Dr Judith Curry Exposes the Climate Fraud.. Bad Science

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Dr Judith Curry Exposes the Climate Fraud.. Bad Science

Now this is what I call a real wake up call to scientists who are pushing the scam.. We are prepared to expose your bad science and your biases to the world. there is no hiding any more...

Its an excellent presentation and well worth the time to watch it..

"She noted how the “consensus” scheme has put climate science on the “wrong track” by “shinning a light” on only one small part of climate science, that being greenhouse gas emissions, while ignoring the huge role played by natural climate variation. This political approach has been a great disservice to efforts needed to truly understand our complex climate system and also greatly mislead policy makers."

 

JoeMoma

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2014
Messages
16,527
Reaction score
4,028
Points
290
She seems very reasonable.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
She seems very reasonable.
Judith is very reasonable and thinks things through. That is why no alarmist wants to debate her. Each time she has debated people like Mann and Schmitt she has mopped the floor with them, using their own data and methods to show how badly they failed. She is a tiger..

This is why I always ask for the empirical evidence that the warmers have to support their premises and supposition. Without exception, not one of them can articulate their positions and evidence.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Curry is a competent and open minded scientist.

A decade ago she started to notice that much of her work didn't fit into the consensus understanding of climate science. So she started questioning colleagues about their work and found the same mismatch. Everyone thought their own piece of the puzzle was the outlier but believed the rest of the puzzle was fitting together perfectly.

Then she started pointing this out publicly. A shitstorm erupted. The climate science elite excommunicated her, and all the other questioning scientists pulled their necks back behind the parapet for fear of losing their heads, jobs and funding.

Climategate arrived but climate science managed to survive and even more scientists chose to look away in fear.

Curry took a lot of flak for her position. Much of it in private but her tenured position made it possible to carry on.

It takes a lot of courage and energy to be a Maverick. Many of them who worked from the inside have simply given up, gotten tired of waiting for the cavalry that never showed up.

Pielke jr is another example. He found out that it isn't worth the personal and political price to buck consensus so he took himself out of the arena. Being right just isn't enough when the pack of dogs is constantly nipping at your heels.

God help us because there aren't many more Mavericks left after the purges of the last few decades.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Curry is a competent and open minded scientist.

A decade ago she started to notice that much of her work didn't fit into the consensus understanding of climate science. So she started questioning colleagues about their work and found the same mismatch. Everyone thought their own piece of the puzzle was the outlier but believed the rest of the puzzle was fitting together perfectly.

Then she started pointing this out publicly. A shitstorm erupted. The climate science elite excommunicated her, and all the other questioning scientists pulled their necks back behind the parapet for fear of losing their heads, jobs and funding.

Climategate arrived but climate science managed to survive and even more scientists chose to look away in fear.

Curry took a lot of flak for her position. Much of it in private but her tenured position made it possible to carry on.

It takes a lot of courage and energy to be a Maverick. Many of them who worked from the inside have simply given up, gotten tired of waiting for the cavalry that never showed up.

Pielke jr is another example. He found out that it isn't worth the personal and political price to buck consensus so he took himself out of the arena. Being right just isn't enough when the pack of dogs is constantly nipping at your heels.

God help us because there aren't many more Mavericks left after the purges of the last few decades.
Those who are now retired are now coming out in droves. The dam has broken and scientists are coming clean to clear their guilt of perpetuating the lie.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Curry is a competent and open minded scientist.

A decade ago she started to notice that much of her work didn't fit into the consensus understanding of climate science. So she started questioning colleagues about their work and found the same mismatch. Everyone thought their own piece of the puzzle was the outlier but believed the rest of the puzzle was fitting together perfectly.

Then she started pointing this out publicly. A shitstorm erupted. The climate science elite excommunicated her, and all the other questioning scientists pulled their necks back behind the parapet for fear of losing their heads, jobs and funding.

Climategate arrived but climate science managed to survive and even more scientists chose to look away in fear.

Curry took a lot of flak for her position. Much of it in private but her tenured position made it possible to carry on.

It takes a lot of courage and energy to be a Maverick. Many of them who worked from the inside have simply given up, gotten tired of waiting for the cavalry that never showed up.

Pielke jr is another example. He found out that it isn't worth the personal and political price to buck consensus so he took himself out of the arena. Being right just isn't enough when the pack of dogs is constantly nipping at your heels.

God help us because there aren't many more Mavericks left after the purges of the last few decades.
Those who are now retired are now coming out in droves. The dam has broken and scientists are coming clean to clear their guilt of perpetuating the lie.

I would like to believe that retirees like Nik Lewis are making a big difference but I can't see their impact changing the mindset of climate science in general. Sure he has driven down the climate sensitivity numbers almost single handedly, pointed out glaring mistakes and even forced the IPCC to issue corrigendums, but so what? He is considered an enemy, not a colleague. He only gets scorn and fear from climate science, and is ignored by the media.

Lindzen has retired now. One less voice that couldn't be totally ignored.

The skeptics have won nearly every battle but they have lost the war unless someone can come in and get the public's ear and the govt's funding.
 
OP
Billy_Bob

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
Curry is a competent and open minded scientist.

A decade ago she started to notice that much of her work didn't fit into the consensus understanding of climate science. So she started questioning colleagues about their work and found the same mismatch. Everyone thought their own piece of the puzzle was the outlier but believed the rest of the puzzle was fitting together perfectly.

Then she started pointing this out publicly. A shitstorm erupted. The climate science elite excommunicated her, and all the other questioning scientists pulled their necks back behind the parapet for fear of losing their heads, jobs and funding.

Climategate arrived but climate science managed to survive and even more scientists chose to look away in fear.

Curry took a lot of flak for her position. Much of it in private but her tenured position made it possible to carry on.

It takes a lot of courage and energy to be a Maverick. Many of them who worked from the inside have simply given up, gotten tired of waiting for the cavalry that never showed up.

Pielke jr is another example. He found out that it isn't worth the personal and political price to buck consensus so he took himself out of the arena. Being right just isn't enough when the pack of dogs is constantly nipping at your heels.

God help us because there aren't many more Mavericks left after the purges of the last few decades.
Those who are now retired are now coming out in droves. The dam has broken and scientists are coming clean to clear their guilt of perpetuating the lie.

I would like to believe that retirees like Nik Lewis are making a big difference but I can't see their impact changing the mindset of climate science in general. Sure he has driven down the climate sensitivity numbers almost single handedly, pointed out glaring mistakes and even forced the IPCC to issue corrigendums, but so what? He is considered an enemy, not a colleague. He only gets scorn and fear from climate science, and is ignored by the media.

Lindzen has retired now. One less voice that couldn't be totally ignored.

The skeptics have won nearly every battle but they have lost the war unless someone can come in and get the public's ear and the govt's funding.
Trump and Pruitt have given us back our voice and we have a limited time to get the word out.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Curry is a competent and open minded scientist.

A decade ago she started to notice that much of her work didn't fit into the consensus understanding of climate science. So she started questioning colleagues about their work and found the same mismatch. Everyone thought their own piece of the puzzle was the outlier but believed the rest of the puzzle was fitting together perfectly.

Then she started pointing this out publicly. A shitstorm erupted. The climate science elite excommunicated her, and all the other questioning scientists pulled their necks back behind the parapet for fear of losing their heads, jobs and funding.

Climategate arrived but climate science managed to survive and even more scientists chose to look away in fear.

Curry took a lot of flak for her position. Much of it in private but her tenured position made it possible to carry on.

It takes a lot of courage and energy to be a Maverick. Many of them who worked from the inside have simply given up, gotten tired of waiting for the cavalry that never showed up.

Pielke jr is another example. He found out that it isn't worth the personal and political price to buck consensus so he took himself out of the arena. Being right just isn't enough when the pack of dogs is constantly nipping at your heels.

God help us because there aren't many more Mavericks left after the purges of the last few decades.
Those who are now retired are now coming out in droves. The dam has broken and scientists are coming clean to clear their guilt of perpetuating the lie.

I would like to believe that retirees like Nik Lewis are making a big difference but I can't see their impact changing the mindset of climate science in general. Sure he has driven down the climate sensitivity numbers almost single handedly, pointed out glaring mistakes and even forced the IPCC to issue corrigendums, but so what? He is considered an enemy, not a colleague. He only gets scorn and fear from climate science, and is ignored by the media.

Lindzen has retired now. One less voice that couldn't be totally ignored.

The skeptics have won nearly every battle but they have lost the war unless someone can come in and get the public's ear and the govt's funding.
Ah yes, Lindzen. He of the failed theories. Add to that the paid support for the tobacco industry in front of Congress. Lindzen was, is, and always will be a whore, open for the highest bidder.
 

SSDD

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
16,806
Reaction score
1,899
Points
280
Ah yes, Lindzen. He of the failed theories. Add to that the paid support for the tobacco industry in front of Congress. Lindzen was, is, and always will be a whore, open for the highest bidder.
Whores should call names rocks....
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
She is saying something similar to what this person said in 2009...finally more scientists are speaking out.

"An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST


How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith – faith in the integrity of the scientists – that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. We’ve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.

A few weeks ago, emails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England were published on the internet. With any illegally obtained information, the credibility of the contents should be questioned. However, if these published emails are genuine, the contents indicate a scandal in the climate science community that is an insult to the integrity of the entire scientific community. It’s an insult to truth.

Many scientists have had suspicions about the state of the climate science and the overstated solidity of its predictive ability for some time. I am not a ‘denier’, whatever a denier denies; but I, along with several others have been asking questions about the peer-reviewed science. We cannot conflate climate scientists with environmentalists and activists, though. The latter two have compiled predictive models by the former and asserted that we are headed for doom and destruction if extreme environmental policies are not enacted immediately. Many scientists and critical thinkers have dared ask fundamental questions, though. We have questioned whether the state of the science can allow any definitive conclusion about the significance of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on global warming, let alone its ability to predict future effects.
Climate scientists peddling predictive models, and the environmentalists who have compiled them, present these models where almost any combination of datasets are consistent with the predictive model indicating near disaster. The Third Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the most celebrity in that predictive science. Climatologist Roger Pielke, for example, has demonstrated that there has yet to be a dataset that is not consistent with these models. The prediction scientists rarely articulate a hypothetical dataset that would be inconsistent with a predictive model. A hypothesis or theory is falsifiable, thus scientific, if it can be both verified and falsified through physical experiments and/or observations. If there exists no dataset for which the IPCC predictive models are inconsistent, the model was never scientific. Where is the demarcation of predictive climate science and pseudo-science if there is no falsifiability?

Other indications and warnings that the science is less than solid have been there as well. A rhetorical analysis of many of the reports indicates that the focus on the science and logic have taken a back seat to a focus on the source and emotions, combining near sophistry and propaganda with bandwagon (consensus) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) fallacies in logic, for example. When presenting science, if the primary tools of rhetoric are not the science and logic, we should immediately probe further into the actual science.

With the allegedly hacked emails, there is apparent evidence of manipulation, fabrication, and suppression of data; collusion to marginalize colleagues who ask and publications who publish valid scientific questions; and manipulation of our currency of knowledge exchange, the peer-review process.

We all should value scientific integrity, but all scientists must value it above all else if there is to be continued growth of scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, this discipline of science has been so soiled by politics that the lines between science and politics are gone. This scandal is an insult to the integrity of all scientists and a devaluation of our currency of peer-review. It deserves the scoff and scorn of our community.

Nancy Neale, former professor of Chemistry, is a guest Liberty Features Syndicate writer for Americans for Limited Government."

An Insult to All Science – Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Good to see more scientists who value scientific integrity step out.

Curry is tragically right in one respect...those scientists in academia who have yet to earn tenure are pushed out of academia. They decide not to tolerate the bullshit harassment and leave.
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,506
Reaction score
4,144
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
In the real world, Dr Curry is winning.........the only thing that matters.:funnyface::funnyface::fu:

Sure the religions goes hard to discredit her........but who cares......look at the governments all over the world and especially here at home. The science of the k00ks isn't mattering outside the science club........Scott Pruitt continues to dismantle the EPA as we speak. The k00ks are still in denial.................but Im not!!:2up: I'm laughing..........these bozo's think the moniker, "its all about the science of the climate scientists" holds the day. No it doesn't.........it only matters how much the science influences people outside the club. And its not.........just posted up a new thread about Gore's new movie. About 17 people have gone to see it.

Nobody gives a fuck..........as it should be.:coffee:
 
Last edited:

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
35,506
Reaction score
4,144
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
self pwnage :rofl::rofl::rofl::rock:

How do we know Curry is winning? Because Scott Pruitt is dropping MOAB's on the EPA as we speak. 10 years ago, who'da thunk it!!??:spinner:More proof? The level of pissed/misery coming from the climate crusaders in every post these days. These folks are sooooooooooooooo fucking unhappy!!!:coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee:
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
5,435
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Given Curry's history of getting all the science totally wrong, why would anyone pay attention to her?

She failed at science. Instead of upping her game and doing good science, she wimped out, ran away, and became a paid shill. That's a lot easier than doing science, and more profitable. Follow the money. All the bribes go to deniers.

Denialism is sort of a failure-worshipping cult. They all worship Trump, fer glub's sake. And they all fail at every single thing, constantly. If someone isn't a total whiny failure, deniers assume they're some kind of liberal and hate them with a white hot fire. Just look at all the deniers here, and how much they hate anyone who isn't a failure.
 

Si modo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
44,120
Reaction score
7,132
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, Virginia
Given Curry's history of getting all the science totally wrong, why would anyone pay attention to her?

She failed at science. Instead of upping her game and doing good science, she wimped out, ran away, and became a paid shill. That's a lot easier than doing science, and more profitable. Follow the money. All the bribes go to deniers.

Denialism is sort of a failure-worshipping cult. They all worship Trump, fer glub's sake. And they all fail at every single thing, constantly. If someone isn't a total whiny failure, deniers assume they're some kind of liberal and hate them with a white hot fire. Just look at all the deniers here, and how much they hate anyone who isn't a failure.
^^^^science hater
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
5,435
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
^^^^science hater
Curry predicted immediate strong cooling. Instead, we got more sustained strong warming. She failed as much as it's possible for someone to fail.

And you love her for that failure, and have these little snowflake tantrums when anyone points out the failure.

Is it your Stalinist zeal that drives you to embrace idiot politicas cult pseudoscience, or are you just an 'effin retard?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top