climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

[rasbridge]

It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quoted is Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.

Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.

‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do.

Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.

In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.

Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’

Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications.

Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’

Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’

Source: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/

[ThisPC666]

they first called it Global Warming but since the evidence doesnt fit their propose "term" they change it to climate change. ya know. the climate is chagin. like it is natural, duh. 

[luisam]

Last 1 million years there has been about 20 global cooling / global warming terms. When it gets cold worlwide, they call it an "Ice Age". I'm not sure if there is a proven hypotesis of the reason of this periodic climate change: might be variations in solar radiation and various geophysical processes that occur on the Earth over long periods. 

[jtmulc]

[ThisPC666]

[pc71520]

http://www.naturalnews.com/056116_fake_news_climate_change_science_hoax.html

[Fallon]

On 1/30/2017 at 3:51 PM, rasbridge said:

Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’

Let's take this part.

-1-

The focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change is not 'obsessive', that's just a personal opinion. Instead it is fully justified because rising CO2 is causing the polar ice to melt in a way that has become visible for all to see with the naked eye and can therefore only be denied by people without eyesight.

-2-

The 'grand solar minimum' is a known phenomenon that will occur again, but its effects will not be dramatic over time because it will only be temporary. To conclude from this that  ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’ is as ridiculous as the rest of this article. Climate Change is a threat to our existence because it is a threat to life on the planet. (of course, when Jezus comes all will be corrected - and sweet dreams for the believers of anything). 

 

[pc71520]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/clarifications-corrections/526191/Climate-change-is-a-lie-global-warming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder

 

http://www.stubbornthings.org/debunking-co2-scam/

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

 

http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html

 

 

 

[Fallon]

it doesn't matter anymore how much crap can be digged up. You will get plenty of opportunity to swim where there used to be ice in the coming years.

And you could at least mention a serious source:

-1- National Snow & Ice Data Center
http://nsidc.org/
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

[flash48]

Our sun is not a constant,i.e. it does not have a thermostat. The sun has both hot and cold cycles, solar flare cycle.  sun spot cycle ...  Since the sun is always changing it makes perfect sense that sometimes it gives out more heat than average and sometimes less heat than average.

 

I once read a study which stated whenever Earth had a hot year, so did Venus and Mars.  And when the Earth had a cold year the same could be said for the other planets .

So if we really have man made global warning on Earth, how can one explain  man made global warning on Venus and Mars?

[ThisPC666]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

 

checkmate! 

[ThisPC666]

another checkmate! 

 

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015 <<<<<???? its 2017 now!!! HAHAHAHA 

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

 

 

 

[Fallon]

5 hours ago, flash48 said:

So if we really have man made global warning on Earth, how can one explain  man made global warning on Venus and Mars?

I see no problem with the first part you state. And as for the second part. The sun is the same but the planets are definitely not. So there is no comparison. Venus has had an extreme version of global warming and has gone way beyond that now. Mars has hardly an atmosphere left. The solar wind has affected it much more because Mars has no magnetic field like earth. There have been plans how to restore Mars and the most likely idea was to send some asteroids in its path, to let the planet heat up from the kinetic energy. I am sure there is all sorts of info available if you care about it. 

[Fallon]

1 hour ago, ThisPC666 said:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

 

checkmate! 

Not at all. Maybe you should read it well. This study also points out the dangerous situation we are in:

Quote

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

And even when something will happen, like a 'grand solar minimum' which can cool down things for some decades, you should keep your eye on the ball - rising CO2. There is a point after which we cannot control anything anymore. And we should better not reach that. 

[ThisPC666]

6 hours ago, Fallon said:

Not at all. Maybe you should read it well. This study also points out the dangerous situation we are in:

 

 

i did. and theres no mentioning of "man-made" induced global warming. what they concluded is there could be another factor involved and that is what they need to investigate. checkmate! to man-made global warming hoax.

[Fallon]

They don't talk about a hoax, like you do.They only carefully stick to the parameters of their study. The CO2 numbers are clear as is the source of it. You are at least two decades late with clinging to straws.

 

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

1- National Snow & Ice Data Center    http://nsidc.org/

-a- Sea Ice News    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

 

-2-  UCS - Union of Concerned Scientists
-a- Global Warming FAQ    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html

-b- Global Warming 101  What is global warming?    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

-c- Causes of Sea Level Rise: What the Science Tells Us    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/causes-of-sea-level-rise.html

-d- Infographic: Sea Level Rise and Global Warming    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/infographic-sea-level-rise-global-warming.html

-e- It’s Cold and My Car is Buried in Snow. Is Global Warming Really Happening?    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/cold-snow-climate-change.html

-f- Half-Not: 8 Things We’d Rather See the Trump Administration Cut in Half    http://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/half-not-8-things-wed-rather-see-the-trump-administration-cut-in-half

 

-3-   NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

-a- Teaching Climate Literacy    https://www.climate.gov/teaching

-b- News & Features                  https://www.climate.gov/news-features

-c- Climate Change: Global Temperature    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

-d- History of Earth's surface temperature 1880-2016    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-surface-temperature-1880-2016

-e- Climate Change: Glacier Mass Balance    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-glacier-mass-balance

 

-4-  IPCC - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (leading international body for the assessment of climate change).
-a- Organisation:    https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

-b- IPCC reports:    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.shtml

 

-5- Random

-a- What we know (understand the science)    http://whatweknow.aaas.org

-b- NWF   http://www.nwf.org/wildlife/threats-to-wildlife/global-warming/global-warming-is-human-caused.aspx

+

-c- LiveScience - Images of Melt: Earth's Vanishing Ice   http://www.livescience.com/25120-melt-images-vanishing-polar-ice.html

-d- LiveScience - Effects of Global Warming   http://www.livescience.com/37057-global-warming-effects.html

-e- Extreme Ice Survey – A program of Earth Vision Institute   http://extremeicesurvey.org/

 

 

[pc71520]

On 1/2/2017 at 7:30 PM, Fallon said:

And you could at least mention a serious source:

National Snow & Ice Data Center

Yeah, NSIDC has been very serious...

 

More Arctic Fraud From Mark Serreze And NSIDC

 

Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

 

 

 

 

 

[ThisPC666]

http://principia-scientific.org/climate-professor-quits-biased-global-warming-ipcc/

 

http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

 

unless they can CONCLUSIVELY, beyond any reasonable doubt, prove that "global warming" is man-made induced then and only then i'll start sucking them off. hehehe 

[Fallon]

Well, some people will never be satisfied with anything or will always be looking for a bone to pick. I am not interested in that.

 

@ThisPC666 My brother is in the Philippines by the way. From what I hear about the Storms there, you have a lot on your plate all the time already!

 

@pc71520 If you have to resort to breitbart for your news, you sign on for opinions with an extreme right gloss as your news. I hope you can think for yourself as well.

 

 

[pc71520]

4 hours ago, Fallon said:

@pc71520 If you have to resort to breitbart for your news,

you sign on for opinions with an extreme right gloss as your news.

I hope you can think for yourself as well.

* I resort to the Nobel Laureate who Smashed the Global Warming Hoax

* I also resort to

John Coleman, co-founder the Weather Channel,who insists that 'Global warming the greatest scam in history'

 

For obvious reasons, you pretended not to take into consideration the above...

 

Feel free to follow the Mass Media LIES about Global Warming

which became the perfect excuse for excessive Taxation; further Taxation.

Because that's what it's all about!

[macnavarra]

Mostly related to "The 2012 phenomenon was a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or otherwise ..... In 2012, researchers announced the discovery of a series of Maya ..... Some believers in a 2012 doomsday claimed that a planet called Planet X", in present day it is believed that a half-dozen of alien "space Craft" with gravity magnetically powers are in manipulation the planet Earths magnetic Gravity field ,therefore influencing the climate.

 

 

[macnavarra]

13 minutes ago, macnavarra said:

Mostly related to "The 2012 phenomenon was a range of eschatological beliefs that cataclysmic or otherwise ..... In 2012, researchers announced the discovery of a series of Maya ..... Some believers in a 2012 doomsday claimed that a planet called Planet X", in present day it is believed that a half-dozen of alien "space Craft" with gravity magnetically powers are in manipulation the planet Earths magnetic Gravity field ,therefore influencing the climate.

 

 

[Fallon]

3 hours ago, pc71520 said:

Feel free to follow the Mass Media LIES about Global Warming

which became the perfect excuse for excessive Taxation; further Taxation.

Because that's what it's all about!

Taxes of all things. I cannot take you serious. Just stay in your own world and be happy, buddy.

[ThisPC666]

14 hours ago, Fallon said:

Taxes of all things. I cannot take you serious. Just stay in your own world and be happy, buddy.

 

coz thats the issue. how do you resolve climate change by imposing ridiculous tax to people specially on 3rd world countries like ours. how are we suppose to industrialize if they demand us to cut off our fossil usage. and if we do not agree they're gonna impose economic sanction on us. they want 3rd world countries to remain 3rd world and dependent to them. 

 

look at germany. germany is heavily dependent on fossil fuel. can they impose same sanctions to germany and china for that matter? 

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

 

this whole global warming-bullcrap is all about money and control. 

[DKT27]

It really surprises me that people who ignore this or do not believe in this are completely missing that this is one of the best opportunities for everyone on the earth to contribute to the planet that has made us and served us and supports us. Politics or not, pollution and overpopulation is not a small issue. Why not make it better for everyone, the current humans and the later ones.

 

As for developing countries, coming from one myself, I agree, we are not happy that rich countries are dictating terms and setting targets which are looking unfair to the developing ones. But that whole issue is already taken care of some time ago when the target was decided I think.

 

Also, I prefer not to take any sides, especially political, so let me tell you this, yes it might be political, but it's a big humanitarian problem as much as it is a political or geo-political one.

 

I really insist everyone reads this, slowly, completely, each and every part mentioned, without any preconception, just go through it. You can interpret it in many ways, but there is one thing for sure, it has bent too much for us to do nothing about it.