Georgia Tech Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on The Mark Levin Show – April 15, 2015
Selected radio excerpts – Listen to full interview here (click on April 15 show – Curry begins at 57 min.)
Curry on Consensus: “I am a scientist who thinks independently and I happen to disagree with the manufactured consensus about climate change. Just because scientists agree on something doesn’t mean its right.
[If you have seen] 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.”
Curry on Predictions: “We don’t really know what the climate is going to be like in 70 years. I am sure we will be surprised.”
Curry on impact of CO2: “The carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere does have a warming tendency, but it’s not clear that [CO2] is going to dominate with the other things that are going on with the sun or volcanic eruptions or deep ocean circulations – the things that contribute to natural climate variability. Those are the things that could really surprise us.”
Curry on 97% consensus claims: “The so-called 97% consensus is about fairly trivial things: ‘Yes the temperature is warming; Yes, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.
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 its a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.
It’s become ideology driven at this point. laughs. Yes definitely.”
Curry on being targeted by Congressman Grijalva of Arizona: “I was one of seven scientists he targeted. All of us had been called to testify by Republicans and wanted our emails and grant information and our travel information and all sorts of info like that.
Trying to question our integrity and make us look untrustworthy…At this point, I am used to it. It was really pointless and I think its backfired…
They were trying to smoke out if any of us were getting money from oil companies…It’s an absolute red herring. it doesn’t make any difference.”
Related Links:
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry debates Warmist Congressman During Hearing – Curry to Warmist Rep. Don Beyer, a Virginia Democrat: ‘What is being proposed is ineffective, it’s not going to do anything even if the U.S. is successful at meeting 80 percent reductions by 2050 this is going to reduce warming by about a tenth of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do anything.’
Flashback 2011: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming – Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry in WSJ: ‘The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown’ – ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions…’
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. on climate ‘Witch Hunt’: ‘My 11-year old asked me if I was going to jail’ – ‘My older kids in High School had teachers pull them aside to ask about their father’s ‘investigation’. Smear campaigns are about collateral damage.’
20 Responses
✒✒➧➧❇❇✤✤….Nancy———-,, if you think Irene `s blog is great, last week…….
I got a new Dodge after having made 9593 this-past/4 weeks and-more than, ten thousand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most-comfortable work I have ever had …I began this seven months/ago and immediately was bringin home at least 85… per/hr . visit this site right here
☀EXCLUSIVE☀ ,JOB OFFER,.. JUST, CLICK, ✍ ON ,THIS LINK….
➡➡➡➡ http://SpecialOpportunities
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Could it be that it is time to refocus on the toxic chemicals in our food and water?
Clean food and water is old school environmentalism, nobody does that anymore. Modern day environmentalism focuses on carbon taxes, carbon markets, wind farms, electric cars, renewable subsidies, population control, UN global governments, and a long list of complicated green legislation.
However you’ll notice that they never seem to include the simple planting of trees among their green ideas. Interesting huh.
What has happened to modern day environmentalism?
The old targets don’t provide the huge opportunities to make money that climate change provides. The old targets had measureable objectives, meaning that actual progress could be made and there could be an actual end, a point at which we have succeeded in mitigating the problem. For example, we can successfully remove toxic substances from foods or we can reverse urban heat signatures to a specific temperature range. We can change farming practices and remove polutants. In stark contrast, climate change offers no means to measure progress. The effects of any efforts to mitigate the problem are so profoundly delayed and muddled in with countless other factors that progress can only be measured by subjective assessments. It is a perpetual money machine on a massive scale.
“>>> What has happened to modern day environmentalism? <<<"
It has become an elitist, international, fascist cabal propped up by similarly minded businessmen and politicians to the tune of trillions of dollars globally.
Exactly!
how can they make any money from that???
Dr. Judith Curry, climate disinformer. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm
By any honest assessment, Curry is an educated climatologist trying to make sense of the evidence. Critiquing her reasoning is OK, branding her a heretic or a ‘disinformer’ is not. This is one of the many reasons you have lost the argument. This, and because your science sucks.
I agree to the basis of your sentiments. But let’s keep things in perspective. Curry is not “an educated climatologist”, as you put it, that phrase is an oxymoron, there is no such thing as educated climatologists, the entire science is based upon opinion. When the Scientific Method can not be applied, it ain’t Science, its just Theoretical Science Fiction (TSF). Dr. Curry can call herself whatever she likes, but a scientist? No way. Climatology like Cosmology, is pure TSF.
That’s the problem with Science today, The Scientific Method (TSM) has been thrown out the window. TSM has now been replaced with TSF, and even though Dr. Curry understands that climatology is full of philosophical mumbo-jumbo, she still does not come in cooee (to use a wonderful Australian vernacular) of a well founded scientific methodology. Just because somebody has a Ph.D doesn’t not accredit them to being called a scientist. A scientist is somebody who upholds the tents and foundation of Science, that is, TSM. Dr. Curry fails in this regard and so do many many other so called “experts in climatology” and many other people in other fields of science.
Science has been corrupted with philosophical mongers, who parade around with Ph.Ds and Professorships, but are in no way scientists. That is the real problem with Science today… Science Mongers, and Dr. Curry is one of them, even though she may be well be against the AGW cult, like I definitely am.
I know these politically incorrect phrases will upset people. Well get over it, that is why we got into this mess in the first place, all because there is too much kum-bah-yah stupidity going on. Science has no place for hand-holding, reality is reality, facts are facts, what is, is what is. The Universe is not Liberal or Socialistic, its HARD Science, there is nothing polite about it. So leave the politically correct attitudes for the philosophers and liberals. Science is 100% cold and hard. Its time to kick out the politicians, philosophers, ruminators and privateers in Science, that is, the Science Mongers, and high time to bring back Real Science!!!
Anybody who quotes skepticalscience as an authority on anything is beyond redemption.
“>>> Anybody who quotes skepticalscience as an authority on anything is beyond redemption. <<<"
Anybody who uses the term "skeptical science" in purported opposition to supposed "science" is a scientific illiterate. There is only one science and it is what's published in peer reviewed journals and text books. Judith Curry published over 130 peer reviewed papers and co-authored two text books on ocean and atmospheric science. She serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and on NOAA Climate Working Group.
You got that right. John Cook is a charlatan, and his “97% of all scientists believe…..” demonstrates it.
Keep drinking that kool-aide
As a civil environmental engineer I
have studied and used weather data for more than 50 years. This is
the data that they call “climate”. Depending on the project
we will study 25,50, 100 150 years of weather data, we look at
averages and at specific highs and lows. This data is used to design
storm sewers ,dams, erosion of waterways, building and other
structures. Temperature and wind data is similarly examined for
highs,lows,averages and trends.
When you look at reliable data,not
manipulated data as was shown by Climategate there has not been any
measurable change in the climate. Remember there are thousands of
different “climates” in the world.
Now lets talk about the Hypotheses of
the greenhouse gas effect which was proposed in 1824 and has never
been verified by credible experiment. There has been thousands of
studies based on circumstantial data which is observations of weather
conditions. None of them can be duplicated because conditions change.
There have been experiments performed which are “jar” tests but
every one of them has failed because each one forgets that very
specific events have to be followed and must be able to be repeated
many time with the same results.
Having had quantum physics 55+ years
ago we were taught that a gas does not “heat” when it absorbs IR
radiation. There are credible experiment that show that a mixture of
water vapor with CO2 cools the atmosphere not heat it.
Here is the intro to an experiences
that has been sent to Judy Curry many times she and other “Luke
warm” skeptic refuse to acknowledge that the greenhouse gas effect
does not exist. When it proved by other that the GHGE does not exist
there will be millions of very embarrassed people.
“Albert
Einstein once said, “No
amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong.”
Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science
intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to
verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved
false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but
one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of
science is littered with such examples.
Intro:The
Hypothesis of the greenhouse gas effect has not been proven by
“credible scientific experiments” It has be demonstrated
that adding CO2 to the atmosphere actually cools the atmosphere.
There are no experiments that show that reducing the CO2 in the
atmosphere will cool the atmosphere.
The supposed energy balance
used by the IPCC is badly flawed because it does not include the
energy from the molten lava within the planet. Because of this flaw
there is no need for a mythical “heating effect” called the
Greenhouse gas effect. The earth is warmed by incoming EMR from the
Sun and the heating caused by the molten lava which heats the earth
and the oceans from below. The water cycle while very turbulent
accounts for weather and the climate along with changes in earths
orbit and tipping of the earths axis.
Here is an experiment that
shows that the Hypothesis of the Greenhouse gas effect aka Mann-made
global warming is a bad Rumor.
The
Experiment that Failed which can save the World Trillions:
Proving the “greenhouse gas effect”
does not exist!
By Berthold Klein P.E (January 15, 2012)
Edited by John O’Sullivan,
incorporating comments by Dr. Pierre Latour, Professor Nasif Nahle,
Edward J. Haddad Jr. P.E, Ganesh Krish, and others.
Dedication
To Professor Robert W. Wood (1909), the
first scientist to demonstrate that the Hypothesis of the “Greenhouse
effect in the atmosphere” was unscientific. To all other scientists
since Professor Wood who have added sound technical and scientific
knowledge in many related fields to strengthen the case against the
greenhouse gas effect hoax.
To protect my grandsons JJ and BA plus
their generation and all the generations that follow – because we
finally got it right. For the generations that would otherwise suffer
extreme economic harm if the Hoax of (Michael) Mann-made global
warming – AKA the “greenhouse gas effect” (GHGE) is not stopped
now and forever.
Table of Contents:
Preamble
Section 1: The Hypotheses
Section 2: The Definitions – The Clues
Section 3: The
Experiment
Section 4: Numbers
Section 5: Holding the gases –
“containment”
Section 6: Setting up the Experiment
Section 7: Results: Examining the Clues
Section 8: Water – liquid, vapor, solid (H2O /lvs)
References
Appendix
Preamble:
This paper endeavors to solve a
188-year-old mystery that has eluded many scientists. It merely takes
a cogent, specialist application of science that has been in the
books of physics and thermodynamics for over 100 years. To solve the
mystery of why “The greenhouse gas effect (GHGE)” does not exist,
one certainly has to have an understanding of quantum physics and the
basic laws of conservation of energy. To most people, including many
scientists, quantum physics is a mystery especially because many
things that occur are not intuitive. When explained and proven by
experiments, it can be understood. As with any mystery; what are the
real clues and what are the red herrings?
It is
desirable that anyone that can read be able to understand the
experiment documented herein and what it means. This paper is for
everyone – from the man on the street who would suffer the most by
government “1984 Big Brother” control to the Ph. D. holders in
social sciences, finance and otherwise unrelated branches of science,
law and politics.”
List of references:
The paper
“Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within
the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D.
Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4
2009
Electronic
version of an article published as International
Journal of Modern Physics
B,
Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 ,
DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific
Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report
of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not
cause global warming.
Greenhouse
Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals
of Physics”
by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that
support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from
the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909,
vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden
Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By
Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html
at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The
below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is
obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect
exists.
“In
the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural
greenhouse effect and suggested
that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could
bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish
scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated
that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could
substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse
effect.”
After
1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse
effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels
Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922.
The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and
1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the
concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously
the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in
with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current
pretend president.
Paraphrasing
Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity”
–one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians
and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The
Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
ILEUniversity
of Pennsylvania Law School
INSTITUTE
FOR LAW
AND ECONOMICS
A
Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and
the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at
the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH
PAPER
NO.
10-08
Global
Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason
Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA
May
2010
This
paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social
Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There
is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming,
or as a matter of fact, any warming’
link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying
the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle
Edition]
Tim
Ball (Author), Claes
Johnson (Author), Martin
Hertzberg (Author), Joseph
A. Olson (Author), Alan
Siddons (Author), Charles
Anderson (Author), Hans
Schreuder (Author), John
O’Sullivan (Author)
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv:
‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century
warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on
climate depot
Web-
site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder
the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The
Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas
effect does not exist.( peer reviewed and revised but not yet
released).
Wood
is correct: There is no Greenhouse Effect
Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909
experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse (Summary by
Ed Berry. Full report here
or here.
& PolyMontana.)
by Nasif S. Nahle, JunPosted on July
19, 2011 by Dr.
Ed
e 12, 2011
University Professor, Scientific
Research Director at Biology Cabinet® San Nicolas de los Garza, N.
L., Mexico.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
Water
Absorption Spectrum by Martin Chaplin
see pages 312 to 314 of
the reference below for confirmation of Why glaciers melt and much
more science.
Molecular
Physics in the Domain Of Radiant Heat.
A
Series of Memoirs Published in ‘The Philosophical ‘
Transactions
and PHIOSOPHICAL Magazine;with Additions
By
JohnTyndall,,
L.L.D. F.R.S.
Professor
of Natural Philosophy In The Royal Institution
London
Published
1872.
many
others are available.
The
bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is
a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges
Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US
Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the
rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed
against Humanity.
Albert
Einstein once said, “No
amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong.”
Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science
intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to
verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved
false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis,
but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of
science is littered with such examples.
The only thing more dangerous
than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert
Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and
a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed
lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
Has no qualification on climate and a miss use of the title of doctor and only a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography. She is a writer promoting her own books.
An Online University Course on the Science of Climate Science Denial
“The course examines the science of climate science denial. Why do a small but vocal minority reject the scientific evidence for climate change? What techniques do they use to cast doubt on the science? And we examine the all-important question – based on scientific research, how should we respond to science denial? ”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/04/an-online-university-course-on-the-science-of-climate-science-denial
The whole plan to reduce carbon emissions stems from the UN/IMF/IPCC fairy-tale of man-made global warming (through carbon dioxide emissions = anthropogenic global warming, AGW for short) which is altering the Earth’s climate, no less, to near extinction if all that hype were true.
That man-made fairy-tale, however, is nothing but the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever.
In arriving at this opinion, I rely on two sources:
on what I have seen with my own eyes,
on what I have read .
Since this post should not itself become a long extended read, I refer with links to some of my earlier blogs giving relevant details on the points raised. http://tinyurl.com/naexuho
I agree Mike! LOL….when the other side said “the debate is over”….in fact, at that point….it hadn’t even started yet! It didn’t take our side long to get the upper hand! Facts and reason always win in the end.
Or to quote Alexius Meinong: “Truth is a purely human constuct but facts are eternal.” However, Lysenkoism and Gleichschaltung can cause a lot of misery meanwhile until as the Brothers Grimm had it: “Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag.” (which idiomatically translates to “Truth will out”). More school-time awareness should be taught about THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER THROUGHOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – see http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68 , and its sequitur at http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4