Wow. Then you have missed probably the greatest bit of performance art ever seen on TV, Tucker’s interview of Dom Tullipso. #DemandProtest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kyWPjXTnco
The only disagreement I have with what she said was that its not that climate science has been over-simplified, if anything, it has been over complicated, so much so that the general impression is that its far too complicated to understand so the precautionary principle is a proper course of action.
The actual complications are not with what the equilibrium state will be, that is, the sensitivity, but with how the system arrives at a very quantifiable thermodynamically constrained steady state.
I don’t agree at all. Popular media has vastly over-simplified the issue, giving the impression that climate is well-understood, the “science is settled,” climate is warming catastrophically, and there is one and only one cause- human CO2 emissions.
None of these is provably true.
Eustace,
The media has definitely over-simplified what consensus climate science claims to understand, but the media casts it away from the science and into a sensational emotional issue that triggers the predictable left wing guilt response.
Yes, over-simplifying with a non scientifically supported rationalizations masquerading as science is problematic, but this is done because the actual science is made out to be far too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend and besides, nowhere in any IPCC report is there evidence to the contrary, so why would you question the consensus surrounding the conclusions of those reports?
ristvan,
For sure the science isn’t settled because if it was, the effect would be know to far better than +/- 50% (0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2), moreover; the actual effect would be known to be less than the presumed lower limit since more ‘feedback’ power (1.16 W/m^2) than forcing power (1.0 W/m^2) is still required in order to sustain the increased temperature based on starting from 390.08 W/m^2 of emissions at 288K and ending at 392.25 W/m^2 of emissions at.288.4K after applying 1 W/m^2 of forcing input. ANY SYSTEM WITH MORE FEEDBACK THAN FORCING IS UNCONDITIONALLY UNSTABLE. It doesn’t get any simpler than this except for all the bogus complexity thrown at the problem to make the presumed sensitivity seem plausible.
My point is that even to other scientists, climate science is presented as horribly complex thus few put any effort into due diligence and those that do become skeptics.
More to the point, the actual sensitivity is about 0.25 +/- .05C per W/m^2 which is deterministically arrived at by applying the laws of physics, is readily measurable and in no case is more feedback than forcing ever required. All of the complications are along the path from one steady state to another and owing to their chaotic nature are hard to predict, but where they are driving the system to is very quantifiable. The other name for these complications is weather and where the system is going is climate.
I see all of your angles on this folks, On one hand it’s supposedly so simple that no one should rationally question, but question the simple scenario with counter-fact and it suddenly becomes something only IQs above 140 can comprehend.
From what I see, the media strained pablum says that there is only one truth, which they disseminate. Issues are simplified into a globally read script which ignores conflicts of fact and chooses the information to be presented based upon political correctness so that the consumer will not have to “taste or chew on” any story, all they need do is swallow.
A little of column A and a little of column B
The researchers have vastly overcomplicated it. Take a look at Mann’s hockey stick crap. A few cherry picked trees from very limited locations fantastically contorted through math that the idiot didn’t even understand himself to produce a result that he was after before he started.
The media make it sound like every snowflake that falls or Gramma’s cake that fails to rise is a straightforward and direct result of the last CO2 molecule to hit the atmosphere. They look down their noses at those who question the religion while they themselves don’t understand thing one about the physics of it. It’s simple! Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson understands it! Except when he has to answer questions-then he turns all red and sputtery. The fact that the media can film Al gore without the camera shaking from hilarious laughter is the surest sign that it is over-simplified.
Totally agree. Alarmist are hysterically anecdotal (simplistic) versus methodically scientific. Everything is caused by global warming or climate change to a disastrous end and deniers are just stupid for not seeing it all around us (sarcasm intended).
co2isnotevil
In general I agree with you, mostly on your past point,. In order to prove some mathematical puzzles are solved or not, they do not ‘solve it’ in the classic sense, they prove that it is a certain type of problem, and that such problems only have certain types of answers, therefore the answer has to be of type X, and there is only one possible X-type answer.
Thus your point about thermodynamic ‘constraint’ is a realistic target. It does not have to be extremely accurate in its constraint, it can start by placing a broad holding-pen around the problem and showing that ‘the answer lies somewhere inside it’. Then over time, the pen is made smaller and smaller constraining the range of possible answers to the questions.
Complex climate is susceptible to this type of analysis – not fine element analysis of all possible molecules in the system, but rather constraint models limiting definitely what could happen, and maybe why.
The Irreducibly Simple Climate Model is an example of such an attempt. It is a given that the Earth’s climate is stable and has not shown any obvious tendencies to have tipping points (ice ages may involve them I admit). If the system is stable in the long term, which seems agreeable, that limits the amplification of all factors, without having to know precisely which ones make which contribution.
Starting on the big picture and using logic we should be able to limit the range of possibilities – with a far more likely prospect of getting results than from trying to simulate the entire sun/near-space/ocean/atmosphere.
Crispin,
“Starting on the big picture and using logic we should be able to limit the range of possibilities ”
How about this?
The lower limit on the sensitivity would be when 0 W/m^2 of feedback arises from 1 W/m^2 of solar forcing, the surface emissions would be equal to the total incident forcing power and given an equivalent temperature defined as the SB temperature corresponding to its emissions, the sensitivity is given as 1/(4eoT^3) which for T = 288K is about 0.18C per W/m^2 where o is the SB constant. The effective emissivity, e, is 1 per the definition of an equivalent temperature which is relative to the emissions of an ideal BB.
The upper limit is at 100% positive feedback, where 1 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ arises from 1 W/m^2 of forcing. This is where consensus climate science got off the rails by assuming the 100% feedback case is when 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in an infinite amount of feedback power and an infinite output – the runaway condition. This would be the case for the usual Bode amplifier, as long as it conforms to the precondition for an implicit, infinite source of Joules powering the gain. Without this implicit power supply, the input and feedback are no longer measured to determine how much power to deliver from the infinite source, but are consumed to produce the output power, limiting the maximum amount of feedback power that 1 W/m^2 of forcing power can produce to just 1 W/m^2.
Starting from 288K whose SB emissions are 390.08 W/m^2, add the 1 W/m^2 of forcing and 1 W/m^2 of feedback to the emissions and the resulting LTE emissions of 392.08 W/m^2 corresponds to an equivalent temperature of 288.37K setting the maximum possible temperature increase arising from 1 W/m^2 to be 0.37K for a sensitivity of 0.37K per W/m^2.
This is less than the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC and sets the only possible range of the sensitivity to be somewhere between 0.18 and 0.37 C per W/m^2. No value within this range is catastrophic or even mildly inconvenient for anyone per the IPCC lower limit whose primary constraints were that it be large enough to make a plausible case for climate reparations, but no so large that it can’t be defended by leveraging the wiggle room of obfuscation by excess complexity.
George, “The upper limit is at 100% positive feedback, where 1 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ arises from 1 W/m^2 of forcing. This is where consensus climate science got off the rails by assuming the 100% feedback case is when 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in an infinite amount of feedback power and an infinite output – the runaway condition. This would be the case for the usual Bode amplifier, as long as it conforms to the precondition for an implicit, infinite source of Joules powering the gain. Without this implicit power supply, the input and feedback are no longer measured to determine how much power to deliver from the infinite source, but are consumed to produce the output power, limiting the maximum amount of feedback power that 1 W/m^2 of forcing power can produce to just 1 W/m^2.”
As much as a I agree with most of your work on the subject, I can’t agree with this constraint for basically 2 reasons:
1) Internal changes in response an imposed imbalance from added GHGs can hypothetically increase Pi, increase the power supply into the system.
2) Adding GHGs, like doubling CO2, doesn’t take us to 100% opacity in the IR, so again, internal changes in response to additional GHG absorption can further increase IR opacity as well. That is, they can increase the amount that can be fed back to the input above the initial amount.
Only under the stipulation that internal changes in response do not increase Pi and where adding GHGs takes us from an opacity less than 100% to then 100%, can I agree that COE limits the response to not be more than 2x what’s incrementally absorbed by the atmosphere.
The bottom line is the climate system is not perfectly analogous to the Bode model. I do understand your point here with this, but the bottom line is this is just not going to fly with anyone in the field for the reasons above.
I appreciate your comments. But they are “in the weeds” when considering the forum of cable television enlightening the general public. The point is that the forum could have been used to highlight major uncertainties that destroy current climate models predictive accuracy and that “no action” is a better decision than “action against CAGW ” . Most importantly, the Chicken Little Socialists will only stop when they run out of your money.
J
September 26, 2017 11:10 am
That’s because she is so reasonable.
Tom Halla
September 26, 2017 11:11 am
That was good. Tucker Carlson needs staffers who know the subject better, and perhaps Judith Curry could suggest some.
Tucker was throwing her softballs to hit out of the park. He was trying very hard not to laugh all the way through and finally couldn’t hold it at the end. He knew the answers and asked the questions so she could hammer the gorecal’s position.
My comment on Carlson and his staff not knowing the subject of climate change was not based on this interview with Curry, but that he could have revealed Bill Nye o be even more of a tendentious fool than he did. Nye making the comment that all the temperature increase since 1750 was anthropogenic was egregious.
Tucker spends a good deal of time jesting with Mark Steyn, often referring to Steyn’s long-drawn out legal case initiated by Mann, and so is probably well informed about the main issues of climate change.
However knowledgeable she may be on the subject, I really don’t think Judith Curry is a persuasive or articulate exponent of the sceptical view, she comes across as too hesitant, searching for the right words, which given her longtime position in the field, one would hope she could rattle off the facts with a bit more vim.
Dr Curry took quite a beating at Ga Tech for being “reasonable”. She’s more than paid her dues.
To the extent she allows herself to be seen as a full-throated partisan skeptic, she would lose the unique and substantial credibility of actually being a trained & credible climate scientist. Comparing her demeanor & commentary with the crowd of astrologers, alchemists, failed politicians and psychologists attempting to pretend they’ve mastered PDE easily makes her the only adult in the room.
I appreciate that she is not squandering this valuable position,
Hmmm … Lets say you’re sick. Very sick. Potentially terminally sick.
Which doctors would you trust to actually help?
The ones who know what they’re doing or the ones with great bedside manners?
Robert of Texas
September 26, 2017 11:17 am
I am confused… I thought she was supposed to be a climatologist? She sounds both thoughtful and open minded. She laid out the doubt on the subject extremely well. Does not compute.
Am I to believe that not EVERYONE agrees with the “consensus” view?
Wow. High respect for this person to speak up like that.
Is it just me or does it look like Prof. Curry has gone a bit “off the boil”. A very weak and wish-washy interview I thought. Have seen her SOOOO much better.
I agree..i expected more vigor, but reading her articles gives a different view, so I appreciate her greatly. Possibly public speaking under bright lights, or health issues affected her this time..she seemed hesitant, possibly to be sure she understood Tucker before commenting…after all, being on camera, he’s not there, there is a split second decision to agree or comment back to what he asked her. I hope she is asked back.
The Reverend Badger : “Is it just me or does it look like Prof. Curry has gone a bit “off the boil”.
———————-
Don’t think so. She’s always like that, very moderate and trying to be educative more than antagonistic. She has already been interviewed by Tucker before, so she knows he plays devil advocate to mock warmists with his overcharged questions.
RB,
“Have seen her SOOOO much better.”
Probably because it was in a friendly forum where she already knew Carlson’s position and was too busy laughing at how he presented some of the warmist talking points which are laughable to begin with …
You are probably right, the “friendly chat” with someone on your side and knowledge of the “jokes” could explain the relatively low key tone. So the opportunity was wasted, but she does seem to blog rather less on climate,etc than in the good old days and is of course busy with the new enterprise. Excuseable but, for me anyway, disappointing particularly considering her position near the top of the lukewarmers tree.
Rev. Badger
No, Judith Curry gains my growing respect and admiration from this interview. In a political culture sliding toward outright exofasc1sm, voices of moderation need to be “as wily as serpents and as innocent as doves”.
Let’s not forget the words with which Tucker Carlson opened the interview – quoting the suggestion that climate change den1ers should be prosecuted. For MURDER. Is it just me or has a line been crossed here?
What starts as “flying a kite” will in time -depending on the reaction or lack of reaction to it – develop into a real political and legal campaign. This is much, much more than rhetoric, it is a clear signal that the body of opinion on the left desirous of unleashing an explosion of fasc1stic state violence under the flag of climate “justice”, is close to reaching critical mass.
This is no joke. With these words by Carlson, there is no doubt whatsoever that the climate issue has become a real and present danger. Not of mild and beneficial warming / plant fertilisation – no, but of a Trojan horse brimming with incipient fasc1stic state terror. As the Na3i episode shows, once state violence is unrestrained it grows to an avalanche under its own momentum.
A real and even likely threat now exists that in an engineered and vote-rigged rebound from the Trump presidency (which may itself have been arranged for this purpose) there will be a hard left US government able to employ the overwhelming military and intelligence resources of a superpower in an outbreak of absolute ecofasc1sm with roundup, torture and killing of all climate “den1ers”.
The world’s greatest threat right now is not islamofacism. It is not Russia or North Korea. It is not China, nor is it a benignly warming climate. It is incipient ecototalitarianism that – as Tucker Carlson has now signalled, is close to the surface and ready to explode in the USA.
There can be no doubt that everyone who has ever posted on WUWT is listed and targeted for arrest. I will be writing to my MP in the UK to ask if the British state is willing to commit to protecting its citizens from the coming ecofasc1st regime in the US. But I won’t hold my breath for any such assurance. Thus in parallel I will make plans to disappear with my family to a place of safety. The time for that has come again.
If your “place of safety” is underground (and why not!) there is a delicious irony (to my mind anyway) to the fact that the further you go beneath the surface (that’s the actual surface not 1-2m above it) the warmer it gets. Apparently in ancient times they worshipped the Sun, I don’t believe they worshipped the Radioactive Elements in the core, and they certainly didn’t worship Gravity (despite Eve having an apple tree).
There is a difference between religion and science. Good luck when the time comes, I shall be using my science knowledge as a member of the Resistance. We plan to take 2 polar bears as hostages.
ptolemy2, your assumption that the US military will round up and execute people for disagreeing with a doubtful argument indicates an ignorance of the US military.
I don’t know why you think anyone has been targeted but the UK government is not a democracy. The US government is a democratic republic.
Tucker wasn’t “floating” anything. That horse left the barn a long time ago. He was mocking those who take that position with great gusto. You just have to watch him long enough to realize what he is doing. I love when an extremist gets on his show and he almost sympathetically eggs them on until they are frothing at the mouth and then pulls the rug out from under them with cold hard logic. Fox found a good one with him.
Actually up until the 1990’s people studying climate called themselves climatologists (e.g Tim Ball). Then James Hansen came along looking for a way to keep GISS funded handsomely in NYC so he wouldn’t have to leave the comfort of his office and the environment of a fashionable but fairly expensive city. You know.
Just sit around constructing models and speculating wildly.Then it became fashionable to be a “Climate Scientists” and to be studying “Climate Science” not Climatology.
You know, when I was in school we called fields that ended in the word “science” soft. They needed the word in the title so science would somehow be involved if only linguistically.
She is even better and more thoughtful than portrayed in these videos. Have interacted with her since 2011, numerous guest posts and comments on her Climate Etc. blog, a few joint/double posts (for example Lindzen’s adaptive iris and the Mauritzen/Stevens paper in 2015), and of course she also provided a wonderful long foreword for Blowing Smoke. She accepted CAGW until Climategate, then began a conversion that ultimately led her to be THE leading skeptical academic climatologist after Richard Lindzen retired from MIT in 2012. Two textbooks and nearly 200 papers. Last year resigned her tenured position at Georgia Tech because could not in good conscience continue mentoring Ph.D candidates in her Earth and Atmospheric Sciences department given her knowledge and views, knowing what they faced if followed ‘truth’ rather than warmunist orthodoxy. She is happy with her small CFAN startup company. CFAN had the earliest (9/5) and most accurate prediction of IRMA’s actual track on 9/10. Beat NHC, Weather Channel, and all the models by days. Led directly to our (in hindsight correct) decision 9/6 to shelter in place directly on the Atlantic beach in Fort Lauderdale (in the ‘mandatory’ evacuation zone) rather than join the Miami evacuation mess.
Timemark 0:38 and 2:09 she refers to climate change as a “problem” IT’S NOT A PROBLEM!
People on the skeptical side of this issue need to stop allowing left-wing politics to set the agenda. Referring to “Climate Change” (climate has always changed) as a problem needs to stop. CO2 is beneficial, is not a pollutant and does not need to be reduced.
CO2 is up over 40% these past 160+ years and there isn’t a problem. Agricultural production is up in no small way due to the the increase.
I only see ‘climate change’ rhetoric as a problem when people try to use it as a new religion and an excuse to overthrow the legitimate government of this country. Where I come from, that’s called sedition, and/or treason.
Steve. I got a different impression.
Dr. Curry made the point early that climate was ALWAYS changing; that’s what it does.
She also raised the question never addressed by “Consensus” (TM) scientists, shrill advocates, and the MSM (but I repeat myself) “Is more warming good or bad?”.
As Rud indicated, right from the beginning (Climategate) Judith has been on a mission to get academics from both “sides” to dialogue; and using the vastly understated “uncertainty” of the science as a point of discussion.
That of course is what got her kicked out of the Fraternity; and for whatever silly reason, there is no Sorority 🙂
Tom Gelsthorpe
September 26, 2017 1:42 pm
When masses of people go crazy all at once, it makes people who retain their sanity seem like renegades, or “deniers.”
Facts doomsayers leave out: China has been the biggest CO2 emitter for 20 years, and now burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Australia, whose total population is less than Shanghai metro, is turning somersaults to reduce CO2 emissions. Nothing Australia does will move the global needle. If they commit economic suicide, China can buy all Australia’s industrial capacity. China already has the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Japan only dreamed of 80 years ago.
In the meantime, the West dreams of doomsday.
“IT’S NOT A PROBLEM!”
It certainly is a problem, and is even a problem that there are so many problems.
It’s a problem when anyone can rationalize how CO2 emissions from utilizing fossil fuels will destroy the world when in reality, they’re no worse than benign.
It’s a problem that both religion and politics have staked out positions based on the distorted science assembled by the IPCC and reinforced by its self serving consensus.
It’s a problem that there are so many gullible and uninformed people, including many scientists, who allow political bias to override logic.
It’s a problem that if you stick your neck out and contradict the consensus, the result is at best exclusion and at worst, career ending.
It’s a problem that the false reality pushed by the IPCC will cost trillions of dollars with absolutely no effect other than to redistribute western wealth to the many despotic leaders running third world countries.
It’s a problem that there’s so much money bolstering the grand deception.
No problem can be solved with an experiment, it can only be identified. All of the problems I mentioned are not binary choices, but are the consequences of letting subjectivity have a role in science.
The actions that will solve all of these problems is to establish a firewall between politics and science and get the UN/IPCC/UNFCCC out of the loop, although it could take generations for the truth to become widely accepted.
co2isnotevil
You may have missed TRB’s point of “science” vs “non-science” problems (or issues; let’s don’t quibble over words). You’ve catalogued a lot of “non-science” problems.
Javert,
Yes, I clearly understand the distinction between science and anti-science and that science can be arbitrated by experiment while anti-science can not. But, in the CAGW world, there’s only anti science and my point is that this is the problem. In other words, the scientific method has been superceded by anti-science conforming to a political narrative and to correct this requires the nearly impossible task of fixing people by subjective persuasion and not the easy task of fixing science by objective experiment.
Nice.
The science isn’t settled but the political science is.
“The end justifies the means.”
Gil
September 26, 2017 3:14 pm
It would be great if Tucker would do a series of interviews with a number of the leading skeptics in order to focus on various aspects of the science, critique the weaknesses and misinformation of the alarmists, point out the benefits of higher levels of CO2, and expose the Marxist goals that motivate the CAGW crowd and their desire for economic and political destruction of the US. Famous quotes from Christiana Figueres, Raj Pachauri, Maurice Strong, John Holdren, Paul Watson, David Brower, John Houghton, Ottmar Edenhofer, Stephen Schneider, Naomi Klein, and Naomi Oreskes should help make the point.
I would rather see him moderate a debate between scientists from both sides. Although, it will be nearly impossible to find a notable main stream climate scientist brave enough to put their conclusions to the test unless it was by way of an ambush under false pretences. Then let them either squirm or storm out as their position becomes more and more untenable …
Gil
September 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Some of the leading skeptics can speak quite forcefully, and that can offset some of the strident assertions of the CAGW people.
jsuther2013
September 26, 2017 3:58 pm
‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’ Orwell. (if I got it correct).
In this time of lies, watch your back.
Actually not “universal”. We can be encouraged by some of the surveys conducted which show that around 15-20% of the general populace in various countries do not believe in global warming. This is a high number. Also there are many thousands of qualified professionals, scientists, PhDs who have signed up to anti-CAGW stuff. There is strength in these numbers so less watching of backs and more onward and forward fighting I say.
DAV
September 26, 2017 4:48 pm
My favorite part:
TC: “Are you surprised to learn that Al Gore studied theology and not climatology in college?”
JC: (*chuckles*) No.
Priceless.
I watched this last night. J Curry did a great job in answering Carlson’s questions.
Amber
September 26, 2017 6:03 pm
Wasn’t it Al Gore who studied theology and got a “gentleman’s ‘pass ? Judith Currie has forgotten more than Al Gore will ever know about climate science . Science fiction he wins hands down .
Judith Curry has more credibility in her left fingernail than ALL bullshit Gore and the rest of the
climate charlatans .
Please keep it up Dr. Curry . The overblown scam is sold on the false narrative that the science is settled
which itself is anti science bullying by people trying to exercise their business plan before they croak or to save financially bankrupt states that need a new sugar daddy . California sound familiar .
Dr. Spencer has just shredded the latest ALL Gore climate science fiction movie and I can’t wait for the EPA “Red /Blue ‘ team assessment .
I hope Dr. Curry and Spencer participate and Hollywood actors and flim flam promoters are shown the door . It’s about time the subject of climate science was returned to people that actually passed high school science 101 the first time .
Albert Gore, jr, despite his daddy being a Senator, actually was flunked out of the theology program. He eventually got a degree in a gut government studies program.
Michael
September 27, 2017 4:56 am
A highly intelligent and scholarly woman with an alpha grade research track record. Quite unlike much of the beta grade (or less) climatology community. Also, actually very cute.
Michael (PhD and ex Prof) from Sydney
Alan McIntire
September 27, 2017 5:53 am
It was interesting to see how she came off “live”, but television interviews are usually shallow and cursory. I guess that’s just the nature of the beast for a news talk show.
Sometimes the best answer is the shortest.
Judith Curry: No.
LOL!
Barry Hoffman
September 27, 2017 8:44 am
Tuckers show is a bright spot in TV journalism. But to waste an interview with Judith Curry at a 2nd graders comprehension level was utterly disappointing. A better use of her knowledge base would have been to point out how small a percentage of the atmosphere CO2 constitutes, how much greater H2O vapor dominates green house gas effects, how much cloud cover contributes to the energy +/- absorption rate, or how the effect of future vulcanism cannot be incorporated into climate models, or the lag effect of the ocean heat content. What could have been an enlightening interview pandered to those at 2 SD units below intellectual average.
Barry Hoffman
September 27, 2017 at 8:44 am
Tuckers show is a bright spot in TV journalism. But to waste an interview with Judith Curry at a 2nd graders comprehension level was utterly disappointing. A better use of her knowledge base would have been to point out how small a percentage of the atmosphere CO2 constitutes, how much greater H2O vapor dominates green house gas effects, how much cloud cover contributes to the energy +/- absorption rate, or how the effect of future vulcanism cannot be incorporated into climate models, or the lag effect of the ocean heat content. What could have been an enlightening interview pandered to those at 2 SD units below intellectual average.
I agree with your sentiments, but not all your arguments.
1) The so called small percentage of CO2 is irrelevant as it is responsible for all the plant life on Earth and through that all animal life. Small is not relevant. e..g. “small” changes of chemicals in our bloodstreams are vital to our second by second functioning as humans.
2) The people that need to be enlightened are very much the below intellectual average in total number terms. It will not be very easy to persuade the arch followers of CAGW to change their minds, because it is either their religion, their livelihood or both. What is needed is to provide simple evidence for the people who generally will believe what they’re told most often by the main providers, and any exposure to alternative views can’t help but raise the idea that there is an alternative way to view the issue. This is why they are so keen to shut down all dissenting views.
SteveT
Bruce
September 28, 2017 3:31 pm
“Whether warming is fundamentally good or bad is a value judgement”.
Bwahahahaha…
Haven’t laughed so hard since the last post by the potty peer…
You really aren’t the sharpest shiv in the amnesty box are you, Bruce?
Gandhi
September 29, 2017 10:53 am
Love that shout out to Rev. Al Gore and his Congregation of Climate Doom. Keep those donations to Rev. Al coming in from naive college kids and indoctrinated school children!
She sounds so reasonable.
Yeah, she must be dangerous.
Haha. I didn’t know who Tucker Carlson was, and at first I thought he was serious.
Tucker is the only “news” show I can stand to watch anymore. This show was vintage tucker.
He is worth his weight in platignum.
Wow. Then you have missed probably the greatest bit of performance art ever seen on TV, Tucker’s interview of Dom Tullipso. #DemandProtest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kyWPjXTnco
The only disagreement I have with what she said was that its not that climate science has been over-simplified, if anything, it has been over complicated, so much so that the general impression is that its far too complicated to understand so the precautionary principle is a proper course of action.
The actual complications are not with what the equilibrium state will be, that is, the sensitivity, but with how the system arrives at a very quantifiable thermodynamically constrained steady state.
I don’t agree at all. Popular media has vastly over-simplified the issue, giving the impression that climate is well-understood, the “science is settled,” climate is warming catastrophically, and there is one and only one cause- human CO2 emissions.
None of these is provably true.
EC, agree with you. Judith is big on ‘the uncertainty monster means the science ISN’T settled.’ Even has a peer reviewed uncertainty monster paper.
Eustace,
The media has definitely over-simplified what consensus climate science claims to understand, but the media casts it away from the science and into a sensational emotional issue that triggers the predictable left wing guilt response.
Yes, over-simplifying with a non scientifically supported rationalizations masquerading as science is problematic, but this is done because the actual science is made out to be far too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend and besides, nowhere in any IPCC report is there evidence to the contrary, so why would you question the consensus surrounding the conclusions of those reports?
ristvan,
For sure the science isn’t settled because if it was, the effect would be know to far better than +/- 50% (0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2), moreover; the actual effect would be known to be less than the presumed lower limit since more ‘feedback’ power (1.16 W/m^2) than forcing power (1.0 W/m^2) is still required in order to sustain the increased temperature based on starting from 390.08 W/m^2 of emissions at 288K and ending at 392.25 W/m^2 of emissions at.288.4K after applying 1 W/m^2 of forcing input. ANY SYSTEM WITH MORE FEEDBACK THAN FORCING IS UNCONDITIONALLY UNSTABLE. It doesn’t get any simpler than this except for all the bogus complexity thrown at the problem to make the presumed sensitivity seem plausible.
My point is that even to other scientists, climate science is presented as horribly complex thus few put any effort into due diligence and those that do become skeptics.
More to the point, the actual sensitivity is about 0.25 +/- .05C per W/m^2 which is deterministically arrived at by applying the laws of physics, is readily measurable and in no case is more feedback than forcing ever required. All of the complications are along the path from one steady state to another and owing to their chaotic nature are hard to predict, but where they are driving the system to is very quantifiable. The other name for these complications is weather and where the system is going is climate.
I see all of your angles on this folks, On one hand it’s supposedly so simple that no one should rationally question, but question the simple scenario with counter-fact and it suddenly becomes something only IQs above 140 can comprehend.
From what I see, the media strained pablum says that there is only one truth, which they disseminate. Issues are simplified into a globally read script which ignores conflicts of fact and chooses the information to be presented based upon political correctness so that the consumer will not have to “taste or chew on” any story, all they need do is swallow.
A little of column A and a little of column B
The researchers have vastly overcomplicated it. Take a look at Mann’s hockey stick crap. A few cherry picked trees from very limited locations fantastically contorted through math that the idiot didn’t even understand himself to produce a result that he was after before he started.
The media make it sound like every snowflake that falls or Gramma’s cake that fails to rise is a straightforward and direct result of the last CO2 molecule to hit the atmosphere. They look down their noses at those who question the religion while they themselves don’t understand thing one about the physics of it. It’s simple! Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson understands it! Except when he has to answer questions-then he turns all red and sputtery. The fact that the media can film Al gore without the camera shaking from hilarious laughter is the surest sign that it is over-simplified.
Totally agree. Alarmist are hysterically anecdotal (simplistic) versus methodically scientific. Everything is caused by global warming or climate change to a disastrous end and deniers are just stupid for not seeing it all around us (sarcasm intended).
co2isnotevil
In general I agree with you, mostly on your past point,. In order to prove some mathematical puzzles are solved or not, they do not ‘solve it’ in the classic sense, they prove that it is a certain type of problem, and that such problems only have certain types of answers, therefore the answer has to be of type X, and there is only one possible X-type answer.
Thus your point about thermodynamic ‘constraint’ is a realistic target. It does not have to be extremely accurate in its constraint, it can start by placing a broad holding-pen around the problem and showing that ‘the answer lies somewhere inside it’. Then over time, the pen is made smaller and smaller constraining the range of possible answers to the questions.
Complex climate is susceptible to this type of analysis – not fine element analysis of all possible molecules in the system, but rather constraint models limiting definitely what could happen, and maybe why.
The Irreducibly Simple Climate Model is an example of such an attempt. It is a given that the Earth’s climate is stable and has not shown any obvious tendencies to have tipping points (ice ages may involve them I admit). If the system is stable in the long term, which seems agreeable, that limits the amplification of all factors, without having to know precisely which ones make which contribution.
Starting on the big picture and using logic we should be able to limit the range of possibilities – with a far more likely prospect of getting results than from trying to simulate the entire sun/near-space/ocean/atmosphere.
Crispin,
“Starting on the big picture and using logic we should be able to limit the range of possibilities ”
How about this?
The lower limit on the sensitivity would be when 0 W/m^2 of feedback arises from 1 W/m^2 of solar forcing, the surface emissions would be equal to the total incident forcing power and given an equivalent temperature defined as the SB temperature corresponding to its emissions, the sensitivity is given as 1/(4eoT^3) which for T = 288K is about 0.18C per W/m^2 where o is the SB constant. The effective emissivity, e, is 1 per the definition of an equivalent temperature which is relative to the emissions of an ideal BB.
The upper limit is at 100% positive feedback, where 1 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ arises from 1 W/m^2 of forcing. This is where consensus climate science got off the rails by assuming the 100% feedback case is when 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in an infinite amount of feedback power and an infinite output – the runaway condition. This would be the case for the usual Bode amplifier, as long as it conforms to the precondition for an implicit, infinite source of Joules powering the gain. Without this implicit power supply, the input and feedback are no longer measured to determine how much power to deliver from the infinite source, but are consumed to produce the output power, limiting the maximum amount of feedback power that 1 W/m^2 of forcing power can produce to just 1 W/m^2.
Starting from 288K whose SB emissions are 390.08 W/m^2, add the 1 W/m^2 of forcing and 1 W/m^2 of feedback to the emissions and the resulting LTE emissions of 392.08 W/m^2 corresponds to an equivalent temperature of 288.37K setting the maximum possible temperature increase arising from 1 W/m^2 to be 0.37K for a sensitivity of 0.37K per W/m^2.
This is less than the lower limit of 0.4C per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC and sets the only possible range of the sensitivity to be somewhere between 0.18 and 0.37 C per W/m^2. No value within this range is catastrophic or even mildly inconvenient for anyone per the IPCC lower limit whose primary constraints were that it be large enough to make a plausible case for climate reparations, but no so large that it can’t be defended by leveraging the wiggle room of obfuscation by excess complexity.
George,
“The upper limit is at 100% positive feedback, where 1 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ arises from 1 W/m^2 of forcing. This is where consensus climate science got off the rails by assuming the 100% feedback case is when 1 W/m^2 of forcing results in an infinite amount of feedback power and an infinite output – the runaway condition. This would be the case for the usual Bode amplifier, as long as it conforms to the precondition for an implicit, infinite source of Joules powering the gain. Without this implicit power supply, the input and feedback are no longer measured to determine how much power to deliver from the infinite source, but are consumed to produce the output power, limiting the maximum amount of feedback power that 1 W/m^2 of forcing power can produce to just 1 W/m^2.”
As much as a I agree with most of your work on the subject, I can’t agree with this constraint for basically 2 reasons:
1) Internal changes in response an imposed imbalance from added GHGs can hypothetically increase Pi, increase the power supply into the system.
2) Adding GHGs, like doubling CO2, doesn’t take us to 100% opacity in the IR, so again, internal changes in response to additional GHG absorption can further increase IR opacity as well. That is, they can increase the amount that can be fed back to the input above the initial amount.
Only under the stipulation that internal changes in response do not increase Pi and where adding GHGs takes us from an opacity less than 100% to then 100%, can I agree that COE limits the response to not be more than 2x what’s incrementally absorbed by the atmosphere.
The bottom line is the climate system is not perfectly analogous to the Bode model. I do understand your point here with this, but the bottom line is this is just not going to fly with anyone in the field for the reasons above.
I appreciate your comments. But they are “in the weeds” when considering the forum of cable television enlightening the general public. The point is that the forum could have been used to highlight major uncertainties that destroy current climate models predictive accuracy and that “no action” is a better decision than “action against CAGW ” . Most importantly, the Chicken Little Socialists will only stop when they run out of your money.
That’s because she is so reasonable.
That was good. Tucker Carlson needs staffers who know the subject better, and perhaps Judith Curry could suggest some.
Tucker was throwing her softballs to hit out of the park. He was trying very hard not to laugh all the way through and finally couldn’t hold it at the end. He knew the answers and asked the questions so she could hammer the gorecal’s position.
My comment on Carlson and his staff not knowing the subject of climate change was not based on this interview with Curry, but that he could have revealed Bill Nye o be even more of a tendentious fool than he did. Nye making the comment that all the temperature increase since 1750 was anthropogenic was egregious.
Tucker spends a good deal of time jesting with Mark Steyn, often referring to Steyn’s long-drawn out legal case initiated by Mann, and so is probably well informed about the main issues of climate change.
However knowledgeable she may be on the subject, I really don’t think Judith Curry is a persuasive or articulate exponent of the sceptical view, she comes across as too hesitant, searching for the right words, which given her longtime position in the field, one would hope she could rattle off the facts with a bit more vim.
Dr Curry took quite a beating at Ga Tech for being “reasonable”. She’s more than paid her dues.
To the extent she allows herself to be seen as a full-throated partisan skeptic, she would lose the unique and substantial credibility of actually being a trained & credible climate scientist. Comparing her demeanor & commentary with the crowd of astrologers, alchemists, failed politicians and psychologists attempting to pretend they’ve mastered PDE easily makes her the only adult in the room.
I appreciate that she is not squandering this valuable position,
Hmmm … Lets say you’re sick. Very sick. Potentially terminally sick.
Which doctors would you trust to actually help?
The ones who know what they’re doing or the ones with great bedside manners?
I am confused… I thought she was supposed to be a climatologist? She sounds both thoughtful and open minded. She laid out the doubt on the subject extremely well. Does not compute.
Am I to believe that not EVERYONE agrees with the “consensus” view?
Wow. High respect for this person to speak up like that.
She had to retire as she was over reasonable.
Is it just me or does it look like Prof. Curry has gone a bit “off the boil”. A very weak and wish-washy interview I thought. Have seen her SOOOO much better.
I agree..i expected more vigor, but reading her articles gives a different view, so I appreciate her greatly. Possibly public speaking under bright lights, or health issues affected her this time..she seemed hesitant, possibly to be sure she understood Tucker before commenting…after all, being on camera, he’s not there, there is a split second decision to agree or comment back to what he asked her. I hope she is asked back.
The Reverend Badger : “Is it just me or does it look like Prof. Curry has gone a bit “off the boil”.
———————-
Don’t think so. She’s always like that, very moderate and trying to be educative more than antagonistic. She has already been interviewed by Tucker before, so she knows he plays devil advocate to mock warmists with his overcharged questions.
RB,
“Have seen her SOOOO much better.”
Probably because it was in a friendly forum where she already knew Carlson’s position and was too busy laughing at how he presented some of the warmist talking points which are laughable to begin with …
You are probably right, the “friendly chat” with someone on your side and knowledge of the “jokes” could explain the relatively low key tone. So the opportunity was wasted, but she does seem to blog rather less on climate,etc than in the good old days and is of course busy with the new enterprise. Excuseable but, for me anyway, disappointing particularly considering her position near the top of the lukewarmers tree.
Rev. Badger
No, Judith Curry gains my growing respect and admiration from this interview. In a political culture sliding toward outright exofasc1sm, voices of moderation need to be “as wily as serpents and as innocent as doves”.
Let’s not forget the words with which Tucker Carlson opened the interview – quoting the suggestion that climate change den1ers should be prosecuted. For MURDER. Is it just me or has a line been crossed here?
What starts as “flying a kite” will in time -depending on the reaction or lack of reaction to it – develop into a real political and legal campaign. This is much, much more than rhetoric, it is a clear signal that the body of opinion on the left desirous of unleashing an explosion of fasc1stic state violence under the flag of climate “justice”, is close to reaching critical mass.
This is no joke. With these words by Carlson, there is no doubt whatsoever that the climate issue has become a real and present danger. Not of mild and beneficial warming / plant fertilisation – no, but of a Trojan horse brimming with incipient fasc1stic state terror. As the Na3i episode shows, once state violence is unrestrained it grows to an avalanche under its own momentum.
A real and even likely threat now exists that in an engineered and vote-rigged rebound from the Trump presidency (which may itself have been arranged for this purpose) there will be a hard left US government able to employ the overwhelming military and intelligence resources of a superpower in an outbreak of absolute ecofasc1sm with roundup, torture and killing of all climate “den1ers”.
The world’s greatest threat right now is not islamofacism. It is not Russia or North Korea. It is not China, nor is it a benignly warming climate. It is incipient ecototalitarianism that – as Tucker Carlson has now signalled, is close to the surface and ready to explode in the USA.
There can be no doubt that everyone who has ever posted on WUWT is listed and targeted for arrest. I will be writing to my MP in the UK to ask if the British state is willing to commit to protecting its citizens from the coming ecofasc1st regime in the US. But I won’t hold my breath for any such assurance. Thus in parallel I will make plans to disappear with my family to a place of safety. The time for that has come again.
If your “place of safety” is underground (and why not!) there is a delicious irony (to my mind anyway) to the fact that the further you go beneath the surface (that’s the actual surface not 1-2m above it) the warmer it gets. Apparently in ancient times they worshipped the Sun, I don’t believe they worshipped the Radioactive Elements in the core, and they certainly didn’t worship Gravity (despite Eve having an apple tree).
There is a difference between religion and science. Good luck when the time comes, I shall be using my science knowledge as a member of the Resistance. We plan to take 2 polar bears as hostages.
Rev Badger
“We plan to take 2 polar bears as hostages.”
I’ll settle for taking Al Gore – in either case hostage can double as a sizeable food reserve.
ptolemy2, your assumption that the US military will round up and execute people for disagreeing with a doubtful argument indicates an ignorance of the US military.
I don’t know why you think anyone has been targeted but the UK government is not a democracy. The US government is a democratic republic.
Tucker wasn’t “floating” anything. That horse left the barn a long time ago. He was mocking those who take that position with great gusto. You just have to watch him long enough to realize what he is doing. I love when an extremist gets on his show and he almost sympathetically eggs them on until they are frothing at the mouth and then pulls the rug out from under them with cold hard logic. Fox found a good one with him.
TRB
It’s just you.
Actually up until the 1990’s people studying climate called themselves climatologists (e.g Tim Ball). Then James Hansen came along looking for a way to keep GISS funded handsomely in NYC so he wouldn’t have to leave the comfort of his office and the environment of a fashionable but fairly expensive city. You know.
Just sit around constructing models and speculating wildly.Then it became fashionable to be a “Climate Scientists” and to be studying “Climate Science” not Climatology.
You know, when I was in school we called fields that ended in the word “science” soft. They needed the word in the title so science would somehow be involved if only linguistically.
She is even better and more thoughtful than portrayed in these videos. Have interacted with her since 2011, numerous guest posts and comments on her Climate Etc. blog, a few joint/double posts (for example Lindzen’s adaptive iris and the Mauritzen/Stevens paper in 2015), and of course she also provided a wonderful long foreword for Blowing Smoke. She accepted CAGW until Climategate, then began a conversion that ultimately led her to be THE leading skeptical academic climatologist after Richard Lindzen retired from MIT in 2012. Two textbooks and nearly 200 papers. Last year resigned her tenured position at Georgia Tech because could not in good conscience continue mentoring Ph.D candidates in her Earth and Atmospheric Sciences department given her knowledge and views, knowing what they faced if followed ‘truth’ rather than warmunist orthodoxy. She is happy with her small CFAN startup company. CFAN had the earliest (9/5) and most accurate prediction of IRMA’s actual track on 9/10. Beat NHC, Weather Channel, and all the models by days. Led directly to our (in hindsight correct) decision 9/6 to shelter in place directly on the Atlantic beach in Fort Lauderdale (in the ‘mandatory’ evacuation zone) rather than join the Miami evacuation mess.
Her quote “voodoo statistics” was great.
Timemark 0:38 and 2:09 she refers to climate change as a “problem”
IT’S NOT A PROBLEM!
People on the skeptical side of this issue need to stop allowing left-wing politics to set the agenda. Referring to “Climate Change” (climate has always changed) as a problem needs to stop. CO2 is beneficial, is not a pollutant and does not need to be reduced.
CO2 is up over 40% these past 160+ years and there isn’t a problem. Agricultural production is up in no small way due to the the increase.
I only see a “climate change problem” coming when it cools abruptly again.
I would only refer to the state climate science as a current problem.
I only see ‘climate change’ rhetoric as a problem when people try to use it as a new religion and an excuse to overthrow the legitimate government of this country. Where I come from, that’s called sedition, and/or treason.
Steve. I got a different impression.
Dr. Curry made the point early that climate was ALWAYS changing; that’s what it does.
She also raised the question never addressed by “Consensus” (TM) scientists, shrill advocates, and the MSM (but I repeat myself) “Is more warming good or bad?”.
As Rud indicated, right from the beginning (Climategate) Judith has been on a mission to get academics from both “sides” to dialogue; and using the vastly understated “uncertainty” of the science as a point of discussion.
That of course is what got her kicked out of the Fraternity; and for whatever silly reason, there is no Sorority 🙂
When masses of people go crazy all at once, it makes people who retain their sanity seem like renegades, or “deniers.”
Facts doomsayers leave out: China has been the biggest CO2 emitter for 20 years, and now burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Australia, whose total population is less than Shanghai metro, is turning somersaults to reduce CO2 emissions. Nothing Australia does will move the global needle. If they commit economic suicide, China can buy all Australia’s industrial capacity. China already has the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere Japan only dreamed of 80 years ago.
In the meantime, the West dreams of doomsday.
“IT’S NOT A PROBLEM!”
It certainly is a problem, and is even a problem that there are so many problems.
It’s a problem when anyone can rationalize how CO2 emissions from utilizing fossil fuels will destroy the world when in reality, they’re no worse than benign.
It’s a problem that both religion and politics have staked out positions based on the distorted science assembled by the IPCC and reinforced by its self serving consensus.
It’s a problem that there are so many gullible and uninformed people, including many scientists, who allow political bias to override logic.
It’s a problem that if you stick your neck out and contradict the consensus, the result is at best exclusion and at worst, career ending.
It’s a problem that the false reality pushed by the IPCC will cost trillions of dollars with absolutely no effect other than to redistribute western wealth to the many despotic leaders running third world countries.
It’s a problem that there’s so much money bolstering the grand deception.
Which problems can we solve with ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS?
No problem can be solved with an experiment, it can only be identified. All of the problems I mentioned are not binary choices, but are the consequences of letting subjectivity have a role in science.
The actions that will solve all of these problems is to establish a firewall between politics and science and get the UN/IPCC/UNFCCC out of the loop, although it could take generations for the truth to become widely accepted.
co2isnotevil
You may have missed TRB’s point of “science” vs “non-science” problems (or issues; let’s don’t quibble over words). You’ve catalogued a lot of “non-science” problems.
Javert,
Yes, I clearly understand the distinction between science and anti-science and that science can be arbitrated by experiment while anti-science can not. But, in the CAGW world, there’s only anti science and my point is that this is the problem. In other words, the scientific method has been superceded by anti-science conforming to a political narrative and to correct this requires the nearly impossible task of fixing people by subjective persuasion and not the easy task of fixing science by objective experiment.
The attribution of recent hurricanes is just the weather exploitation SWAT teams in action.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/17/leaked-clinton-campaign-memo-on-climate-change-shows-its-really-about-politics-not-science/
Nice.
The science isn’t settled but the political science is.
“The end justifies the means.”
It would be great if Tucker would do a series of interviews with a number of the leading skeptics in order to focus on various aspects of the science, critique the weaknesses and misinformation of the alarmists, point out the benefits of higher levels of CO2, and expose the Marxist goals that motivate the CAGW crowd and their desire for economic and political destruction of the US. Famous quotes from Christiana Figueres, Raj Pachauri, Maurice Strong, John Holdren, Paul Watson, David Brower, John Houghton, Ottmar Edenhofer, Stephen Schneider, Naomi Klein, and Naomi Oreskes should help make the point.
I would rather see him moderate a debate between scientists from both sides. Although, it will be nearly impossible to find a notable main stream climate scientist brave enough to put their conclusions to the test unless it was by way of an ambush under false pretences. Then let them either squirm or storm out as their position becomes more and more untenable …
Some of the leading skeptics can speak quite forcefully, and that can offset some of the strident assertions of the CAGW people.
‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act’ Orwell. (if I got it correct).
In this time of lies, watch your back.
Actually not “universal”. We can be encouraged by some of the surveys conducted which show that around 15-20% of the general populace in various countries do not believe in global warming. This is a high number. Also there are many thousands of qualified professionals, scientists, PhDs who have signed up to anti-CAGW stuff. There is strength in these numbers so less watching of backs and more onward and forward fighting I say.
My favorite part:
TC: “Are you surprised to learn that Al Gore studied theology and not climatology in college?”
JC: (*chuckles*) No.
Priceless.
I have not laughed that hard in a while.
+666
I watched this last night. J Curry did a great job in answering Carlson’s questions.
Wasn’t it Al Gore who studied theology and got a “gentleman’s ‘pass ? Judith Currie has forgotten more than Al Gore will ever know about climate science . Science fiction he wins hands down .
Judith Curry has more credibility in her left fingernail than ALL bullshit Gore and the rest of the
climate charlatans .
Please keep it up Dr. Curry . The overblown scam is sold on the false narrative that the science is settled
which itself is anti science bullying by people trying to exercise their business plan before they croak or to save financially bankrupt states that need a new sugar daddy . California sound familiar .
Dr. Spencer has just shredded the latest ALL Gore climate science fiction movie and I can’t wait for the EPA “Red /Blue ‘ team assessment .
I hope Dr. Curry and Spencer participate and Hollywood actors and flim flam promoters are shown the door . It’s about time the subject of climate science was returned to people that actually passed high school science 101 the first time .
Albert Gore, jr, despite his daddy being a Senator, actually was flunked out of the theology program. He eventually got a degree in a gut government studies program.
A highly intelligent and scholarly woman with an alpha grade research track record. Quite unlike much of the beta grade (or less) climatology community. Also, actually very cute.
Michael (PhD and ex Prof) from Sydney
It was interesting to see how she came off “live”, but television interviews are usually shallow and cursory. I guess that’s just the nature of the beast for a news talk show.
Sometimes the best answer is the shortest.
Judith Curry: No.
LOL!
Tuckers show is a bright spot in TV journalism. But to waste an interview with Judith Curry at a 2nd graders comprehension level was utterly disappointing. A better use of her knowledge base would have been to point out how small a percentage of the atmosphere CO2 constitutes, how much greater H2O vapor dominates green house gas effects, how much cloud cover contributes to the energy +/- absorption rate, or how the effect of future vulcanism cannot be incorporated into climate models, or the lag effect of the ocean heat content. What could have been an enlightening interview pandered to those at 2 SD units below intellectual average.
I agree with your sentiments, but not all your arguments.
1) The so called small percentage of CO2 is irrelevant as it is responsible for all the plant life on Earth and through that all animal life. Small is not relevant. e..g. “small” changes of chemicals in our bloodstreams are vital to our second by second functioning as humans.
2) The people that need to be enlightened are very much the below intellectual average in total number terms. It will not be very easy to persuade the arch followers of CAGW to change their minds, because it is either their religion, their livelihood or both. What is needed is to provide simple evidence for the people who generally will believe what they’re told most often by the main providers, and any exposure to alternative views can’t help but raise the idea that there is an alternative way to view the issue. This is why they are so keen to shut down all dissenting views.
SteveT
“Whether warming is fundamentally good or bad is a value judgement”.
Bwahahahaha…
Haven’t laughed so hard since the last post by the potty peer…
You really aren’t the sharpest shiv in the amnesty box are you, Bruce?
Love that shout out to Rev. Al Gore and his Congregation of Climate Doom. Keep those donations to Rev. Al coming in from naive college kids and indoctrinated school children!