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.
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:
Vanity Fair: HOW EXTREME HEAT COULD LEAVE SWATHS OF THE PLANET UNINHABITABLE
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.”
and
“…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.”
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.
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.
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.
Ivan-san:
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.
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.
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.
Wait for it … they will come.
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.
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/climate-change-consensus-the-97/
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/10/us/noaa-2016-climate-change-report/index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/15/california-drought-costs-22-billion-17-100-jobs?int=news-rec
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/31/paris-climate-deal-2c-warming-study?CMP=share_btn_link
http://www.euronews.com/video/2017/07/29/extreme-weather-hits-europe—scientists-blame-climate-change
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/05/hopes-of-mild-climate-change-dashed-by-new-research?CMP=share_btn_link
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/opinion/why-the-world-economy-has-to-be-carbon-free-by-2050.html?_r=0
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/10/alaska-coastal-towns-sea-level-rise-climate-change
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/12/us/weather-cities-inundated-climate-change/index.html
2015-2016 was El Nino. 2017 and the following years will be cooler.
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.
@richard 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.
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
They are in the mountains moron. Do you know how high the Alps are? Is this supposed to negate global heating. Try something else…
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.
June is midwinter in Chile. The “crazy” label works.
Yeah. Right on man.
What if you guessed my gender wrong?
ivankinsman
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.
Read the article first instead if spouting off – or would you find it a bit difficult?
ivankinsman
I did read the article dear chap, and it’s anecdotal. No scientific references in it whatsoever.
ivankinsman
“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).”
https://www.vencoreweather.com/blog/2017/7/6/115-pm-impressive-cold-in-greenland-and-near-record-accumulations-of-snow-and-ice
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.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
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.”
Check this out in terms of maximum temperatures – that are rising around the world:
http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm
ivankinsman
“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.
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.
ivankinsman
“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?
ivankinsman
“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.
ivankinsman
And your NASA study on sea ice is from 2015, it has been superseded.
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.
Paul Courtney
“this tr0ll has ambition”
HeHe……excellent.
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.
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.
Ivan
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.
oh, man…
samurai- factslinging is un-vanity-fair.
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.
Not true. Al Gore and Dr Michael Mann do a better job I think 🙂
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.
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.
ivankinsman
“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.
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.
ivankinsman
“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?
“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.
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
Forrest Gardener … and now let me see yours please.
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?
No but Robert Mercer and Charles and David Koch do it seems…
ivankinsman
There you go, as a visitor to this site today, you have on several occasions been rude to people and posted sneering comments.
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.
Ivan,
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.
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?
ivankinsman
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.
Ivan,
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.
Stop looking in the mirror then.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
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.
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Ric Werme’s archives box should be moved to the top too. Get all that stuff together in one prominent place.
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.
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.
Ivan: So you’re grateful, and just had to tell us. Funny what prompts prayer, for instance, I thank God you signed off.
ivankinsman
Sorry to see you go. At least you had the courage to visit.
Good luck.
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.
Hang in there Judy.
People who understand what science really is deeply appreciate your commitment to it.
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.