Your second example is another great example. She's not a denier. She's one of you who instead says
1. It's going to be too expensive to fix
2. Nothing we can do about it
3. It's not as bad as they say
4. We don't know for sure what's going to happen
Curry has become known as a
contrarian scientist hosting a blog which is part of the
climate change denial blogosphere.
[Social scientists who have studied Curry's position on climate change have described it as "neo-skepticism", in that her current position includes certain features of denialism; on the one hand, she accepts that the planet is slightly warming, that
human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than
climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether
climate change mitigation is affordable.
She couldn't even try to deny GW is real like you do. She'd be laughed out of science. So she's going to be a scientist you guys use when you no longer deny GW is even real. When's that going to happen? You are a flat earth fool you know that right? Let us know when you at least start making Judith's arguments. At least she's not a denier.
Curry has testified to the
United States Congress that, in her opinion, there is so much uncertainty about natural climate variation that trying to reduce emissions may be pointless.
www.nbcmiami.com
