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

Wow 1000 years is like forever

 

Someone who did not understand what the link was about

 

Time periods for the so called "medieval warm period" do not match - especially in the Southern Hemisphere

Now once again - what is causing the climate to change?

 

Well, mate 97% of scientists involved in the research say it is Anthropogenic caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (and amazingly they have measured this so they know it has risen) and that is caused by us burning over 94 million barrels of oil per day

http://watchdog.org/202798/world-consuming-oil/

 

So - it is ALL a conspiracy!!!!

Tell me - who is driving this and why?

Why do you think that a couple of undergraduate students working on a PHD in atmospheric science can influence all the other scientists, politicians, activists, government workers in the world but the multi billion energy industry which relies on business as usual to keep the money flowing, are totally innocent victims of this conspiracy?

 

Let me put it really simply. Although you all can have fun pretending to have a clue I doubt any on this forum have a degree in climate science or climatology or in most cases any degree in any actual science whatsoever. So when you pretend to go up against the consensus of the scientific world you are really only making yourselves a laughingstock for the more rational minds on this forum.

 

Shows warming but as you should know that warming will show at different times. For instance the Younger Dryas event showing in Greenland did not show up in equatorial regions until 400 years later.

 

I dint even bother reading it when it is only covering 1000 years

 

They dont say is all caused by us. Heck even I say we contribute. Stop with the strawman arguments,

So 97% say it is Anthropocentric caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (and amazingly they have measured this so they know it has risen) and that is caused by us burning over 94 million barrels of oil per day ?


That is an outright lie

 

Ayuh,.... If you'd said 97% of those surveyed, it might be true,....

Otherwise it's pure bullship,....

Of course, disingenuous polls are a common progressive tactic,....

 

When you agree with having little or no knowledge yourself your just as bad if not worse. As I can saying face it we are simply not smart enough to know at this point in time. Everyone including the scientists are speaking out their A holes . No way to prove either side right any more than you can prove there is a god

 

So, the obvious observation is that science by it's nature isn't something that itself relies on consensus. It mostly flies in the face of the practice. So, if the rational minds on the forum are 'rational' the observation would be that they should then understand the abuse of the "consensus" rhetoric.

The problem with these kinds of assertions isn't that they aren't correctable, but that they infer something more basic that is far more troubling, the idea that this belief transcends factual reliance and become faithful regurgitation of dogmatic catechism.

So, we hear the consensus shorthand as an excuse for not having a real discussion of our ability to describe the natural world around us. Bill Nye (the "science guy") is out there tweeting the storms in CA being an unwelcome effect of our human created warming... Really Bill? Most of us understand that these are cyclic and naturally occurring weather cycles, but for the faithful, this is AGW's (notice the transcendence of the ideology to the godly) wrath on the world of sinners. If only we would follow the massive wealth redistribution scheme to abate it...

Laughable.

 

Post of The (young) Year!

 

Agreed, science is not based on a consensus. There is only one correct answer for the climate sensitivity of CO2.

The actual consensus by 97% of those who responded to Cook is that 'humans cause some warming.' Only 3% stated that humans caused most warming. That's hardly a complete endorsement of catastrophic global warming resulting from human CO2 emissions half of which disappear from the atmosphere.

And why is it that there have not been public debates between the staunch proponents of global warming alarmism and scientists like Dr. Curry ?? It seems that whenever that is proposed it is impossible to get alarmists to participate. Curious that.

 

It's worse than that. Cook's survey of 11,944 climate papers from 1991 - 2011 showed 3896 indicating that humans caused some warming and 105 indicating that humans caused most warming. How is it possible to get a 97% consensus that humans are mostly responsible for global warming out of that ??

 

Unfortunatly those without a clue dismiss the opinions of knowledgable people as concensus rhetoric. Willingness to dismiss all expert opinion in the service of confirming one's preconceived ideas is not a hallmark of intelligent thought.

 

You literally have just given the justification for a flat earth. You realize that right? If the consensus says, then it must be? Seriously? And this is exactly the fallacy of the progressive agenda. It's baseless, premised on creating artificial scarcity to increase the rents of the little people to them. So, lash out blindly if you will, but if you insist on the earth is flat, far be it from me to shield you from the laughter of others...

 

You can't make this up. ^^ You basically placed your right foot on top of your left foot and shot yourself in the right foot.

 

Surely you jest

 

Science life blood is skepticism. That is why the blind belief in consensus is so absurd.

 

It's funny watching the AGW Chinese shills on here going into spastic fits now that they won't be able to drag the USA down the rabbit hole of pouring billions of dollars into intermittent energy sources and drive the price of energy up like they did in Australia and Europe. The globalist Malthusians are screwed it looks like, for the next few years at least

 

Exactly. And in the past single papers such as Einstein's theory of relativity changed physics forever. But that seems unlikely due to the politization of climate science. Spencer issues a paper in 2008 which presented evidence that clouds were a forcing and not a feedback resulting in a global climate system with net negative feedback. His work which was preliminary was finally published and then ridiculed. Although his research was funded by gov funds no subsequent prioritization of funding to further study his observations was made even though the benefit would be a reduction in economic damage resulting from energy policies based on the assumption of positive feedback to CO2 from the consensus.

 

Who they???

We are happy with OUR renovation of our electrical grid - and it has issues but these have been identified and are being rectified - meanwhile it is updating a century old system long overdue for overhaul

Overhauling systems takes money -

 

Compared to Luddites that have restricted progress at every turn?

 

Have you considered that maybe just maybe the paper was seriously flawed