Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Dr. Judith Curry conducted an interview with YouTube which was published on August 9, 2017 where she clearly lays out the many flaws and failures of “consensus” climate science and how this highly politicalized scheme tremendously misleads policy makers regarding the need for government directed climate actions.
Regarding the role that human greenhouse gas emissions play in driving the earth’s climate Dr. Curry concludes that:
“On balance, I don’t see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.”
Regarding the politically contrived climate “consensus” arguments put forth by climate alarmists she concludes:
“The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease – that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.”
Dr. Curry a world renowned and academically honored climatologist and former chair of the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology discussed political attacks she has been subjected to that started when she began to question the tactics of climate alarmist “consensus” following the revelations brought into the light by Climategate which clearly displayed the lack of transparency and openness present in mainstream climate science.
The political attacks she has endured were the result of what she characterized as the politicalization of climate science as a deliberate strategy by climate alarmists to influence public policy which could not tolerate valid questions concerning legitimate climate science shortcomings.
Dr. Curry discussed how she was “thrown out of the tribe” for suggesting that the conduct of climate science needed greater transparency, should be inclusive instead of dismissing of climate skeptic views, that climate science is a relatively new field where the “debate is not over”, that there “is no way the science issues are settled” and that there is” a whole lot more we don’t know”.
She noted how the “consensus” scheme has put climate science on the “wrong track” by “shinning a light” on only one small part of climate science, that being greenhouse gas emissions, while ignoring the huge role played by natural climate variation. This political approach has been a great disservice to efforts needed to truly understand our complex climate system and also greatly mislead policy makers.
Dr. Curry noted the ineffectual provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement where even if all countries meet their proclaimed emission reductions targets the result is only about a 0.2 Degrees C global temperature lowering by year 2100. She further noted that since the climate models run “hot” the actual likely global temperature reduction would be much less.
Regarding claims of accelerating sea level rise allegedly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions Dr. Curry noted that sea level has been rising for the last 10,000 years as a result of the end of the last ice age, that the UN ICC AR5 report data shows that sea level rise in the period of the 1940 to 1950’s was consistent with recent sea level rise levels, that large continental ice mass melting might drive future large sea level rise but that Antarctica ice mass is growing while Greenland ice mass is variable in behavior.
She concluded that “there is no evidence, so far, that human activities are influencing sea level rise”.
Dr. Curry noted that wind and solar “won’t work” in addressing future energy and emissions desires and that instead of trying to rely upon renewables new research is needed on better energy options.
As far as trying to help society in the “here and now” regarding future climate issues she believes that extreme weather events will continue to happen in the future and that efforts to lesson the vulnerability of society to these events should be considered. Dr. Curry cautioned, however, that society faces many serious and complex issues in addition to climate issues and that resources available to deal with these many issues have to be balanced.
The recent examples of climate alarmism shenanigans provided by the New York Times regarding the CSSR report further demonstrate the problems noted by Dr. Curry in her YouTube interview concerning the misguided politicalization and distortion of climate science by climate alarmists.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Regarding the politically contrived climate ‘consensus'”
The fact is now that the left doesn’t even care whether their theory is true or not. They are so committed and in love with their crazy ideology, and
global warminger “climate change” is a cornerstone of that ideology, so they will put their hands over their ears because they don’t even want to hear any opposing arguments. Nearly across the board that’s the approach the leftist voters, and the leftist MSM, are taking.So as conservatives we need to solidify our unity on this key issue. We must demand that our politicians don’t walk with the leftists on this critical litmus test issue.
Yes, it’s a consensus of ideology, not of science. Proof of that is that conservative scientists don’t believe the garbage. If you field a “red team” the consensus would be nearly 100% against the leftist theory.
No more support for politicized science!
“They are so committed and in love with their crazy ideology …”
Little to they realize that the longer they avoid the truth, the more politically devastating that truth will become. It will cause those who bought the lies without applying proper due diligence to second guess the rest of the insanity pushed by the same political interests that promote the ‘great climate science deception’ as it will be known in the future.
co2isnotevil – August 11, 2017 at 8:16 pm
As the ole proverb states, …….. “Too late they get smart”.
Which is what the Socialists in Venezuela are now finding out, ….. that the good times they thought would last forever is now only a gawd awful nightmare, to wit:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/11/venezuelas-currency-now-worth-less-than-world-warcraft-gold.html
It is likely they will be able to avoid the truth for long enough that as is the case for most dogmatic politicized positions, It will not be to this generations’ houses to which the buzzards will eventually come home to roost. As always, if enough of the facts are disregarded and ignored, proof can always be positive with the use of the applied simplism which is the methodology that is at work with this situation.
Thomas,
I don’t think the outlook is that bleak. I’m pretty sure that the laws of physics will eventually catch up to the alarmists and that these immutable laws always supercede want one wants to believe.
Many people who are not so-called conservatives think AGW is overdone. i guess no one is allowed to believe anything without being branded left or right.
Hornblower – good point. The alignment of climate skepticism with conservative orthodoxy is misguided, and is yet another symptom of a polarized world where every rightist or leftist thinks he/she has a monopoly on the truth. Skeptics are making a mistake if they think being conservative is a fair litmus test for climate realism. Skeptics need all the allies they can get.
Making Donald Trump the hero of climate skepticism is equally ridiculous. Trump is just as likely to become a climate alarmist if he thinks his business empire is threatened, or if Ivanka or Jared decide that Daddy is more acceptable as a consensus maven.
The Trump administration is so dysfunctional that it’s not at all clear that climate skepticism benefits from having him in the White House. He did well to get us out of the Paris agreement, and I hope what follows makes as much sense, but I’m skeptical, so to speak.
I’ve been saying this for years. There is nothing inherently left- or right-wing about climate. It should be possible for liberal types to be climate sceptics………. but somehow they never are.
One major distinction is not right or left, but between those who are naturally suspicious and critical thinkers, versus those who look for a “cause” to champion. Also in climate science there is the saying “it is hard for someone to accept something when his income depends on his not accepting it.” As for the press, they just want a good story (not truth) and are willing to fan any wild claim to get it.
I came to the conclusion a few years ago that Professor Curry was the greatest threat to the fraud being inflicted on the world. That was somewhat affirmed with Manns attack on her scientific credentials.
“Consensus science” is Mean Girl science. The Queen Bee’s in-crowd decrees thus-and-such, and anyone who doesn’t concur is shunned. They have to sit at the cafeteria tables with the dweebs and losers.
Judith Curry has run afoul of the Queen Bee. If you read her stuff, and listen to her interviews, she’s well-informed and reasonable. If you listen to the Mean Girls, she’s a pariah.
Good for Judith Curry, and congratulations for coming forward again and speaking clearly about the contrivances of the AGW “hypothesis”
I would hope she would also join Richard Lindzen in calling for major reductions in government funding for “climate change” research. Government agencies are starting from a politically-desired conclusion and paying compliant “researchers” to gin up model results to support their preferred policy options – – nothing remotely near true scientific methodology.
Dept of Justice needs to step up and bring charges of conspiracy, fraud, and records tampering against these criminal federal employees, non-profit advocates, and academic co-conspirators.
RICO (criminal racketeering) statutes are highly applicable to these activities and players.
Exactly Jim. No more money for politicized science. NONE.
And any “Republican” that’s complicit in appropriating $$$ for these leftists needs to be shown the door, pronto.
“extreme weather events”…am I the only one that want’s to scream and pull my hair out every time I see this?
“shenanigans provided by the New York Times regarding the CSSR report”..missed this one! Anyone know what that was about?
Was posted here at WUWT yesterday .Worth a read .
Yup. The weather has gotten a lot calmer over the last couple decades. That’s inconsistent with the theory that the weather would get less calm.
That one has always bothered me. If the temperature gradient between the poles and equator is supposed to go down as a result of global warming, wouldn’t the power of the heat engines that are violent storms go down? I never thought that was very consistent of the warming backers. After hearing the “weather wierding” claims I knew that someone had lost the plot.
WaPo says: “NY Times guilty of large-scale screw-up on climate change story” at:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/08/09/new-york-times-guilty-of-large-screw-up-on-climate-change-story/
I wonder if those who disagree with Judith Curry would like to show us empirical evidence of the evil CO2 molecule causing mayhem and destruction to our planet.
Over to you Nick Stokes.
The climate hysteria is over, thankfully and what we are left with is the aggressive leaping and flopping of the chicken with head chopped off. Who would have thought that a US election loss by an elitist NWO climate monger Pres candidate would be the end of it all. Indeed, the elitest Nouveau Monde governance putsch itself is now in leaping and flopping mode. It seems that when the US cat is away, the world’s mice will play. I wonder if this idea is the E=Mc^2 of world geopolitics?
There is a only a pause in the hysteria until the next election cycle when Steyer shows up with his bag.
Gary, if you think “climate hysteria is over”, then I would submit that you are dreaming. Most people who think that restrict themselves to the echo chamber. This is a dangerous practice and can lead to the hubris that produced consensus science.
I wouldn’t say it’s over, but people have continuously shown that they aren’t willing to put much investment into this,. It’s like a religious movement or a healthy eating program. Lots of sound and fury and no vocal opposition, but very little actual change in actions.
It’s not over, but it is fading.
I wrote to Steyer to offer to present to himself and the board of his foundation a proof of the lack of a scientific basis for regulation by a government of CO2 emission. He did not respond.
“Consensus science” is not really science. Dr Curry is dangerous for the politics, as along with Dr Lindzen, she is someone with ironclad credentials.
Judith is my hero, on several accounts. A personal account.
I had no (zip, nada) skin in the climate game until 2/3 through writing a 3 year ebook (Gaia’s Limits) mostly on energy, stimulated by a 1hour presentation given to a world wide assembly of energy storage experts at ISDLC 2009 that December. I expanded the book to water and food, not just energy. And found during food research in 2011 a horrific deliberate climate change food misrepresentation by NRDC to Congress. My first guest post at her Climate Etc, also archived in her Denizens 2 ‘how did we get here?’
Since then have trialed a lot more guest posts and got maybe half past her incredibly scrutinizing exam after substantial revisions. Totten Glacier is a recent example. At times, she was like a hypercritical thesis adviser. Other times, she was out of her depth (IMO) and so I posted at WUWT. Trouble with Models is a WUWT early example where she would not agree but AW did. My Salby critique here more recently is another, since Judith did not think even dignifying Salby with a comment despite many requests to het was worth her time. We discussed that possibility at length off line.
She is every bit what this video shows, and much more. Highest regards to you and Peter, Judith.
Forgot to mention, she kindly also wrote a foreword to my last ebook Blowing Smoke. 13 of the 52 essays had previously appeared as guest posts on her blog, and were immensely strengthened by her prior review plus her denizens subsequent review. A humbling but educational experience.
Has no one, within the august compliment of WUWT contributors, any contacts, or the resources to have Judith make a movie refuting Al Gore’s rubbish? Perhaps with an introduction by Clive James, an intelligent, witty and well respected journalist, and convert to scepticism. Perhaps an interview between the two with commentary on images by Clive explaining his non scientific understanding of the subject. Wheel out some new faces to scepticism, and play the celebrity card by including high profile sceptics.
One gets the distinct feeling the tide is beginning to turn, in no small part, thanks to Trump, with Gore’s recent movie flop as evidence. Were the public not utterly bored with the subject, his movie would have been a blockbuster.
Having said that, if the public are losing interest, would another movie be any more successful than his? Perhaps we should just wait a little longer for AGW to wither on the vine, and die a natural death.
My hero, too, R.I.
Dr. Curry makes excellent points. For much of life on this planet, the past 40 years have featured the best weather/climate and CO2 levels since at least the Medieval Warm Period.
But a group of humans has defined the optimal global temperature and atmospheric CO2 level as being that which existed when humans started to have a significant influence.
Warmer is bad. More CO2 is bad by this definition. This, despite the planet greening up and most life preferring it a bit warmer than what it was compared to colder or the same temperature.
Studies show that some life will flourish under warmer temps…..rats, ticks, fleas, mosquitoes, bacteria/viruses, weeds, fungus and seemingly all pests, while most desirable life forms will be seriously harmed……bees, butterfly’s, bunny rabbits, polar bears, food crops and especially humans.
Science needs to go back to the basic law of photosynthesis and apply it. Use some principles of meteorology 101……….when you warm the higher latitudes most and decrease the meridional temperature gradient, the atmosphere does not need to work as hard to try to balance the heat/temperature disparity.
This results in LESS extreme weather of some measures…….tornadoes, jet streams, mid latitude cyclone intensities, wind.
With warmer temperatures of the oceans/atmosphere the precipital water available increases, resulting in more high end rain events and flooding. Take that to the bank as probably the worst legit consequence of global warming but weigh it objectively against the benefits of warming and the tremendous benefits of more CO2 to agriculture and the booming biosphere.
Use authentic biology, agronomy, meteorology and climate science not politics.
Adjust theories and models and opinions to dial in new understandings. Be humble and open minded enough to allow others to have an opinion because there is no person right now that completely understands all the complexities of the climate.
The more convinced a person is that they know it all or know more than others, the less likely the are to learn new things…….even in their field of expertise.
The worlds top authority on anything can completely overlook new relevant, even ground breaking information (that an astute, open minded amateur quickly recognizes) if they don’t have an open mind.
Climate science may be settled for its political usefulness/definition but some of us (this operational meteorologist for 35 years for instance ) can’t wait to learn more about the science. It’s ironic that this attitude has earned us the name “denier”.
We in the UK heard the nauseous outbursts of Gore selling his latest science fiction film on the BBC’s Radio 4 “Today” programme – probably the most popular radio broadcast in the UK. There was no statement from the BBC that his film has turned out to be a flop or that support for the CAGW/Climate Change religion in the USA was massively falling off!
For once, however, – giving the BBC some credit, the BBC then brought on Lord Lamont for his comments on Gore’s sales pitch. He leads a major “Denier” organisation, here. Lamont just ripped into all that Gore was saying and preaching – although that’s not too difficult! The points he made could not be answered.
What then happened was a horde of CAGW alarmists contacted the BBC wildly condemning them for even inviting Lamont to give his comments and saying deniers should not be given access to air their views on the BBC media outlets. Then we got the BBC’s current favourite scientist Brian Cox – an astronomer, to add his similar criticism and comment. Typically the BBC didn’t broadcast any Denier scientist’ comments!
One alarmist, questioned on air, even said that Lamont should not have been asked for his comments “because he wasn’t a scientist”. The BBC conveniently forgot to make the telling response: “… but neither is Al Gore!”
I trust that Trump and his like minded colleagues, supported by the heroic Judith and the many others fighting the Climate War with your establishment, will soon be able to table a mass of easily understood basic data and evidence for the USA public that will be the killer punch, destroying this heresy once and for all!
Currently we, in the UK, still have a stiffer test and battle ahead. Hopefully, the USA can be our vanguard!
Something to read and to think about: Are we there yet? This may seem to you to be well off topic but if so, give it some thought. I believe you will conclude that it has relevancy.
https://mises.org/blog/end-nation-state
Tom Nelson @tan123 53m53 minutes ago
VIDEO: Tucker takes on climate activist Joe Romm https://twitter.com/tan123/status/895982996397842432
What a breath of fresh air Dr. Curry is–a truly dedicated scientist interested in growing the knowledge we have of the climate. She is pretty certain that wind and sun cannot be a total substitute -unlike some from the “other side” Our friend /sarc/ Bill Mckibben has just had an article published in a very “progressive” magazine–IN THESE TIMES. He actually claims that we (the world) can go 100% renewable now Why all we need is to scale up Tesla battery technology to grid size-nothing to it. I take ITT just to keep a finger on the pulse of the other world (that one seen through rose colored glasses) and that is the gist of what’s going on over there in climate science. Too bad that there are not a lot more Dr. Curry’s, and the few others who have risked all, in the pipeline. We will certainly need some within the younger generations to take up the banner.
The engine driving the whole climate change schmeer is the wind and solar industry. Three trillion spent so far worldwide, predictions of multiples of that to be spent in the next twenty or thirty years – Eldorado, here we come. As long as there are vast amounts of money to be made, CAGW will be pushed by academia, politicians and the MSM. I’m not suggesting anything so crude as wind turbine manufacturers trotting around the corridors of power with brown envelopes stuffed with dollar bills, but money has a way of making its presence felt.
Until the world is shown that so-called renewable energy is a very expensive dream, the CAGW movement will continue in high gear.
Of course not. If nothing else, the dollar amounts were talking about wouldn’t fit. ^¿^
Now a nice ‘donation’ to the politicians NGO of a few hundred Million, that’s something different. Can you say “Clinton Foundation”?
~¿~
A luminous photosphere of energy radiates from our sun in all directions out across the cosmos. When that sphere expands to the average orbital distance to the earth its dispersed luminous surface radiates a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2 (S-B BB 390 K). But the earth does not orbit in a nice average circle, but in an ellipse with perihelion being closer and aphelion being farther. So how much difference does that make to the climate?
At perihelion (closer) the power flux is 1,415 W/m^2. At aphelion (farther) the power flux is 1,323 W/m^2. The total annual range/change/fluctuation is 92 W/m^2. Yes, 92 W/m^2.
According to IPCC AR5 the radiative forcing added to the atmosphere by the CO2 increase in the 261 years between 1750 and 2011 is 2 W/m^2. Yes, 2 W/m^2. IPCC’S worst^4 case scenario is RCP 8.5, 8.5 W/m^2.
So if an annual 92 W/m^2 fluctuation does not cause catastrophic climatic consequences what possible reason have we to believe that 2 W/m^2 or even 8.5 will?
The annual ToA ISR fluctuation because of the tilted oblique incidence at 40 N is 670 W/m^2. From that we get summer and winter. Who’s afraid of 2 W/m^ or for that matter, 8.5 W/m^2?
(A sphere of radius r has 4 times the area as a disc of radius r. Per K-T et. al. balances 1,368 / 4 = 342 W/m^2. That’s exactly where that number originates! It’s the planar parallel ISR spread evenly over the entire ToA sphere. That’s not even close to how the earth actually heats and cools.)
Good points. I first came across the arguments you’re presenting when reading the blog of the late John Daly.
http://www.john-daly.com/miniwarm.htm
The radiative balance is for the whole thing, earth+atmos. , at the outer edge of it. Consider a rocky planet with no atmos. v one with. The bare rock has wide temperature variations day/night, example is the moon.The solar radiation is powerful enough to heat up the cold rock from -170C to +100C, that’s a rise of 270K, hell of a lot of heat. The rock with the atmos. , example Earth, gets about the same amount of solar energy (per sq m) but it does not have a surface temperature increase every day of 270K. I’m lucky if its 20K! Where is all that daily solar energy going then? Not many places to choose from are there? Looks like it must be in the atmosphere.
But the atmosphere is a gas, not a solid like the rock, so surely a massive amount of daily solar energy would make it really really hot, in the daytime. But we know the atmosphere is not hot, it’s actually quite cold on average, also we know it doesn’t have a massive day/night variation in temperature. Certainly not like the moons -170 > +100C. So if the massive amount of daily solar energy, so massive it can heat the moon up every day by 270K, is not heating up the atmosphere by a huge amount every day and is also not heating up the surface by a huge amount every day then what conclusion can we draw?
Electrical circuit: Large AC input to black box A shows large AC output. Add black box B in front of A and we get small AC output. What are we going to look for? Transformers? Capacitors? Resistors? Measure DC offset?
The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still. Scientists call this sychronous rotation.
Moon has sunlight for longer duration compared to the earth’s and so that is the reason for overheating and over cooling of Moon.
You may possibly want to think about the efficiency of convection heat transfer vs. radiative. A better set of mathematical analogies may be a mechanical system of mass/spring/damper.
Surely “shining” rather than “shinning” – line 7 under the Climate Heretic insert.
Somebody forget to tell my doc about the heart disease and cholesterol collapse. I’ve even asked him about it a time or two. He’s having none of it. Interesting to me how information right or wrong gains its own momentum. Nobody but nobody ever wants to admit they were wrong. Especially so if you fancy yourself a scientist or learned person. Me? I’ve been wrong more times than I can count. One of the things that keeps me a skeptic I suppose is the notable reluctance of AGW proponents to even entertain the possibility that they might, just might, be wrong. Most are so smug and cocksure that it makes me want to puke.
“Most are so smug and cocksure that it makes me want to puke.” Spot on, and probably one of the most powerful recruiting sergeants for the opposition.
Snarling Dolphin
Everything you wanted to know about statins, but were told otherwise.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org
I’ve been wrong also. I believed that “Skydragon” argument, . I was aware that gases cooled and expanded under less pressure as they rose, and came to my conclusion independently of the other “Skydragons”.
This WUWT post convinced me that I was wrong.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
It will take time to correct the mindset in some caused by the propaganda. Some will never correct. The majority will go with the observed truth. It will take time.
After 30+ years ,countless dollars wasted , the cost and reliability of energy in question and the best evidence we have is consensus science and computer games both have been exposed as rubbish but it’s the only thing they know .
Apart from the various name changes that is .
Regrettably, the Warmists will stop publishing garbage only when they run out of our money.
Greenbacks In, Garbage Out?
The placard in the photo at the top awards Judith the honorific of “Dr.” Why, then, does WUWT fail to do so? Under the Lukewarmers” heading in the sidebar, Drs. Spencer & Pielke get their “Dr.” prefix, but Curry, immediately under them, does not.
good question. its about respect
I hope they fix that and I’m glad you pointed it out. I’m the mother of a high status female physician who gets called Ms all too often.
Roger Knights,
Can’t speak for Dr. Curry, but my background is in geology. When I was in school I had two professors That I (and the rest of the students) respected, and both requested the students to refer to them by their first names. One was a smart but laid-back guy from the UK. The second was a professor originally from Penn State (long before He-Who-Shall-Not-be-Named). Although we were comfortable using their first names, we generally called them Dr. anyway, out of respect. Familiarity does not necessarily mean disrespect. Actually, the ones that got no respect were the pretentious, arrogant, aloof ones that insisted on being called Dr. or Professor. I don’t get this vibe from Dr. Curry.
She signs herself “Judith Curry” on her site, so it appears that is her preferred mode of address. Spencer and the Pielkes always sign with the doctorate, so that’s how people refer to them.
To compare, Viscount Monkton signs with his title, so most people refer to him as “Lord”.
You’ve got a point. OTOH, when an outside entity chooses to indicate that some members in a list it has compiled have doctorates, failing to do so for others implicitly signals to most readers that they lack doctorates. An outside lister has an incentive to standardize its criteria.
Judith, a beacon of light.
I was just reading about this symposium which did not look very balanced. While this is not enough to come to any conclusions, I do not understand the second sentence.
Preliminary Agenda November 10, 2017, 1:00–2:00 p.m. Sigma Xi Symposium on Atmospheric Chemistry, Climate, and Health Humanity and Global Warming: Views from the Carbon Cycle
David Archer, Professor of Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago
Two stories illustrate the interplay between humanity and the carbon cycle. One about the past: it turns out that if the atmospheric CO2 concentration had been lower in the natural world, the climate impacts we are starting to see today would have happened sooner, making it much more challenging for humanity to figure out what was going on in time to prevent it. One about the future: on the Social Cost of Carbon, a comparison of the present-day value versus a new geologically-based estimate of the ultimate costs, to all future generations impacted by our energy decisions.
I love Dr. Curry for her clarion call to transparency and a higher level of ethical standards in science and scientists, in general. Her blog is a never ending source of information and education for me. All I can hope for is that she continues to stand resolute against the dark tide of political forces coming against her for the sake of politics and ideology. She is absolutely a hero to me.
Me too. I wish I were one of her students Georgia Tech.
The Red Team
Atmospheric Group
Richard Lindzen
Roy Spencer
Sallie Baliunas
Oceanographic Group
Judith Curry
Roger Pielke Sr.
John Christy
Ecological Group
Patrick Moore
Craig Idso
William Happer
Freeman Dyson
Economic Group
Ross McKitrick
Bjorn Lomborg
Roger Pielke Jr.
Very nice team.
Without Steve Goddard or a geologist on RED side the teams are incomplete. I also volunteer as I enjoy traveling to new places and drinking different beers.
Absolutely! A geologist is needed on the RED side. A good choice might be Harrison “Jack” Schmitt. And the message must reach the public, widely and repeatedly. Those who are rational on the subject of climate change seem to just communicate with each other. Rational scientists have a dismal record of getting around the media boycott and mass communicating their message.
Needs a Data Team. Steve McIntyre nominated.
Anthony needs to be on some team here as well! Because of him, I see all the others!
Statistical group?
Computer modeling/computer science group?
Just additional suggestions.
Supplimental on SLR.
And on global energy use.
Think about it…..
As predicted, the CAGW hysteria is waning
ALgore’s Inconvenient Lies 2.0 box office disaster is a perfect example of how far CAGW insanity has fallen.
Global temps will soon highly likely show Inconvenient Cooling 2.0 because: we’ll very likely enter another La Niña cycle next year, both the PDO and AMO will be in their respective 30-yr cool cycles from 2019, and the sun will very highly likely enter the beginning stages of a 50~100 year Grand Solar Minimum event from 2021.
Within 5 years, it’s very highly likely a cooling trend from mid-1996 (UAH data) will appear, and CAGW’s hypothetical global temp projections will very highly likely exceed reality by more than 3 standard deviations for 25+ years. When this occurs, CAGW will be officially dead.
CAGW Leftist fanatics are running out of excuses and time.
“Truth is the daughter of time.”~ Sir Francis Bacon
And:
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”- Anon
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”- Anon
“the truth shall set you free.” – John 8:32.
Listen up, people!