Roy Spencer is skeptical of these claims. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03...-going-to-trigger-a-hot-world-without-clouds/
Man made/influenced climate change/global warming is indisputably true. Anyone that is objectively looking at the evidence will come to that conclusion. To me, that shouldn’t be the issue of debate. People still debating that point are either ignorant or purposely obtuse. The real issue is from a policy standpoint, what can we do and what should we do. The policy discussion is legitimate and needs to be had. We have to balance costs associated with potential policy changes and decide what are the best ways to limit the future impact and what can be done realistically to correct some of the damage done. From a political perspective, global warming and climate change are a winning topic for the Democrats as long as they do not go to far. Most people are concerned and are willing to support economic pressure to support alternative energy development to a point. Most people will not support climate change being the #1 or #2 policy concern or platform talking point like some democrats are pushing. If democrats push it too hard they will lose in 2020 and it will not be addressed at all under Trump.
nice essay about Judith Curry at City Journal. Excerpts: Not being a climatologist myself, I’ve always had trouble deciding between these arguments. And then I met Judith Curry at her home in Reno, Nevada. Curry is a true climatologist. She once headed the department of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, until she gave up on the academy so that she could express herself independently. “Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible,” she says. Do you mean that global warming isn’t real? I ask. “There is warming, but we don’t really understand its causes,” she says. “The human factor and carbon dioxide, in particular, contribute to warming, but how much is the subject of intense scientific debate.” Curry is a scholar, not a pundit. Unlike many political and journalistic oracles, she never opines without proof. And she has data at her command. She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause. None of the climate models used by scientists now working for the United Nations can explain this older trend. Nor can these models explain why the climate suddenly cooled between 1950 and 1970, giving rise to widespread warnings about the onset of a new ice age. I recall magazine covers of the late 1960s or early 1970s depicting the planet in the grip of an annihilating deep freeze. According to a group of scientists, we faced an apocalyptic environmental scenario—but the opposite of the current one. But aren’t oceans rising today, I counter, eroding shorelines and threatening to flood lower-lying population centers and entire inhabited islands? “Yes,” Curry replies. “Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.” To blame human-emitted carbon dioxide entirely may not be scientific, she continues, but “some find it reassuring to believe that we have mastered the subject.” She says that “nothing upsets many scientists like uncertainty.” This brings us to why Curry left the world of the academy and government-funded research. “Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,” she charges. “If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.” These days, the climatology mainstream accepts only data that reinforce its hypothesis that humanity is behind global warming. Those daring to take an interest in possible natural causes of climactic variation—such as solar shifts or the earth’s oscillations—aren’t well regarded in the scientific community, to put it mildly. The rhetoric of the alarmists, it’s worth noting, has increasingly moved from “global warming” to “climate change,” which can mean anything. That shift got its start back in 1992, when the UN widened its range of environmental concern to include every change that human activities might be causing in nature, casting a net so wide that few human actions could escape it. https://www.city-journal.org/global-warming
I'm sure she's doing better working for Republicans than a university - funny how she has never published a single paper on this s\topic she is so passionate about.
Why do you keep posting her stuff up here???? She admits to taking funding from the fossil fuel industry and has been criticized for making elementary mistakes and pushing things from unproven sources (mostly right-wing blogs). Her credibility is shot - she sold out to make money. Stop posting her junk here
a) you didn't really answer the question b) stop reading her stuff posted here if you don't care to read it c) you're not the boss of me so I'm not gonna listen to your command to "Stop posting her junk here." Nobody has died and made you God.
Ok, I assumed you were a man who sought the truth, but I guess I was wrong. Continue posting lies then.
again, I don't understand what you consider "lies" in this context, you are making absolutely NO sense to me whatsoever.
Ultimately, we are all culpable. Just like eating meat, it's a choice. People like Lomborg make it easier for some of us to sleep easier at night, which quite frankly there can be a shitton of things to worry about outside of climate emissions (collapse of eco systems and bio diversity, the plastic and chemicals seeping into our water supply and food chain, the slow suffocation of our oceans) As is, our way of life isn't scalable nor sustainable. Changing away from it might have to be by necessity rather than by choice. Can't wait for that technological singularity soon enough... Wait...you mean I have to be a billionaire to go-to Mars?
I hear you and that's the safe approach. But consider the following: 1- Whatever the proposal from the left, the political right and its media will characterize them in the most extreme ways. It is no longer an issue that need to be solved, but an ideology that need to be protected. You've seen it here plenty - the view is climate change is nothing more than a way for the left to gain government control. These folks will rarely ever consider voting D. 2- There are reasonable and centrist republican and democrats that want and believe in some market based solution. See Climate Solution Caucus. It's a bipartisan caucus with 90 Republicans and 90 Democrats. They introduced the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (HR 7173). It faces a huge uphill battle, as the energy sector would spend plenty to fight this, the GND left doesn't think it goes far enough and the right will characterize it as socialism or something scary. These folks may vote for D, but let's be honest, most likely will stay with their party. The true independent portion here may swing either way. 3- Climate change is a top and emotional issue for the young folks. This base doesn't turn out to vote, but this is one issue they would. These folks would vote for D, if they do vote at all. It's extremely difficult to predict the #3 vs #2. If you go safe, how much do you lose out on #3. If you go aggressive, how much do you lose out on #2. My own take is, #3 is more important (much more upside). You de-motivate that group, and you have a hell of a chance to win in 2020. Let's also consider that climate change was essentially not a debate topic at all in 2016. There is simply no way that would be the case in 2020 thanks to grass-root groups pushing for change, and much greater coverage due to a particular congresswomen and the GND. But if they start to play it safe now, it will fall back down on the list of issues that would get coverage. What the D shouldn't allow is for this issue to fall off the map again, like it did in 2016. p.s. The polls are in favor of doing something and it has been going one way, up. - 70+% said they see global warming IS occurring (a 10% jump since 2016) - 35% said global warming is an imminent threat (a 11% jump since 2015) - 80+% said US should meet 100% of its power demand through zero-emission energy sources or renewable - 80+% said fed gov should enact policies to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions - 80+% said it's important for fed gov to invest in infrastructure that is resilience against climate change - 80+% support energy efficiency of new and existing buildings - 80+% said manufacturing and agriculture busn should be required to be emission-free as technologically feasible - 80+% said gov should invest in high-speed rail, zero-emission veh infrastructure, and clean public transit
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry Your climate hero is a shrill of oil companies now.
well, I don't know whether this passes your "of substance" test or not, but I am coming to the conclusion that it's just not worth engaging you on this (and probably other) topic(s) p.s. your "shrill of oil companies now" ad hominem fallacy should read "shill of oil companies now." fify
