Dr Judith Curry: The manufactured "consensus".

[skookerasbil]

This is just great stuff......a superb analysis of the current reality in climate science by one of the leading authorities in the climate science field......speaks to the rigged consensus in climate science and makes very clear that if you don't agree with the "consensus", they are coming after you!!!




Important to note.............every single solitary AGW advocate in this forum USED TO BE a huge supporter of this woman just a couple of years ago. They'd post up video's by Judith Curry all the time to try and sway people to their point of view on climate change. So what happened? As soon as Curry became aware of the rigging of the data and the conspiracy amongst climate scientists ( Climategate ), she moderated her views away from the alarmist contingent. And what did every single solitary AGW advocate in this forum do? They threw her ass under the bus. Suddenly, she is a "fake" scientist.

More fodder that the AGW climate crusaders are all a bunch of phonies not at all interested in scientific fact. If you don't support their views 100%, you're out!!!!

Only uninformed zombies don't realize this is all a huge hoax!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/burnout.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr Curry just took apart Thomas of NCDC and NOAA. Seems she knows her stuff. When Watts took them to task on his blog Thomas contacted the liar low life web site hotwhopper in violation of us law and distributed email without permission under NOAA privacy and the federal data management act. HE maligned them both..

Has any official action been taken on this person? Nope.. not even a mention.. They are snakes.. In Obama's admin the ends justify the means..

 

[skookerasbil]

Kinda figured this thread would be unpopular with the AGW hard core k00ks.......that's their MO with these types MO threads......hope it goes away fast because it makes them look pretty fucking stoopid Billy does it not??!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So there's no green house effect
Co2 isn't a green house gas
and the planet hasn't been warming
It is all a lie
a crock
Defund all of science and lets become *******

 

[Mr. H.]

As with any Liberal cause célèbre, it's hip it's trendy it makes you look good it makes you feel good.

And by God should anyone disagree with you, you have the moral upper hand and the backing of the Liberal Main Stream Media Machine. Not to mention 47% of the voting populace.

 

[skookerasbil]

As with any Liberal cause célèbre, it's hip it's trendy it makes you look good it makes you feel good.

And by God should anyone disagree with you, you have the moral upper hand and the backing of the Liberal Main Stream Media Machine. Not to mention 47% of the voting populace.

A big part of it.........the uninformed zombies buy pretty much everything spoon fed by the MSM and jump on any liberal cause........and the folks who invented global warming of course knew this.

 

[Mr. H.]

As with any Liberal cause célèbre, it's hip it's trendy it makes you look good it makes you feel good.

And by God should anyone disagree with you, you have the moral upper hand and the backing of the Liberal Main Stream Media Machine. Not to mention 47% of the voting populace.

A big part of it.........the uninformed zombies buy pretty much everything spoon fed by the MSM and jump on any liberal cause........and the folks who invented global warming of course knew this.

I believe this is one of your more rational, coherent, and grammatically correct posts. Keep up the good work.

 

[skookerasbil]

As with any Liberal cause célèbre, it's hip it's trendy it makes you look good it makes you feel good.

And by God should anyone disagree with you, you have the moral upper hand and the backing of the Liberal Main Stream Media Machine. Not to mention 47% of the voting populace.

A big part of it.........the uninformed zombies buy pretty much everything spoon fed by the MSM and jump on any liberal cause........and the folks who invented global warming of course knew this.

I believe this is one of your more rational, coherent, and grammatically correct posts. Keep up the good work.

Yeah well.........Im a bottom line guy, especially in here. Most don't care about the drivel. Im the most hated mofu'er in the forum which keeps me coming back.....plus making sure I am the guy connecting the dots for those who wander into this forum and need to be enlightened on whats real and whats phony. I could care less about being grammatically correct on the intanets.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So there's no green house effect
Co2 isn't a green house gas
and the planet hasn't been warming
It is all a lie
a crock
Defund all of science and lets become *******

And Pluto isn't really a planet. Crick and Matthew share the same malfunction, you challenge their Gods and they set up rows of straw-men as a defense.

 

[mamooth]

Most don't care about the drivel.

Good, it seems the truth is starting to dawn on skook, as to why the normal people all ignore his cult babbling.

Curry is now a full-blown conspiracy kook. She can't back up her nonsense; she just tosses out crazy conspiracy theories and expects to be believed. Naturally, deniers fall for it. The reality-based crowd, no.

As has been pointed out before, skook is lying by claiming we used to support Curry. Back in the real world, we've been pointing out for several years that Curry is off the rails. When we've challenged skook to back up his big lie, he cuts and runs. He'll cut and run again now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Consensus is a cult word

 

[skookerasbil]

Like I said.........Curry was the darling of the AGW crowd until she did not concur with the "alarmist" view. Still is clear stating that warming is happening and still states that CO2 is a contributor. Environment forum members constantly posted up her videos 3 and 4 years ago. Not any more though............

Where she disagrees with the hard core AGW religious people is 1) There is no proof of danger and 2) We don't know how other factors affect the climate like the sun and other natural variables.........

Its all in the vid on page one!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....and for the bozo's who state that Curry was not an enormous influence and supported by the AGW community is a huge pile of bull shit. The goofball AGW people on here LOVED this woman before 2009 because Curry embraced all IPCC findings.

Its all right here >>> Handling the Heat Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine

 

[mamooth]

So skook links to an article from 2010 pointing out people thought Dr. Curry was a crank in 2010. Skook is quite skilled at proving Skook has been lying.

Now the issue of Skook's dishonesty has been settled by Skook, let's look at Dr. Curry's recent frantic shilling. This is from her own blog.

Risk assessment What is the plausible worst scenario for climate change Climate Etc.
----
There is a new report out, entitled Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. IMO this is far and away the best risk assessment for AGW that I have seen.
---

With us so far? Dr. Curry is full of praise for this report. And what does it say?

---
On the highest emissions pathway (RCP8.5), a rise of 7°C is a very low probability at the end of this century, but appears to become more likely than not during the course of the 22nd century. A rise of more than 10°C over the next few centuries cannot be ruled out.
---

So, the paper predicts the high-emissions scenario -- the policy of no GHG restrictions that all deniers recommend -- results 7C of warming, maybe 10C. That's catastrophic warming that would kill billions of people. And again, Dr. Curry says it's a great paper. So how does she propose we deal with those results?

---
The plausible worst case scenario is arguably where we should focus our efforts (both science and policy). Working to falsify high values of RCP and sensitivity based on the background knowledge that we do have, should be a high priority.
---

Yep, she really did say that. Here solution to the bad news, in what she described as a the best report ever is to ... find a way to falsify it. A good scientist would say "to investigate further", but Dr. Curry has pre-decided what outcome she wants, and plans to work backwards from that desired outcome. That's not science, that's propaganda of the rankest sort.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So skook links to an article from 2010 pointing out people thought Dr. Curry was a crank in 2010. Skook is quite skilled at proving Skook has been lying.

Now the issue of Skook's dishonesty has been settled by Skook, let's look at Dr. Curry's recent frantic shilling. This is from her own blog.

Risk assessment What is the plausible worst scenario for climate change Climate Etc.
----
There is a new report out, entitled Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. IMO this is far and away the best risk assessment for AGW that I have seen.
---

With us so far? Dr. Curry is full of praise for this report. And what does it say?

---
On the highest emissions pathway (RCP8.5), a rise of 7°C is a very low probability at the end of this century, but appears to become more likely than not during the course of the 22nd century. A rise of more than 10°C over the next few centuries cannot be ruled out.
---

So, the paper predicts the high-emissions scenario -- the policy of no GHG restrictions that all deniers recommend -- results 7C of warming, maybe 10C. That's catastrophic warming that would kill billions of people. And again, Dr. Curry says it's a great paper. So how does she propose we deal with those results?

---
The plausible worst case scenario is arguably where we should focus our efforts (both science and policy). Working to falsify high values of RCP and sensitivity based on the background knowledge that we do have, should be a high priority.
---

Yep, she really did say that. Here solution to the bad news, in what she described as a the best report ever is to ... find a way to falsify it. A good scientist would say "to investigate further", but Dr. Curry has pre-decided what outcome she wants, and plans to work backwards from that desired outcome. That's not science, that's propaganda of the rankest sort.

It's physically impossible for 800PPM of CO2 to raise the temperature 7 degrees

 

[mamooth]

Well, Judith Curry says it will happen, so take it up with her and her groupies here. She's just trying to figure out how to "falsify" what she now accepts as good science.

 

[jc456]

So skook links to an article from 2010 pointing out people thought Dr. Curry was a crank in 2010. Skook is quite skilled at proving Skook has been lying.

Now the issue of Skook's dishonesty has been settled by Skook, let's look at Dr. Curry's recent frantic shilling. This is from her own blog.

Risk assessment What is the plausible worst scenario for climate change Climate Etc.
----
There is a new report out, entitled Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. IMO this is far and away the best risk assessment for AGW that I have seen.
---

With us so far? Dr. Curry is full of praise for this report. And what does it say?

---
On the highest emissions pathway (RCP8.5), a rise of 7°C is a very low probability at the end of this century, but appears to become more likely than not during the course of the 22nd century. A rise of more than 10°C over the next few centuries cannot be ruled out.
---

So, the paper predicts the high-emissions scenario -- the policy of no GHG restrictions that all deniers recommend -- results 7C of warming, maybe 10C. That's catastrophic warming that would kill billions of people. And again, Dr. Curry says it's a great paper. So how does she propose we deal with those results?

---
The plausible worst case scenario is arguably where we should focus our efforts (both science and policy). Working to falsify high values of RCP and sensitivity based on the background knowledge that we do have, should be a high priority.
---

Yep, she really did say that. Here solution to the bad news, in what she described as a the best report ever is to ... find a way to falsify it. A good scientist would say "to investigate further", but Dr. Curry has pre-decided what outcome she wants, and plans to work backwards from that desired outcome. That's not science, that's propaganda of the rankest sort.

me thinks you need to learn how to comprehend what you read. But it's only you so this is obvious.

 

[mamooth]

Poor jc. He's sworn that Dr. Curry is his deity, but Dr. Curry just said a prediction of massive warming was the best report ever. Hence, jc's little head is now exploding.

Curry is kind of schizophrenic these days. She'll say certain science is good, but then the other voice in her head will take over and have her scream how it's her mission to falsify the good science.

 

[flacaltenn]

So skook links to an article from 2010 pointing out people thought Dr. Curry was a crank in 2010. Skook is quite skilled at proving Skook has been lying.

Now the issue of Skook's dishonesty has been settled by Skook, let's look at Dr. Curry's recent frantic shilling. This is from her own blog.

Risk assessment What is the plausible worst scenario for climate change Climate Etc.
----
There is a new report out, entitled Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. IMO this is far and away the best risk assessment for AGW that I have seen.
---

With us so far? Dr. Curry is full of praise for this report. And what does it say?

---
On the highest emissions pathway (RCP8.5), a rise of 7°C is a very low probability at the end of this century, but appears to become more likely than not during the course of the 22nd century. A rise of more than 10°C over the next few centuries cannot be ruled out.
---

So, the paper predicts the high-emissions scenario -- the policy of no GHG restrictions that all deniers recommend -- results 7C of warming, maybe 10C. That's catastrophic warming that would kill billions of people. And again, Dr. Curry says it's a great paper. So how does she propose we deal with those results?

---
The plausible worst case scenario is arguably where we should focus our efforts (both science and policy). Working to falsify high values of RCP and sensitivity based on the background knowledge that we do have, should be a high priority.
---

Yep, she really did say that. Here solution to the bad news, in what she described as a the best report ever is to ... find a way to falsify it. A good scientist would say "to investigate further", but Dr. Curry has pre-decided what outcome she wants, and plans to work backwards from that desired outcome. That's not science, that's propaganda of the rankest sort.

Don't need you to mangle what was said on her webblog. It's perfectly clear. You just stir shit. It's what you do.
She PRAISED the paper for the logical structure that it used to "measure" societal risks, but NEVER accepted the temperature projections that went along with it..

I haven’t found climate change risk assessments to be very satisfactory, for a range of reasons. There is a new report out, entitled Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. IMO this is far and away the best risk assessment for AGW that I have seen. That said, it is far from perfect, for reasons described towards the end of the post (largely associated with how much warming we can expect, which is obviously the key issue). But IMO it has appropriately framed the climate risk assessment problem, and its authors (for the most part) don’t seem to have any obvious agenda beyond . . . risk assessment.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to defend values of ECS that exceed 3.5C. The threshold warming values identified in the Climate Risk Assessment Report of 4C and 7C by 2150 are possible but they may not be plausible. Since this warming is inferred by climate model simulations, falsification of these scenarios could be accomplished by comparing modeled and observed warming for the period since 1950, and assessing whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity for that model is too high (with a value of aerosol indirect effect that is far too high).

The plausible worst case scenario is arguably where we should focus our efforts (both science and policy). Working to falsify high values of RCP and sensitivity based on the background knowledge that we do have, should be a high priority.

You skipped all the comments on their risk assessment method that she liked and made it sound like she actually ENDORSED any of the temperature forecasts tossed out in this paper..

Quit wasting my time...