Judith Curry cleans the clocks of climate crusaders!!

[EMH]

What's funny is your post.

Do you dispute her claim (that she took a pay cut to the leave the University) ?

Please let us know what you know (which seems to be something we don't know).

The Co2 FRAUD cannot debate the data. What they do is create false narratives and shout them. They squirt bleach into coral and claim warming oceans are behind it. They have a big hoax that Exxon "knew" that Co2 causes "warming" before the satellites and balloons proved Co2 does NOT cause warming. So they keep lying about Exxon...

We took them to court once. This was the result...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[otto105]

Pretty obvious that these posters would refute if they could refute, but they cannot...

And if they cannot refute it, maybe there is a reason why, like.... IT IS RIGHT!!!

Hilarious

Sun spot guy. Er wait the earth was hotter 4 billion years ago boi.

 

[otto105]

The Co2 FRAUD cannot debate the data. What they do is create false narratives and shout them. They squirt bleach into coral and claim warming oceans are behind it. They have a big hoax that Exxon "knew" that Co2 causes "warming" before the satellites and balloons proved Co2 does NOT cause warming. So they keep lying about Exxon...

We took them to court once. This was the result...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Hilarious

Don’t look around or up.

 

[mamooth]

Do you dispute her claim (that she took a pay cut to the leave the University) ?

Quitting your job generally does involve no longer being paid by your former employer.

Fortunately for her, she more than makes up for it with bribes ... I mean, with being paid big bucks for "forecasting".

Like I said, the only "scientists" being contrarians on the global warming issue are the ones being paid very well to do so.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Quitting your job generally does involve no longer being paid by your former employer.

Fortunately for her, she more than makes up for it with bribes ... I mean, with being paid big bucks for "forecasting".

Like I said, the only "scientists" being contrarians on the global warming issue are the ones being paid very well to do so.

She claims she is being paid less.

I don't have any additional information.

 

[ding]

Quitting your job generally does involve no longer being paid by your former employer.

Fortunately for her, she more than makes up for it with bribes ... I mean, with being paid big bucks for "forecasting".

Like I said, the only "scientists" being contrarians on the global warming issue are the ones being paid very well to do so.

So when the next cooling trend occurs - which is inevitable for a planet that is uniquely configured for colder temperatures - I’ll make sure to bring your words back to you.

 

[otto105]

So when the next cooling trend occurs - which is inevitable for a planet that is uniquely configured for colder temperatures - I’ll make sure to bring your words back to you.

At 422+ppm for CO2 when do you think that will happen fuckup.

 

[ding]

Hilarious

Would any actual facts be used by you.

You present as a moron parroting something which science disproves.

Absolutely. The first thing I would do would be to walk you through the oxygen isotope curve explaining how the earth transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet. Showing you how the data proves that and then showing you the attributes of such a configuration. And how those attributes were mistaken for AGW.

 

[ding]

At 422+ppm for CO2 when do you think that will happen fuckup.

Within the next 30 years most likely. Well after the ridiculous claims of run away warming were never realized.

 

[otto105]

Absolutely. The first thing I would do would be to walk you through the oxygen isotope curve explaining how the earth transitioned from a greenhouse lander to an icehouse planet. Showing you how the data proves that and then showing you the attributes of such a configuration.

Dude, a conversation doesn't include you cutting and pasting from climate bullshit sites.

Can you explain our climate at 422+ppm of CO2.

 

[otto105]

Within the next 30 years most likely. Well after the ridiculous claims of run away warming were never realized.

Yeah sure, you better not go outside or watch the news/weather sites.

 

[ding]

Dude, a conversation doesn't include you cutting and pasting from climate bullshit sites.

Can you explain our climate at 422+ppm of CO2.

Neither will this one. I will post the empirical data - data which everyone accepts and uses for the temperature record of the planet - and explain what the various slope changes mean. I’ll be using accepted paleoclimate data that is non-controversial and irrefutable.

 

[ding]

Yeah sure, you better not go outside or watch the news/weather sites.

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing but by natural climate variations due to the unique configuration of landmasses at the polar regions.

 

[otto105]

Neither will this one. I post the empirical data - data which everyone accepts and uses for the temperature record of the planet - and explain what the various slope changes mean. I’ll be using accepted paleoclimate data that is non-controversial and irrefutable.

Hilarious, and that informs us of our climate today how?

 

[otto105]

The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not caused by CO2 or orbital forcing but by natural climate variations due to the unique configuration of landmasses at the polar regions.

Hilarious, and that informs us of our current climate crisis how?

 

[ding]

Hilarious, and that informs us of our climate today how?

Because the landmass configuration at the polar regions - specifically the northern pole - caused increased climate fluctuations which can be easily seen in the paleoclimate data.

 

[otto105]

Because the landmass configuration at the polar regions - specifically the northern pole - caused increased climate fluctuations which can be easily seen in the paleoclimate data.

And that informs our human driven climate change of today how?

 

[ding]

And that informs our human driven climate change of today how?

That they have mistaken a natural climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW.

 

[otto105]

That they have mistaken a natural climate fluctuation - which the geologic record is littered with - for AGW.

Sure, and the natural climate fluctuation has what as a catalyst?

 

[ding]

Sure, and the natural climate fluctuation has what as a catalyst?

A whole host of factors. It’s a complex system. But the pattern has been well established.

But one thing that has never been a driver is CO2. That too has been well established.