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

Have you considered that it might not be?

 

No, there are actually people with specialized knowledge that is superior to the average individual. When the experts reach a concensus it is worth listening to. I know a lot of people really only believe what reinforces their already held opinions but that attitude is to be pitied not emulated.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody supports a blind belief in concensus. But rejecting scientific concensus without adequate reason is folly.

 

Plenty of reasons and science. Political consensus is being used to silence inconvenient science.

 

How have you determined that the paper is seriously flawed ?? Have you read the paper (and subsequent papers) and Spencer's book ("Blunder") where he addresses the criticism and describes the attempts to prevent publication and the forced resignation of the editor from the journal that did publish his paper because the paper shows an explanation for a natural causes (with a CO2 contribution) of multindecadal climate variations ??

 

great for you bower , keep on building all the solar and wind you want then build fossil fuel plants to use when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. Then pay more for your electricity to pay for the redundancy, don't worry a minute about the poor having to decide between buying food or freezing because they cannot afford both energy and food. They are after all just the poor, the elites don't care.. You can pat yourself on the back knowing that you have outsourced your pollution to China and India while decimating the economy in your own country. Wonderful way to kill the poor and eliminate the middle class isn't it?

In the meantime we will continue to enjoy cheap energy for our factories and households here in the USA, unlike your country

Electricity prices skyrocket around Australia

Electricity prices in parts of Australia have increased at nearly four times the rate of inflation over the last 5 years according to new research released today.

New analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data, by the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, reveals the increase in electricity prices in capital cities between 2005 and 2010:

Sydney 61.3%
Melbourne 56.8%
Brisbane 50.7%
Canberra 45.9%
Darwin 35.9%
Perth 35.8%
Adelaide 16.0%

 

They don't care about making it tough for poor people since they believe they are saving the planet.

 

Yes, when they are on the side of goodness people trying to make a living are collateral damage.

 

If you are not one of them , then you dont know what you or they are talking about.

We have very adequate reasons because not all these so called experts agree no matter how much you push this 97% crap. Also common sense tells you no matter what we do the climate will change as it always has

 

Very little science. Mostly quibbles about data.

 

No I am not a climate expert which is why I respect the overwhelming concensus of the actual experts. And I don't use the 97% number because the actual number can be debated but the fact that that the vast majority of experts believe in AGW is undeniable.

And of course climate changes over time but that is totally irrelevant to the question of man's impact on the climate.

 

So you believe it on faith alone because someone says its so while others who are also experts say its bull. No one knows not even the most brilliant person on earth. Its beyond us at this point in time. Why dont you guys get it ?

Consensus is there is a god. Does that make it so ?

 

Since you only read media fear mongering and politicians no wonder you are not aware of the science.

 

Part of the change comes from overpopulation of the planet (what would you propose to take population down by half?) and pollution from humans. The bulk of that is coming from Asia. I'm not sure our domestic recycling efforts are contributing much, as most garbage is filled way too much with packaged processed food and personal products. So I agree with you that everyone needs to stop buying shampoo, aerosols, zip-lock bags, disposable diapers, energy bars, crackers, cereal and frozen food -- and that will go a long way to save the planet. However, as I have joked before, we don't get to keep the air we save around us. It floats away and we get replacement air from China. If you are deeply worried about human influence on the climate I think it would be a wonderful project to go tell it to South east Asia.

The other part of climate change is a natural cycle of global warming and cooling characterized by ice ages. Some of that warming or cooling is triggered by incoming solar radiation or by volcanic activity. Here's a pretty easy-to-read article for you: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

 

that's the typical Malthusian view, they think Earth should only be populated by the elite rich, their entertainers and the pseudo academics. Poor people are just a blot on the Earth and they only need a few to work as slaves for the elite and their chosen. Do a search using the search terms" Malthusian and climate change" sometime if you want to scare yourself. The global warming hoax began in 1975 By discredited anthropologist Margaret Mead began with the conference, "The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
Mead's population-control policy was firmly based in the post-Hitler eugenics movement, which took on the more palatable names of "conservation" and "environmentalism" in the post-World War II period. As Julian Huxley, the vice president of Britain's Eugenics Society (1937-44), had announced in 1946, "even though it is quite true that radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable." Huxley was then director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

By the 1970s, the paradigm shift that obliterated the optimistic development policies of Franklin Roosevelt and of Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program, was in full swing. The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth, which removed the role of scientific advances, was drummed into the public consciousness. Nuclear energy, in particular, was under attack, because of its promise of virtually unlimited cheap energy to support a growing population. In the guise of protecting the world from potential terrorism, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibited developing countries from acquiring civilian nuclear technologies.

 

I am curious how you know what I read. But I guess you think Scientific American, the Atlantic and Nature are all fear mongering media. Which legitimate publication do you read that has scientific articles denying AGW. Oh, I know, the fact that most scietific publications run articles with facts supporting AGW is just peer pressure and scientific hooliganism.

After all, that great scientific mind and your future President sometimes denys Global
warming.

 

It is a pretty good article about natural climate cycles. Particularly where it discusses the effects of change in carbon dioxide levels on global warming and cooling.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

They do not agree on fine detail such as whether the East coast of America will continue to dry but they do agree on main points such as the fact global climate change is happening and it is caused by Anthropogenic actions

 

Fine detail such as man is the main driver lol

So you are wrong again, there is no such consensus Even I admit climate change is happening and mans actions contribute. But so do millions of other things. The climate never was and never will be static. So do you want it hotter or colder ? Do you really think we can make that choice ?

 

Your point is that there is no reputable source for your silly opinions! I agree

 

Yup

The same great scientific mind that questions vaccine safety - that also has an abysmal grasp of global economics - that one??

 

If you are concerned about overpopulation affecting climate (although you appear to be confusing pollution with climate forcing) then that is AGW - anthropogenic means "man made"

And I have no issue with there being ice ages and even higher temperatures in the past but they were caused by factors affecting our climate such as solar output, milankovitch cycles etc so, given that we are witnessing and measuring a change in average global temperatures - what is causing that?

 

Show me the papers that question the role of CO2 in driving climate change please

Peer reviewed only please I am not interested in unreferenced blogs on the internet - especially ones from sites like "Prison Planet" and "Brietbart"

 

The 97% consensus is that man causes some of the global warming that has taken place since 1950.

Here are some references for you which contain multiple peer reviewed papers substantiating this:

"Evidence Based Climate Science - Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the primary source of global warming" - 2nd edition - 2016

"Climate Change Reconsidered II" - 2013

Many others can be referenced by reviewing Dr. Curry's blog "Climate Etc".

 

Very few deny that human CO2 emissions act to warm the globe. But very few claim that human CO2 emissions are the cause of all the global warming which has occurred since 1950. And those preceding few how claim that humans are the cause of all global warming will not debate those who support the claim that CO2 emissions cannot explain all the warming. And they will not estimate the economic damage and the cost in human life which energy policies restricting and making more expensive fossil fuels. Nor will they acknowledge and estimate the economic benefits of global warming and increased CO2 concentration.\

What is your opinion on what the climate sensitivity of CO2 is ??