Dr. Judith Curry Explains The Reality Of Bad Climate Science And Bad Politics

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.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 11, 2017 4:24 pm

“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 warming er “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!comment image

Reply to  Eric Simpson
August 11, 2017 8:16 pm

“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.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 12, 2017 9:14 am

co2isnotevil – August 11, 2017 at 8:16 pm

”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.

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:

Dolar Today, a website that tracks the black market rate of the Venezuelan currency, puts the exchange rate at about 10,987 Bolívars per dollar as of Friday morning. In comparison, the current gold price of a “World of Warcraft” token is about 7,288 gold pieces per dollar.


Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 14, 2017 9:11 am

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.

Reply to  ThomasJK
August 14, 2017 10:18 am

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.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
August 12, 2017 7:42 am

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.

Reply to  hornblower
August 12, 2017 12:26 pm

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.

andrew dickens
Reply to  hornblower
August 13, 2017 3:45 pm

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.

Reply to  hornblower
August 13, 2017 4:45 pm

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.

August 11, 2017 4:39 pm

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.

Tom Gelsthorpe
August 11, 2017 4:40 pm

“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.

August 11, 2017 4:53 pm

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.

Reply to  GeologyJim
August 11, 2017 5:35 pm

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.

August 11, 2017 5:02 pm

“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?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Latitude
August 11, 2017 5:14 pm

Was posted here at WUWT yesterday .Worth a read .

Reply to  Latitude
August 11, 2017 5:43 pm

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.comment image

Owen in GA
Reply to  Eric Simpson
August 12, 2017 7:42 pm

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.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Latitude
August 11, 2017 7:28 pm

“shenanigans provided by the New York Times regarding the CSSR report”..missed this one! Anyone know what that was about?

WaPo says: “NY Times guilty of large-scale screw-up on climate change story” at:

August 11, 2017 5:21 pm

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.

Gary Pearse
August 11, 2017 5:23 pm

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?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 11, 2017 5:58 pm

There is a only a pause in the hysteria until the next election cycle when Steyer shows up with his bag.

Reply to  rebelronin
August 12, 2017 2:51 pm

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.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  rebelronin
August 16, 2017 8:34 am

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.

Reply to  rebelronin
August 23, 2017 2:30 am

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.

Tom Halla
August 11, 2017 5:24 pm

“Consensus science” is not really science. Dr Curry is dangerous for the politics, as along with Dr Lindzen, she is someone with ironclad credentials.

August 11, 2017 5:38 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 11, 2017 5:49 pm

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 12, 2017 2:42 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
August 11, 2017 7:08 pm

My hero, too, R.I.

Mike Maguire
August 11, 2017 5:46 pm

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”.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 12, 2017 4:52 am

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!

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 12, 2017 6:22 am

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.

August 11, 2017 5:58 pm

Tom Nelson‏ @tan123 53m53 minutes ago
VIDEO: Tucker takes on climate activist Joe Romm https://twitter.com/tan123/status/895982996397842432

August 11, 2017 6:01 pm

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.

Roger Graves
Reply to  jvcstone
August 11, 2017 6:26 pm

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.

Reply to  Roger Graves
August 11, 2017 8:45 pm

I’m not suggesting anything so crude as wind turbine manufacturers trotting around the corridors of power with brown envelopes stuffed with dollar bills

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”?

August 11, 2017 6:04 pm

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.)

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
August 12, 2017 6:32 am

Good points. I first came across the arguments you’re presenting when reading the blog of the late John Daly.

The Reverend Badger
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
August 12, 2017 3:42 pm

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?

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
August 12, 2017 9:53 pm

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.

Reply to  The Reverend Badger
August 14, 2017 8:38 pm

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.

August 11, 2017 6:06 pm

Surely “shining” rather than “shinning” – line 7 under the Climate Heretic insert.

Snarling Dolphin
August 11, 2017 6:11 pm

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.

Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
August 12, 2017 12:12 am

“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.

Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
August 12, 2017 4:06 am

Snarling Dolphin
Everything you wanted to know about statins, but were told otherwise.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
August 12, 2017 6:41 am

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.

August 11, 2017 7:04 pm

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.

Robert from oz
August 11, 2017 7:05 pm

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 .

August 11, 2017 7:12 pm

Regrettably, the Warmists will stop publishing garbage only when they run out of our money.

Roger Knights
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
August 11, 2017 7:34 pm

Greenbacks In, Garbage Out?

Roger Knights
August 11, 2017 7:16 pm

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.

Reply to  Roger Knights
August 11, 2017 8:56 pm

good question. its about respect

Reply to  Roger Knights
August 12, 2017 4:23 am

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.

Phil R
Reply to  Roger Knights
August 12, 2017 3:35 pm

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.

Reply to  Roger Knights
August 16, 2017 9:59 am

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”.

Roger Knights
Reply to  benofhouston
August 18, 2017 6:30 pm

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.

August 11, 2017 7:30 pm

Judith, a beacon of light.

H. D. Hoese
August 11, 2017 8:07 pm

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.

August 11, 2017 8:53 pm

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.

Reply to  Joz Jonlin
August 16, 2017 1:50 pm

Me too. I wish I were one of her students Georgia Tech.

Dr. Strangelove
August 11, 2017 9:01 pm

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.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
August 11, 2017 9:30 pm

Very nice team.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
August 12, 2017 4:22 am

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.

Reply to  mkelly
August 12, 2017 8:12 am

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.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
August 12, 2017 4:35 am

Needs a Data Team. Steve McIntyre nominated.

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
August 12, 2017 6:57 am

Anthony needs to be on some team here as well! Because of him, I see all the others!

Phil R
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
August 12, 2017 3:38 pm

Statistical group?
Computer modeling/computer science group?
Just additional suggestions.

August 11, 2017 9:33 pm

Supplimental on SLR.comment image
And on global energy use.comment image
Think about it…..

August 11, 2017 9:47 pm

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

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 12, 2017 9:12 am

“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!

August 12, 2017 12:20 am

OK the climate sceptic commentators have had their say here. Where I agree with Curry is that if there is solid scientific evidence that global heating is not occurring, then there should be more inclusion of these findings in the debate – but to date there seems to be little evidence of this.
Here is a very good recent article that is completely contrary to her statements:
Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/extreme-heat-global-warming
“To get this out of the way: among weather experts there is universal acceptance that global warming is a fact and that it is caused by human enterprise. As a result, dangerous heat waves are hitting with ever greater severity. In June, the National Weather Service warned of record-shattering heat in the American Southwest that it went so far as to label “crazy.” This is a trend that will continue worldwide, with lethal consequences, especially for the young, the old, outdoor workers, and the poor. Forget about hurricanes and blizzards, cyclones and floods: heat waves already cause by far the largest number of weather-related deaths—many thousands every year—and they are to be feared. Virtually no weather expert thinks otherwise.”
“…2016 will go down as the third consecutive hottest year on record. And that is just an overview. In city after city around the world, a huge number of records were broken last year for highest minimum nighttime temperature, highest average temperature, and highest maximum daytime temperature. The worst of the associated heat waves started in Australia and with unrivaled intensity worked progressively westward, smothering Southeast Asia, breaking records at half of Thailand’s weather sites, and hitting India as India had never been hit before. All-time national heat records were broken in Cambodia (108.78), Laos (107.6), Thailand (112.3), and India (123.8). Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait also broke their national heat records. Because the temperatures were accompanied in places by high humidity, it is certain that thousands of people died.”

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 12:56 am

Sorry, Ivan-san, but ALL the empirical evidence shows we’ve enjoyed about 0.83C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the LITTLE ICE AGE in 1850, of which CO2 forcing has perhaps contributed about 0.3C of the total….
Since CO2 forcing is a logarithmic function, each incremental increase will have less and less of an effect…
The ludicrous CAGW hypothesis projected 3~5C of CO2 induced Glooooooobal Waaaaaaarming by 2100, which has now been proven to be 100% impossible.
All evidence shows we’ll enjoy another 0.3C of warming recovery over the next 83 years, LESS the coming cooling from a 50~100 year Grand Solar Minimum event.
The Mother of All Ironies is that the tiny amount of future CO2 forcing will help to beneficially offset some of the coming cooling…
The debate is about: 1) how much CO2 forcing is possible, 2) is it detrimental, and 3) What’s the cheapest and efficient way to adapt if required.
Right now, the answers are most likely: 1) another 0.3C by 2100. 2) No. 3) Nothing.

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 12, 2017 1:01 am

Sorry what you say here is so blatantly without scientific factual evidence I am not going to even bother to try and refute it. No good making such statements without showing the data to back them up.

Reply to  SAMURAI
August 12, 2017 1:53 am

in other words, ivan, you have no counter-argument beyond a magazine article which provides NO links to scientific information. So you can’t respond to what Samurai said.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 1:53 am

1) HADCRUT4’s trend since 1850 show a trend of 0.05C/decade x 16.7 decades=0.83C warming. My data is correct..
2) CO2 forcing per doubling is: 5.35*ln(560/280)*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)=0.6C..: My data is correct.
3) CAGW fanatics projected 3C~5C of CO2 induced Global Warming by 2100. Sure, these charlatans are now continually lowering their silly projections as their past projections have become hilariously devoid of reaity, but that’s just to keep this scam going for as long as possible.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 2:23 am

Agreed to your first statement. Second one is complete bollocks as no evidence that supports what you state here – that is reputable scientifically reviewed evidence.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 2:30 am

Look man I am not some wet arsed soppy urbanite liberal. I work my land – just been splitting wood this morning. I believe in global heating because the scientific evidence is there and widely available. You show me something that will really convince me to change my mind – and just individual subjective opinions on this site.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 3:59 am

Wait for it … they will come.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 2:43 am

2015-2016 was El Nino. 2017 and the following years will be cooler.

Richard M
Reply to  marty
August 12, 2017 10:59 am

There was a substantial amount of warm water left over from the El Nino that only recently cooled. In addition, much of 2017 has experience weak El Nino conditions. The AMO is still positive. I wouldn’t expect too much cooling this year.
I don’t expect the AMO to go negative for another 6-8 years as well. People shouldn’t expect any cooling real soon except during a La Nina.

Reply to  Richard M
August 12, 2017 1:30 pm

M : I’m with you, its only expectation, not a scientific result. What I want to make clear is that El Nino should not be used to proof any global warming.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 2:59 am

Since you bring here anecdotes reported in the press, provide us links to the articles of healthy adults succumbing to heat under the sky.
And try to be kind, a German couple just lost both of their adult, heathy sons who froze to death in France this summer. BBC version titles it as climbing accident, except the brothers didn’t stumble http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40885321

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
August 12, 2017 4:02 am

They are in the mountains moron. Do you know how high the Alps are? Is this supposed to negate global heating. Try something else…

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
August 12, 2017 6:15 am

Yes. Conditions count even in the height of French summer you divine superhuman of intrinsic logic, intelligence and tact.
Name one human cooked alive under the sky due to human induced global heatingTM, in the magnitude of fractions of degrees centigrade by year 2100. Shouldn’t be that hard of there are thousands of them, right?
And doesn’t need to be a composed male in his prime with a PhD level natural science degree, like in the opposite extreme of my example. May they rest in peace.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 3:25 am

In June, the National Weather Service warned of record-shattering heat in the American Southwest that it went so far as to label “crazy.”

June is midwinter in Chile. The “crazy” label works.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
August 12, 2017 3:58 am

Yeah. Right on man.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
August 12, 2017 6:20 am

What if you guessed my gender wrong?

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 4:16 am

An anecdotal article in Vanity Fair, that bastion of scientific integrity???!!!
You’re basing your conclusions on that?
No wonder alarmists are ridiculed if that’s the depth of your scientific knowledge.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:18 am

Read the article first instead if spouting off – or would you find it a bit difficult?

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:41 am

I did read the article dear chap, and it’s anecdotal. No scientific references in it whatsoever.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 4:34 am

“While we were celebrating our Independence Day on July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C (-27.4°F).”
It’s always too hot, or too cold, somewhere on the planet, at some time. Doubtless you either weren’t told of, or didn’t bother to enquire about, this particular event because it doesn’t suit you warming agenda.
You might also want to ask yourself why there are no credible, empirical studies which demonstrate CO2 causes the planet to heat up. Despite the billions of $/£’s spent on AGW there is still nothing other than theoretical lab studies and computer models.
Eventually the alarmist scientific community will have to put up or shut up. And having already had 40 years at least, it’s high time they put up. After all, we are forced to wait out the next 10 years or so to prove the hiatus lasts the 30 years alarmists demand of climate evidence. But by that time, the alarmists will have awarded themselves 50 years to find empirical evidence that doesn’t exist.
Wake up man, the planet is warming but it’s entirely natural, beneficial, and the only empirical evidence of a CO2 effect is that the planet has greened by 14% in 30 years.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:39 am

Yep, and try reading the report’s conclusions:
“The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:40 am

Check this out in terms of maximum temperatures – that are rising around the world:

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:48 am

“Yep, and try reading the report’s conclusions:”
The section you highlight is conjecture. The facts of the scientific observation within the report are otherwise. And the claim has no foundation as farmers have been fertilising greenhouse grown plants for decades with no observed decline in effect.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:49 am

Sorry, that should have read:
farmers have been fertilising greenhouse grown plants for decades with increased levels of CO2 with no observed decline in effect.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 5:58 am

“Check this out in terms of maximum temperatures – that are rising around the world:”
What is the provenance of this site? No references other than a list of names at the end.
As far as the data is concerned, there are no dates, no references, no nothing but a list of places and numbers. There are no means of verifying any of this.
Is this what you consider scientifically credible?

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 5:05 am

“Here we go … this is not from one source but several, so you can’t accuse them all of being biased towards global heating – or perhaps you will.”
Your references are all, as far as I can gather, MSM articles, at least one from the Guardian which is a left wing paper that will publish anything from freelance hacks irrespective of it’s provenance.
However, it does illustrate your brainwashing by the MSM. You might want to stop reading them and come her with questions rather than answers.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 5:49 am

And your NASA study on sea ice is from 2015, it has been superseded.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 5:51 am

Ivan: Thanks for the brief recess from serious comments. People here are so concerned about sciency stuff, your Vanity Fair article was a breath of stale science-free content. So you agree with “if there is solid evidence that global heating is not occurring….” And if there’s no evidence of man made warming, you’ll turn to…Vanity Fair? Then try to call out samurai for “no links to science”?! Look out, Steve, this tr0ll has ambition.

Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 5:59 am

Paul Courtney
“this tr0ll has ambition”

Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 6:00 am

Love the irony man … tell me, did you even bother to read the article? Tell me what it is about, the themes, people mentioned etc. Or perhaps it’s not up to the high journalistic standards of, say, Breitbart or Fox News? Give me a break man – open up your heart to the beautiful writing of this publication.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 6:19 am

Ivan: Oh, man, wish I could open my heart to VF, but, man, I’m just, you know, so oppressed, repressed, privilege-soaked. I, you know, just couldn’t bring myself to read it, “the honesty’s too much, and I’d have to close my eyes and cry.” [Apologies to others for lapsing into schmaltzy pop song lyrics, but Ivan sounded like he needed a hug]. And I’ll stay with Dr. Curry, she strikes me as someone who could have passed Divinity School had she tried. As opposed to Dr. Mann, man.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 9:50 am

What is ‘very good’ about that article? It is a load of unsupportable hyperventilation.
“The worst of the associated heat waves started in Australia and with unrivaled intensity worked progressively westward…”
Unrivaled intensity? Really? What does that mean? The claim is factually incorrect: nothing ‘worked progressively westward’. How long is ‘all-time’ in Cambodia? There have been much hotter record weather events in Australia documented by arrivals from Europe at the time. You realise India is a sub-continent, right? Records are expected. There is a formula for predicting how many to expect each year.
The ‘certain thousands’ who died, how certain are we? Was that an unusual number? Where are the bodies? Is Vanity Fair aware that chronic under-heating kills far more than heat waves and cold snaps combined? I guess not, evidenced by the foolish statements contained in the article.
If the US National Weather Service has started issuing opinions about the weather like ‘crazy’ they should fire their staff and hire some scientists who know how to communicate scientifically.
“…heat waves already cause by far the largest number of weather-related deaths…”
No. That is not how it works. Weather-related deaths are caused mostly by being inadequately heated, and that is in turn caused by the cost of energy relative to income. Thus, the greatest killer in the coming years will be the increasing cost of heating which is assured by the additional of so much unreliable ‘renewable’ wind turbine and solar PV electricity supplies. Poor people die in the heat because they cannot afford air conditioning. They die in the cold because they cannot afford fuel to heat their homes. Children and the elderly die because of chronic underheating. Those numbers dwarf the other causes.
Vanity Fair would do well to have their articles reviewed by knowledgeable experts before publication.

August 12, 2017 1:18 am

oh, man…
samurai- factslinging is un-vanity-fair.

August 12, 2017 4:27 am

I remember when Dr. Curry first came to our attention here. She was not on our side. In fact I remember personally feeling her condescension. Now she is the only person who beautifully articulates the big picture that many of us see after reading here for a decade.

Reply to  Wakeupmaggy
August 12, 2017 4:36 am

Not true. Al Gore and Dr Michael Mann do a better job I think 🙂

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 4:55 am

Al Gore isn’t a scientist, or hadn’t you noticed dear chap. He is also an extremely wealthy man thanks to his carbon credit trading investments so it’s to his benefit to perpetuate the myth.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 4:59 am

I honestly believe thousands (perhaps millions) of people disagree with you on this point – An Inconvenient Truth was brilliant in waking up any people to global heating and why it is happening.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 5:17 am

“An Inconvenient Truth was brilliant in waking up any people to global heating and why it is happening.”
Dear God, you’ve really been smitten, haven’t you?
The movie ,An Inconvenient Truth, was allowed to be shown in British schools only if 9 false claims were pointed out to the students beforehand.
And to be fair, I swallowed it as well, then I started asking questions. After touring some of the more prominent climate alarmists sites where I was roundly abused for simply asking questions, I ended up on WUWT where not only were questions welcomed, they were answered honestly.
What you’re doing is coming in here with your version of answers, and judging by your sources, they are not robust answers at all, merely misleading beliefs.
Try asking questions instead of wading into a forum full of scientist’s, engineers and academics who know a whole lot more than you do. And I exclude myself from any of the foregoing categories.

Reply to  HotScot
August 12, 2017 5:47 am

It’s a forum so open to both sides of the debate. You trying to shut me up is no different to the climate change supporters allegedly ’roundly abusing’ you. And I too have suffered a lot of abuse in this forum for submitting evidence supporting global heating. A debate should be encouraged focused on the scientific evidence instead of just mud-slinging.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 9:56 am

“It’s a forum so open to both sides of the debate. You trying to shut me up is no different to the climate change supporters allegedly ’roundly abusing’ you.”
I’m not trying to shut you up dear boy, I’m quite happy to watch you humiliate yourself on here by posting MSM articles.
“And I too have suffered a lot of abuse in this forum for submitting evidence supporting global heating.”
So far, I haven’t seen you submit any scientific evidence, just MSM articles. Nor have I seen anyone being particularly rude to you, condescending perhaps, but when you post MSM articles in support of your points you insult those on this site with considerable professional expertise .
“A debate should be encouraged focused on the scientific evidence instead of just mud-slinging.”
Debate away dear boy but please bring scientific evidence to the event. WUWT have been calling for scientific debate on the subject for years, the problem is, no one from the alarmists community with any professional credibility will debate anything. Christopher Monckton has been calling for a debate for years on the subject with Gore who has always refused. Gavin Schmidt refused to debate CC with Roy Spencer on TV.
And if you care to look, not even particularly carefully, the mud slinging has almost without fail, emanated from the alarmists. Sceptical climate scientists forced from their jobs, an office of a prominent scientific sceptic shot at, indeed, an entire web site established with the sole intention of mud slinging at sceptical scientists, or haven’t you seen DesmogBlog?

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 17, 2017 1:15 am

“Al Gore isn’t a scientist, or hadn’t you noticed dear chap. He is also an extremely wealthy man thanks to his carbon credit trading investments so it’s to his benefit to perpetuate the myth.”
That is a falsehood. Gore made nearly all his money from Apple stock given to him as a Director on the Board, as well as his stake in Current TV, which was later sold for a large profit.

Reply to  Chris
August 21, 2017 6:51 am

Chris, you are right. This is a good article that tackles the subject of Al Gore’s wealth and his climate change message.
“Gore made the bulk of his money as a media mogul and an Apple board member. In January 2013, he pocketed about $70 million after taxes from selling the Current TV network he co-founded in 2004 to Qatari broadcaster Al Jazeera. He’s earned tens of millions more in recent years by selling off Apple stock awarded when he joined the tech giant’s board of directors in 2003.”
Source: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_599709f2e4b0e8cc855d5c09/amp

August 12, 2017 4:35 am

Forrest Gardener … and now let me see yours please.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 6:00 am

Ivan: Did someone ask you to show us yours? A polite “try asking questions” is the opposite of trying to shut you up, by the way. Does Mr. Soros pay time-and-a-half on weekends?

Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 6:02 am

No but Robert Mercer and Charles and David Koch do it seems…

Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 10:07 am

There you go, as a visitor to this site today, you have on several occasions been rude to people and posted sneering comments.

Reply to  Paul Courtney
August 12, 2017 7:16 pm

I think if you read Ivan’s post’s you will see that he is running on “alternative” energy – I suspect he lives in Washington or Colorado. 😉
Thanks for reminding me of some of my old university friends from the 60’s, Ivan.

Gary Wescom
Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 7:37 am

Let me the first to welcome you to the concept of skepticism. Many skeptics started out just as you have looking for evidence to prove their assertions about global warming, climate change, or whatever that crisis is now called. I know I did. Go ahead. Dig into the scientific papers and data supposedly backing your main stream media articles. Find out what the scientific papers actually claim and the associated data indicates.
You have nothing to lose by looking. After all, if there is as strong a scientific base to the global warming crisis as you believe, you will end up with lots of ammunition to fire at skeptics. Just remember that references to MSM articles will never be accepted as scientific evidence.

Reply to  Gary Wescom
August 12, 2017 7:56 am

Hello Gary sounds reasonable to me. However, I am also interested in what motivates the sceptics. Instead of citing scientific articles to justify their comments, in my opinion too many are out to ‘politicise’ the global heating debate on this site.
Too often I hear it is a neo-liberal plot to make the liberals even richer, it is a plan to undermine jobs, it is a Chinese and Indian conspiracy to crush US industry, it is a devilish Jewish project to take over the world, it has been dreamed up to increase the tax burden on the average working Joe, it is a straightforward grab of government subsidies etc.
Hardly ever do I hear support for pro global heating supporters such as myself who are concerned over the increasingly negative environmental state of our planet and the expected quality of life of future generations. Ocean acidification, glacier melting, increasing temperatures leading to more prolonged droughts and so increasing desertification and economic migration. Nope – it’s all been dreamt up by climate scientists, the UN IPCC, all the countries who signed up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the mainstream media for … what exactly?

Reply to  Gary Wescom
August 12, 2017 10:24 am

Gary Wescom has provided sound advice. Try following some of the daily articles on this site and make your judgements based on their science, not the MSM’s desire to sell newspapers and subscriptions. You might also want to try Paul Homewood’s site https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com
“Hardly ever do I hear support for pro global heating supporters such as myself who are concerned over the increasingly negative environmental state of our planet and the expected quality of life of future generations.”
You need only visit the Guardian website for all the comfort you need.
“Ocean acidification, glacier melting, increasing temperatures leading to more prolonged droughts and so increasing desertification and economic migration.”
If you care to look up previous articles on this site alone you will find considerable scientific evidence to refute all the MSM scare stories.
“Nope – it’s all been dreamt up by climate scientists, the UN IPCC, all the countries who signed up to the 2015 Paris climate agreement and the mainstream media for … what exactly?”
Now that’s an easy one to answer, because Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
She said: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
She went on: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
In other words, a global, UN socialist government.

Gary Wescom
Reply to  Gary Wescom
August 12, 2017 11:02 am

Yep, there are many extreme claims on both sides of the global warming question. Participating in arguments about conspiracies and such does not advance understanding about the basic subject of potential changes to the world’s climate. However, quite a few folks seem to enjoy the semi-mud slinging as a desk top sport.
I am a little confused by your claim that there is little support for folks who are concerned about global warming and its potential effects. You did list several MSM articles expressing that concern. Also, there are dozens (if not more) government and private agencies working to publicize that concern and to effect government regulations in an effort to mitigate envisioned future problems.
I began like you in the 1990s believing in the looming problem of Global Warming. Having lived during the time before the EPA set out to clean our air, it was easy for me to imagine we humans were doing harm to climate. Unfortunately, in those early days of the Global Warming scare, it was difficult to get folks to believe there might be a problem. After all, we had just gone through a couple decades of scientific statements that we were heading into a new ice age. Being an engineer, I set out to gather the background scientific information on the subject to present to others to get them to understand what I was talking about.
I dug through the available climate data and scientific papers on climate. At first I was confused. I expected clear indications of a climate problem. I didn’t find it. And now after over 20 years of study of the various climate and related data sets and scientific papers, I still haven’t.
So do understand, I care greatly about “expected quality of life of future generations, ocean acidification, glacier melting, increasing temperatures leading to more prolonged droughts and increasing desertification, and economic migration.” That is to say, I keep looking for those things to be a problem but have encountered innuendo, not fact. But that is just me. You need to do your own homework.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 12, 2017 12:08 pm

Stop looking in the mirror then.

August 12, 2017 6:42 am

Competent, calm and composed Dr Curry seems to have a cross to carry – she wakes up the inner Mr Hyde in those saving the world from the evil carbon-based lifeforms.

August 12, 2017 7:06 am

I forget where I originally saw this; it might have been here at WUWT.
How to Sell a Pseudo-science” by Anthony R. Pratkanis
1. Create a Phantom
2. Set a Rationalization Trap
3. Manufacture Source Credibility and Sincerity
4. Establish a Granfalloon
5. Use Self-Generated Persuasion
6. Construct Vivid Appeals
7. Use Pre-Persuasion
8. Frequently Use Heuristics and Commonplaces
9. Attack Opponents Through Innuendo and Character Assassination

August 12, 2017 7:16 am

Honest common sense from a brave and insightful scientist. Such a breath of fresh air. This is clearly the antidote to “Mann-made global warming”.

John G
August 12, 2017 8:04 am

I’m not a Climatologist or a Meteorologist and I don’t even like weather very much. But I try to be scientific in that I’m a skeptic as required and so always want more proof of any assertion about how the world works. AGW sounded likely to me at first. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Man generated CO2 would heat up the atmosphere a little bit. We live on a water planet. That would cause water to evaporate and water vapor is an even more potent greenhouse gas. That would warm things up even more, more water would evaporate and so we would be caught in a vicious cycle. The oceans would boil away and voila CAGW. It works great on paper.
Then I looked at the known ecological history of the earth. We have been a water planet for at least 3 billion years during which CO2 and albedo varied incredibly and yet the temperature remained within a fairly narrow range (consult WUWT Paleoclimate page . . . go to the colorful graphic, it’s easier to read). The CO2 has been up over 7000ppm (more than an order of magnitude greater than present) and the albedo has varied from almost none to snowball earth. In the last half billion years the temperature of the globe has been between 51.8 F and 82.4 F while the CO2 has been up to around 7000ppm all the while with the oceans evaporating water like crazy. I think I could have been comfortable somewhere on earth over that period.
I have to ask, why hasn’t the runaway greenhouse gas scenario already happened? Why are we here if the theory is correct? I have to be skeptical no matter how slick the theory until those facts are explained away . . . then I’ll be a lot less skeptical. I’m waiting.

Reply to  John G
August 12, 2017 11:19 am

There are two simple facts I need answered before I would convert back to believing in AGW.
1. There is no credible, empirical studies that prove CO2 causes global warming. Lot’s of isolated laboratory theories, but nothing more.
2. Our planet’s atmosphere is currently at one one of the two periods in it’s history when CO2 has gone as low as it possibly can. At one point in our not too distant human development CO2 was at 180ppm. At 150ppm all meaningful vegetation wither’s and dies. We can hope for no more than atmospheric CO2 doesn’t begin to fall again.
As an asides, it seems that increased atmospheric CO2 has increased vegetation by 14% over the last 30 years of satellite surveillance.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the only empirical manifestation of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Nor am I a scientist, engineer, or even well educated. But to me, these seem significant facts the alarmists need to deal with before telling us CO2 is bad for us.

John G
Reply to  HotScot
August 13, 2017 7:15 am

Yes, CO2 could end up buying us time as we plunge into the next glaciation. The idea of reducing CO2 to the point plants begin to suffer is insane.

Reply to  John G
August 12, 2017 11:50 am

“I have to ask, why hasn’t the runaway greenhouse gas scenario already happened?”
Very good question. It’s not for lack of opportunity. The Runaway Greenhouse Effect has never happened in the history of the Earth but alarmists want us to think it is going to happen now that humans are adding a miniscule amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. If 7,000 ppm of CO2 in Earth’s past doesn’t cause a runaway greenhouse, then the 400 ppm of today won’t either.

August 12, 2017 3:49 pm

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.

Roger Knights
August 12, 2017 9:54 pm

If you care to look up previous articles on this site alone you will find considerable scientific evidence to refute all the MSM scare stories.

Click on the arrow in the “Categories” drop-down list to find WUWT threads on glaciers, ocean acidification, etc. It is located beneath the calendar in the sidebar, ten page-downs from the top of the page.
Mods: That Categories list is too hard to find for newbies. It should be at the TOP OF THE PAGE, just below the Search box, where it logically belongs. And so should the Archives box. Neither of them would take much room.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Knights
August 12, 2017 10:25 pm

Ric Werme’s archives box should be moved to the top too. Get all that stuff together in one prominent place.

August 12, 2017 10:57 pm

Generally a good interview.
However, it is embarrassing that Judith doesn’t know that SLR after the end of the last ice age slowed about 7 millennia ago and clearly dropped below the rate of rise experienced in the tide gauge era about 4 millennia ago. 2 millennia ago the rate of rise was essentially zero. Sea level on a planet doesn’t go on rising forever after temperature roughly stabilizes. SLR in the 20th century isn’t “normal”; it is due to the end of the LIA and forced warming in the mid- to late 20th century. SLR from the last ice age stopped being significant 5 millennia ago.

August 13, 2017 1:44 am

OK, I am signing off from this site now but just wanted to leave some parting comments.
I thank God for the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 21) held in Paris (November 30-December 12, 2015).
To quote: “The strong momentum toward an agreement that built over the preceding months was dramatically underscored on the opening day of the summit by the presence of 150 presidents and prime ministers, the largest ever single-day gathering of heads of state. Impetus came also from a vast array of “non-state actors,” including governors, mayors and CEOs…”
You can view the outcomes of this agreement here: https://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary
This site seems to be dedicated to a bunch of climate sceptics who have dedicated themselves to patting each other on the back in a series of self-perpetuating comments that human induced global heating is a fiction. Donald Trump has totally isolated the USA vis a vis climate change in terms of withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement signed by all these 175 countries: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/04/parisagreementsingatures/
Fortunately for the global community, politicians come, and go and the initiatives implemented by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will outlast him (and also the commentators on this site).
So, my suggestion is to look at what is happening outside your closed group. Whatever you say to each other, 175 countries, their governments and citizens will be working towards this, as well as those Americans communities who reject their country’s isolated stance (and this site’s viewpoint) and are moving forward with their own independent initiatives towards the COP 21’s long-term goal:
The agreement reaffirms the goal of keeping average warming below 2 degrees Celsius, while also urging parties to “pursue efforts” to limit it to 1.5 degrees, a top priority for developing countries highly vulnerable to climate impacts.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  ivankinsman
August 13, 2017 6:25 am

Ivan: So you’re grateful, and just had to tell us. Funny what prompts prayer, for instance, I thank God you signed off.

Reply to  ivankinsman
August 13, 2017 11:42 am

Sorry to see you go. At least you had the courage to visit.
Good luck.

August 13, 2017 2:02 am

As a scientist, Brian Cox should know that all topics in science are open for debate and research. But he is now on record as saying that the climate science is closed for debate. That’s not science, it’s dogma.
Unfortunately the situation is worse than merely having a £200,000 per year, taxpayer-funded, BBC bottom-licker like Cox ranting against free speech and research, there are folks in Britain who are calling for denial of global warming to made a criminal offence.
Free thought, not groupthink.
Science, not dogma.

Bob Kutz
August 14, 2017 9:54 am

Hang in there Judy.
People who understand what science really is deeply appreciate your commitment to it.

August 19, 2017 6:13 pm

I thought I’d seen this Curry interview before. It was first published by interviewer, Rich Clarke, in December 2015. Here: https://youtu.be/eg_I8QypcvM Not that it doesn’t deserve to be revisited again now. It most certainly does.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights