If anyone cares to say anything "of substance" about the article I linked to, I'd be happy to read your thoughts. Here's the original posted excerpts again: 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 appreciate you pointing out the autocorrect mistakes - I use my phone to reply on here often. I can understand you don't wish to engage me when I point out the flaws of your heros OS. When I show you that she is known to repeat false statements and that she is paid by oil companies, it must be hard to accept that the person you are plastering on here is really just a lying POS. I get it, you need to block me and not engage with the person who is calling out your BS. So do it, run into your safe space and live in your bubble.
you forgot to credit @NewRoxFan with the "biased source" early warning system™ alert: although in this particular case the alert system gives the source a factual reporting mark of "high" . . . so of course that spoils the effect somewhat
Bloomberg launches "Beyond Carbon" with some shade thrown on the Green New Deal. Probably deserves its own thread. Now, I will take the next big steps. First, I will expand my support for the Beyond Coal campaign so that we can retire every single coal-fired power plant over the next 11 years. That’s not a pipe dream. We can do it. And second, I will launch a new, even more ambitious phase of the campaign — Beyond Carbon: a grassroots effort to begin moving America as quickly as possible away from oil and gas and toward a 100 percent clean energy economy. At the heart of Beyond Carbon is the conviction that, as the science has made clear, every year matters. The idea of a Green New Deal — first suggested by the columnist Tom Friedman more than a decade ago — stands no chance of passage in the Senate over the next two years. But Mother Nature does not wait on our political calendar, and neither can we. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/our-highest-office-my-deepest-obligation
Point being there is enough out there to make Judith's credibility highly suspect and her opinions and articles can not be considered unbiased
I suppose . . . but that's not really the point you've been making, or at least it seems to me. Your rephrasing suggests a simple platitude: "everyone has a bias." That's not really interesting or insightful. It's just a truism. What you need to do is demonstrate how such a bias actually interferes with and/or affects an actual argument that she is making. I haven't seen you (or others, I'm not just picking on you) do that.
I believe i have demonstrated that with the link I provided showing she has pushed false arguments taken from right-wing blogs. Her assertions that sea level increases are unrelated to man made co2 emissions is simply false and based without evidence. Yet you don't chose to question her and instead embrace it as the truth and share it here. I find that disturbing and makes me think you have an agenda.
well, generally speaking there's no real evidence of accelerating sea level rise (that correlates to CO2 increases), and the fact remains that sea level rise varies by location (for a number of reasons). A third, and probably most important factor that complicates discussions of anthropogenic sea level rise is the difficulty of parsing genuine sea level rise from land subsidence. Most of the locations that people have pointed to as demonstrating the "reality" of anthropogenic sea level rise have turned out to be primarily affected by subsidence. So I'm not sure exactly what you're pointing to on the link you provided that demonstrates she "has pushed false arguments taken from right-wing blogs."
Lou, I have honestly looked for that link you provided for the last fifteen minutes, and cannot find it. If you could post it again I'd appreciate it. thanks. Os
https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/11/judith-curry-plants-her-flag https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry
Yes manmade climate change is real. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty to what this will actually mean for the world over the next decades/rest of the 21st century. Yes, alarmism is counter productive in many instances.
Yes manmade climate change is real. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty to what this will actually mean for the world over the next decades/rest of the 21st century. Yes, alarmism is counter productive in many instances.
Lou, here are some preliminary thoughts on these links. The first is to a science blog entry by someone identified as "illconsidered." Hard to figure out who that individual is. The blog entry is also nearly nine years old (posted Nov. 5, 2010). Hence the first problem: none of the links to what the author is analyzing as "flaws" in Curry's arguments work. I've clicked on the following links, none of which are working any longer: https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/07/hey_jc_jc_thats_not_alright_by.php got message "Page not found" https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html "Page not found" http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/#comment-13743 . URL no longer exists http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/03/the-curry-agonistes/#comment-13743 URL no longer exists http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/currying_confusion . "Recoverable fatal error" http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/#comment-3198 linked twice, URL no longer exists https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/hockey-stick-is-broken.php "Page not found" https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm "Page not found" https://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.php "Page not found" Which leaves only a handful of links that actually work on the page, linking primarily to 2010 or earlier pieces from Michael Tobis and James Annan. So I guess I remember why this particular link that you shared failed to make much of an impact on me when you first shared it. The rest of the author's "analysis" seems largely aimed at Curry's political and sociological musings. That's fine, but then I think the author needs to evaluate those political and sociological musings on their own terms--not simply denounce them as "political" (as when he or she links to Curry's blog post about speaking in Indiana alongside Andy Revkin and Roger Pielke Jr. The subject of that panel discussion was after all about the politics of climate science). Again, not trying to simply dismiss what you've shared, it's just I don't see anything that directly rebuts Curry's arguments (about sea-level change or anything else). On the second link you've provided . . . it's hard to take SourceWatch seriously as, well, a source. It sort of has the Rational Wiki approach to dressing up its ad hominem profile of a figure like Curry and reporting the "Criticisms from climate scientists." We are, after all, talking about science, and science as an institution foster dialogue, discussion, and disagreement--so it would be surprising for ANY scientist not to generate "criticisms from other scientists." That section basically doesn't tell me anything I don't already know: Curry is a controversial figure (a) because of her outspoken views, promulgated (b) via her popular writings for lay audiences on (c) her blog and elsewhere, and most importantly (d) because her views contradict in many places the dominant narrative ("paradigm" in Kuhnian terms) that most other scientists simply accept, uncritically or otherwise. So on the second link, I also remember why it basically failed to make an impact on me the first time you shared it. Most of it simply relies on the first site you've linked (see footnote 1). And, as someone who has had his own reputation called into question e.g., on a site like desmogblog, quite unfairly in my view, I am particularly sensitive to the damage such one-sided "bias detection" and "tabloid science" sites can do to otherwise fair-minded individuals just trying to do their jobs. Anyway. I appreciate your taking the trouble to share those links again. And I am sorry for not having paid closer attention to them initially and paying you the respect of a response when you first posted them.
Yes, it's a waste of everyone time to debate if it's real (we are way pass that point), how much human is contributing, how accurate is the model (it's been more than accurate, but whatever), who to believe, who is reliable, who is being funded by oil and gas, ... these are all distractions and take away from working on solution. Corporate America has already moved on and is already taking steps toward short and med term goals of being environmentally friendly and how to reduce their emission footprint. This is one area that can be leveraged to support federal and state proposals to reduce the risk of what's coming. People need to think about what can be done immediately (next 1-2 years), medium term and longer term. I keep repeating this to death - there are solutions that both side would agree to.
The pages are down because they're over a decade old. The debate is over. Here's where @Os Trigonum ended up: Any questions?
