20 Replies to “Dr. Judith Curry Speaks Out”

  1. I would not count Dr.Curry down and out yet. She just quit a school of eco-nut commies. Look for her to pop-up in the near future,at a more balanced place,where scientists actually USE the scientific process.(yeah,yeah,I know they are rare)

  3. 98% of Scientists believe…..what exactly do they agree upon…?? that they need more funding so as to fudge results – data etc. just to keep the public funding they receive..? Most likely.
    For me I believe this figure is a compilation consisting of the following: 2200 IPCC functionaries, bureaucrats, a sprinkling of pseudo scientists bouyed by faux “science” alla an Inconvenient Truth, Hockey Stick BS, the ramblings of Fruit Fly geneticists and Hollywood “experts”.
    Theres your 98%….
    The massive Hubris to contend that mankind is soley responsible for Climate Change is in itself not only incredible but complete & Utter BS Progressive Marxist Propagands.
    To wit – on more than one occasion in our planets history past, there is empirical evidence to show that our atmosphere contained levels of CO2 exceeding 2000PPM…. that is FACT…so how can it be that we are now soley responsible for the current minute increase..???…if we are, then kindly inform me of the mechanism utilized by the dinosaurs to effect said increase..??
    No my fellow carbon tax payees….we are and have been SCAMMED by the biggest organized FRAUD perpetuated upon mankind in History…..Only to transfer wealth to 3rd world backwaters led by Islamists and petty dictators…all via Maurice Strong’s legacy and facilitated through the UN.
    IOW….Horse shit….pure and simple.
    I buy the Sun spot science….logical and reapeatable. Welcome to the coming mini Ice Age…which of course will be blamed on Climate Change. (and they will be correct)

  4. You are oversimplifying, and incorrectly so. There is general agreement that climate is changing (it always does), and that for the past century or so there has been a general, gradual warming trend. THAT’S the general agreement.
    What there is no agreement on is the temperature sensitivity to changes in CO2 levels. Dr. Curry is quite correct in the distinction she made.
    The fraudsters as you call them, and indeed some of them certainly are, would have you believe that everyone accepting the basic truth of my first paragraph ALSO agrees with the second. That’s the big lie.

  5. I have never denied that the Climate is Changing…and am fully aware that it has continuously done so for 4.3 Billion years….but to lay the blame on what has not and to my mind still cannot be proven is that CO2 is the driver via greenhouse gas effect. It is my contention that rising CO2 levels are a symptom of warming – not the cause.
    As such my belief continues to be that this CO2 Emissions crap is nothing less than a SCAM based on BS manipulated data via Government paid – so called Scientists who need to follow the narrative in order to remain fiscally solvent in their field of study.
    Am I against pollution..? you bet, so lets enforce and clean up our oceans. I’m in.
    Am I against over packaging using plastic clam shells…? you bet – let’s change that.
    Do I believe that the Climate is changing..?? you bet – but not that it is mankind doing the changing such that we must destroy economies and transfer massive amounts of wealth elsewhere.
    Lets try ADAPTATION instead via technology..?
    Lets Go Nuclear with Liquid Salt Reactors using Thorium..?
    Lets not get sucked into Publicly subsidized so called renewables like wind – solar that destroy landscapes, kill millions of birds/bats and only until such time as the energy produced can be safely stored on an industrial scale and the other mitigating factors dealt with properly. One need only look to Ontario, Spain among other jurisdictions that have had disastrous results from doing so while seeing energy costs triple or more – stifling industry with energy costs beyond their ability to pay.
    Lets use COAL in a Clean Fashion – it can be done..what a concept..eh.?
    The problem today is that its not enough to just reduce – reuse – recycle and become energy efficient, it’s become an Ideologically based Fanaticized Religious Like WAR against Fossil Fuels with the GOAL of shuttering all of the planets Oi/Gas in the ground and it is going that way with Government blessings.

  7. Let me tell you a thing or two about scientists.
    Two nights ago I came home at about 11:45 PM. I turned the TV on and saw that the Weather Channel on Access Cable gave the temp for our town as -29° C. They get their data from Environment Canada’s automatic station about 25 miles from here. My own electronic and mechanical thermometers read -19°C.
    In spite of being 25 miles from here, the elevation between my home and the Enviro Canada station is about 6 feet difference. So I phoned an old acquaintance of mine who had the Enviro Canada manual station before the automatic station was installed in or about 1995. Her farm is only a few hundred meters from the automatic station. She still has her mechanical calibrated thermometers and the old Stevenson wind screen. Her reading was -20°C.
    She also informed me that a couple of years ago, the little rotor on the automatic station’s
    anemometer fell off. Enviro Canada kept giving the wind speed as zero for over a month before they sent a tech from Saskatoon to fix it. What would that do the area’s average annual wind speed?? And what does the additional 8°C of freezing do the annual temp. data of that area??
    That’s not all. On New Years Eve, I watched 2017 roll in on CBC TV that broadcast the event from Ottawa. The countdown was fabulous, the fireworks were great, host Rick Mercer did a great job. One slight problem. The countdown was over 25 seconds off with the actual time that I got from the Atomic Clock at the the National Research Council in Ottawa. That facility is probably less than a mile from where the 150 year anniversary celebrations were being held.
    Conclusion. You just can’t trust the Government of Canada’s data.

  9. Steakman, when it was allowed for the Enviro’s, Globalists politicians and the tail waging Media to change the term to Climate Change from Global Warming it made arguing our side of the debate that much harder. Now it’s easier for them to control the debate no matter what happens. If the planet’s temp levels out like it has for two decades it’s difficult for them to scream global WARMING. If the temp cools over a period of time like many predict it will it’ll be laughable for them to blame that on WARMING. When I discuss this with others I immediately correct the term to Global WARMING. I dismiss the term Climate Change and make them acknowledge up front that the premises of the debate is WARMING. They don’t like that. It irritates them because you’ve taken some wind out of their sails.

  11. Well said steakman @ 9:32 PM. I can remember the 70’s when the environment concerns were about toxic pollution, reducing garbage, reusing & recycling, and using energy cleanly and efficiently. That was before the environmental movement was hijacked by the anti-oil, anti-capitalism, anti-everything activists.
    The warmest temperatures since the last ice age were 8000 years ago, the coldest period was 300 years ago. We should be preparing for the next Little Ice Age using Liquid Salt Thorium Fuel Reactors not foolishly arguing over how many years human fuel burning is delaying the next inevitable cold cycle.

  12. Tucker has found the Killer “ISSUE” that could drive his show, I hope he pushes that agenda. The media has ZERO coverage of “real” scientists making the case from their “own” research… Everyone & anyone can read & rewrite someone else’s opinion, and that makes up the bulk of the nonsense by the media.. The motto of science writers “Science is to important to be left to the scientists”
    JMHO

  13. No climate scientists are “real” scientists, and Curry is just another example.
    “Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She earned her PhD degree in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago in 1982.”
    Geography? Geophysical Sciences? B.S degrees.
    Where is her degree in Physics or Chemistry? How about History?
    Rubbish on her so-called “science” and her “expert” status.

  14. I would like to know what our Canadian government scientists think. They seem to be strangely silent– perhaps not muzzled, exactly, but rendered mute. This may in part be due to the complete lack of media interest in global warming since Harper is now gone. Since there are now more holes in the theory of AGW than swiss cheese, the journos seem to have stopped asking questions.

  15. Before dismissing her educational qualifications, one should consider what she actually studied for her degrees.
    Often, when doing graduate studies, one may have to take courses on subjects outside one’s discipline in order to have the necessary background in order to undertake one’s research.
    Also. there are a number of different aspects to geography, such as physical geography (concerned with the effects of natural processes) and historical geography (examining a region at a specific time or how a region changes over time). Geophysical sciences can take in aspects of physica and chemistry and, possibly, geography.

  16. Geophysics is a rigorous science, and highly mathematical. Many P. Geoph. are employed in the oil patch and in mineral exploration. Judith Curry is a straight shooter.

  17. You are correct. Anyone who can’t grasp that has likely not attempted courses in Geophysics and is clearly demonstrating their ignorance of geoscience in general.
    …or as Mark Twain said: ‘It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt’

  18. My 2 cents from college days is that any geophysics grad would be much more capable of designing and running a climate model than 97% of climate scientists.

  19. I remain unconvinced that there has been any meaningful warming. I analyzed 100 years of data from a remote rural weather station 80 miles northwest of Edmonton and the 1910s, 1930s and 1990s were particularly warm. A lot of people around today grew up in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when weather, at least in Alberta, was particularly cold. That left a lasting impression of being cold in the old days. If someone started a line graph in 1915 or 1933, it would probably slope downward.
    Reading the Edmonton Bulletin for the 1910s, wheat was planted by the weather station operator on the following days.
    1915 – April 9
    1916 – April 20
    1917 – May 1
    The norm today is, on average, close to a month later. Granted he was pushing planting because it wasn’t reliable wheat country but on April 9 we usually still have snow nowadays.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation