Judith Curry is ONE person Here is the list of authors and editors for the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf there are 47 pages with about 15 names per page So what makes Judith Curry more right than all those other scientists?
You know I think videos are a waste of bandwidth You also know I prefer RESEARCH not some neck beard on the internet who has not the first clue about physics But you have not answered Why is Curry right and all those people that authored the IPCC report wrong?
I am just as uninterested in discourse with you as you are with reference to Curry and proofs I submit.
I still would like to know The IPCC is put together through consensus of over one thousand scientists each reviewing hundreds of papers So what makes one person with a non academic blog better than that? Come to that why do you think a video is more accurate than a peer reviewed paper?
No, you do not want to know. Were you curious, you would watch a video. Such as the following from your own country.
I've only made it 20 minutes in and I'm already finding major problems with his slides. For example, at 16:00 he presents a graph of what he claims is a temperature anomaly chart. And, in fact, his chart even labeled the Y-axis Anomaly (deg C) further reinforcing the idea that he wants you to think this is a temperature chart. But...wait for it...it's NOT a temperature chart. In fact, that data comes from the Thorne 2005 paper here. And you'll see on page 13 that this data is quite clearly 500mb geopotential heights. He literally took data from Thorne that isn't even temperature data and pretends like it is. Those data points don't even represent surface conditions. And here's the kicker. On page 14 Thorne does show the RAOB surface temperature trends. For the period in question it is +0.12C/decade and from 1979 it is 0.19C/decade which matches most other datasets. And it's important to point out that this is THE dataset the person in the video considers gold. So my question is this. Is he literally too stupid to understand what he's looking at or did he fraudulently misrepresent the data? It's one or the other.
I don't see the problem after one viewing moments ago. I will do it tomorrow since I am tired and might miss the point.
Copied here from Current Events Thanks to a posters posting.............. Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson has expressed his disappointment with President Obamas stance on climate change. It's very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people's views on climate change], he said, in an interview with The Register. I'm 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side. Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994. Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career. Climate change, according to Freeman, is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate, he said. Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that. During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger, he said. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable. Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage, he wrote. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...ys-physicist-freeman-dyson.html?intcmp=hplnws Wow, this guy wasn't satisfied in just labeling this hoax for what it was, he also says the benefits of carbon dioxide outweigh the damage.
I give you another Aussie as refutation https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm His contract with JCU was not renewed in 2013 but he would have been ok because https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
That does not come close to being a decent reply to my remarks. Want to try again? What good will it do if man can not control climate? By saying we warm the planet, that says we are in charge of the proper temperature.
No one anywhere any time is suggesting that climate change is "controlling the climate" what man is doing by burning 96 million barrels of oil per day is to pump enough CO2 into the air to change the way the planet reflects infrared
We are helpless then since, and this is only per you, man can not control the climate of Earth. We are back to square one.
We can undo the damage we are doing Just because you dropped litter on the sidewalk and there is already some there does not mean you should not take the time amd effort to pick up you own mess Why live in a chicken little world of hyperbole anyway? Yes there are reasons for concern and lots of them but there are things we can do
Get about it Bowerbird. Move your rump. You should have seen CA when I was a kid. Our SF Bay smelled of feces. Seriously, the smell driving past it was simply like an outdoor toilet. Today it no longer smells. Men started cleaning the SF bay by 1950. I could go on and hope you admire our blue and clean air and how our garbage pick ups took care of the rest. We clean up after the homeless. I have no clue why you assume we have the mess you speak of having.
Indonesia. Which is a near neighbour Still think we should not worry about the environment? Thing is the Paris Accords were a start. Jobs are not going overseas just because of lower wages. They are also going overseas because many people hire world countries have no environmental protection laws
I have yet to say we should not clean up after ourselves. I am not clear that even today the Paris accords are operational. I know they must not have been too urgent given the delay of years to start. All I can say is I do not manage climate so all the alarmists are after the wrong person.
Never was ALL your fault But it is like the litter problem. We should all do a little toward fixing the issue. There are a LOT of things we can and should do that will not cost the earth. How about reducing plastic for a start. You buy an it's bitsy tiny electronic thingy and it is packaged in so much sodding hard to cut plastic it takes side cotter to get the beggar out. Do we REALLY need that much plastic? I was at a music festival the other week and they had wooden knives and forks at the crepe stall. Bit weird to eat with initially but they did work as well as plastic would have without the environmental impact
Yes, like you influence the speed of your auto. The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a gas and operates this way is what is called facts. http://hermoments.com/exploding-lake-nyos/ Watch Carbon dioxide flow down the volcano into the valley.
