurements against past proxy measurements.

 

So, the scientists are not accurate when they tell us they are measuring levels of CO2 more than 100 ppm higher now than the highest level ever seen in the 800,000 year old ice cores?

 

What has this to do with science. I dont trust anyone with power. Both sides here have an agenda so I go with common sense. Even if you were correct there is nothing we can do about it. I think however the earth like always will take care of itself

 

your chart is a lie, life thrived at 4000 ppm during the Cambrian period

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/bbc-shock-news-life-thrived-at-4000-ppm-co2/

only idiots and paid shills think we can stop the natural warming of the Earth

 

What is it about comparing apples to oranges you don't understand?

 

I never said we could stop any natural process, so I do not understand the impolite post with name calling and straw man argument. If you can't be more polite than this post, don't bother replying to me.

Second, it isn't my chart. The chart is from NASA and the link is in the post .

The chart isn't about life thriving, but rather the CO2 levels found in the Antarctic ice cores. Your blog link, that states Brian Cox is explaining a speculative theory, doesn't trump NASA's scietific findings. However, I think it's important to point out that coral lives underwater. Coral doesn't use CO2 from the atmosphere, where CO2 helps create the greenhouse effect that warms the atmosphere.

 

I asked you a question. Are the NASA scientists calculations of the CO2 levels in Antarctic ice cores and in our present day atmosphere accurate or not?

 

you link it and post it , you own it. Funny bthing that NASA does not seem to realize that CO2 leverls were over 4000 ppm during the Cambrain. NASA also publishes GISS which massages past and present temps top suit the narrative. Hopefully Gavin Schmidt wil be reassigned to the Anarctic taking rectal rtempos of penguins soon. What does coral have to do with anything, do you eat it ? It evolved during the pre Cambrian and Cambrian periods

 

Again, comparing direct measurements to proxy measurements is comparing apples to oranges.

 

Lindzen's opinion of the status of "climate change" science is relevant as it relates to freeing scientists to do real research, even if it may not lead to politically demanded conclusions. He and Dr. Curry have experienced the bullying of those who may have opinions or research leading to differing conclusions than those demanded by the "global warming" religionists, i.e. man generated burning of fossil fuels will increase CO2 levels that will cause calamitous effects on the climate of planet earth, and that the only possible solution is to give them all our money and control over our lives.

Besides, it has not really been proven that the increase of CO2 HAS caused climate problems or WILL cause bigger problems in the future.

Since the late 80's, there have been warnings from the climate religionists that if we didn't act within the next 5 years, it will be too late, the earth is doomed. 5 years pass, the earth isn't doomed, few if any of their predictions have come true and they issue another 5 year warning. There is no climate wolf coming to eat us.

 

15 years ago it was predicted that by now that snow would be almost unknown.

 

Peter Stilbs, Ivor Giaever, Steven Koonin, etc. From my reading of established physicist, the reflective properties of carbon emissions and the insulating properties of carbon emissions are near equal.