between PHD climatologist Judith Curry and Dr. Jordan Peterson. Well worth one's time if you are worried about the future of the planet environmentally. Convince me they are wrong?
A sensible discussion on climate change/global warming
- Thread starter trunole1
- Start date
Okay Jordan tell the folks in Phoenix there’s nothing to see here. That being said they were both right about the propensity of some scientists to fall in love with their own data and conclusions…..on both sides. I was taught as a young scientist that the biggest skeptic of my data should be ME!
I don’t know if this is true but some scientists are claiming the planet is 31 inches off its axis because we’ve sucked so much ground water out of the ground. I don’t doubt the measurements but the why requires rigorous proof. We’ll see.
And BTW, if this is true, and we CAN change the axis of the Earth, is it so hard to believe that in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution that we can change the climate?
I don’t know if this is true but some scientists are claiming the planet is 31 inches off its axis because we’ve sucked so much ground water out of the ground. I don’t doubt the measurements but the why requires rigorous proof. We’ll see.
And BTW, if this is true, and we CAN change the axis of the Earth, is it so hard to believe that in the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution that we can change the climate?
I admit I haven't listened to the entire podcast. I usually try to look into the participants to better understand their background.
Curry had previously accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.[a] Commenting climatologists have generally disagreed with her critiques. Stephen Schneider, who had persuaded the IPCC to systematize discussion of uncertainty, said Curry had lately proposed "a lot of strawmen" and "It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." Curry felt that although she was still able to publish professionally, she had become a victim of mainstream climate science's overreaction to criticism; she believed the climate community had adopted a fortress mentality, defending insiders and refusing access to outsiders.[17]
Curry began her own blog open to outsider participation. It was described as part of the climate change denial blogosphere in the 2015 Oxford University Press book Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives.[3] That same year, Curry was described by InsideClimate News as "relatively new to the denialist camp". She was included on an e-mail sent by Fred Singer, who was concerned over the possible fallout from the documentary film Merchants of Doubt.[21]
Curry's position on climate change was much criticized by climate scientists,[17][15] and she became known as a contrarian scientist.[3][22][23] A 2013 Media Matters for America study found that Curry was among the "climate doubters" most frequently quoted by the press as spreading public doubts about climate science. Going against the vast majority view of climate scientists, she had suggested to newspapers that most of the recent global warming was not human-caused, and had hinted that IPCC scientists are motivated by "funding" even though they are not paid for their contributions.[24] She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.[25] A 2019 article in Human Ecology Review described her position as a form of climate denialism, criticizing her downplaying of potential future climate change effects and emphasis on the costs of addressing climate change.[4]
Views on climate change
In his 2010 profile on Curry, journalist Michael Lemonick reported that Curry began paying attention to outsider climate blogs after they attacked a 2005 paper she co-authored,[16] which related increasing hurricane strength to global warming. Rather than dismissing their comments, she had discussions with attackers, including Christopher Landsea and Patrick Michaels. She began participating in outsider blogs, such as Climate Audit, where she found the discussions very interesting, as opposed to "preaching to the converted" at mainstream climate science blog RealClimate. Despite the amount of what she describes as "crankology", she thought the time was well spent to avoid groupthink.[17]Curry had previously accepted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. In the 2010 profile, she accused the IPCC of "corruption" and said she no longer had confidence in the process. She agreed that the Earth is warming, largely due to human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic. She said that the IPCC was distorting the science and scientists were not dealing adequately with uncertainties.[a] Commenting climatologists have generally disagreed with her critiques. Stephen Schneider, who had persuaded the IPCC to systematize discussion of uncertainty, said Curry had lately proposed "a lot of strawmen" and "It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." Curry felt that although she was still able to publish professionally, she had become a victim of mainstream climate science's overreaction to criticism; she believed the climate community had adopted a fortress mentality, defending insiders and refusing access to outsiders.[17]
Curry began her own blog open to outsider participation. It was described as part of the climate change denial blogosphere in the 2015 Oxford University Press book Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives.[3] That same year, Curry was described by InsideClimate News as "relatively new to the denialist camp". She was included on an e-mail sent by Fred Singer, who was concerned over the possible fallout from the documentary film Merchants of Doubt.[21]
Curry's position on climate change was much criticized by climate scientists,[17][15] and she became known as a contrarian scientist.[3][22][23] A 2013 Media Matters for America study found that Curry was among the "climate doubters" most frequently quoted by the press as spreading public doubts about climate science. Going against the vast majority view of climate scientists, she had suggested to newspapers that most of the recent global warming was not human-caused, and had hinted that IPCC scientists are motivated by "funding" even though they are not paid for their contributions.[24] She consistently presents her view that climate science has much larger uncertainties than those shown by mainstream studies, though she has not shown any previously unconsidered cause for such uncertainty.[25] A 2019 article in Human Ecology Review described her position as a form of climate denialism, criticizing her downplaying of potential future climate change effects and emphasis on the costs of addressing climate change.[4]
Climate denialism?
horrible CO2?
Last edited:
Will listen. There is global warming. One data point is the rise of the sea levels in Florida about 4 inches in the last several decades. Man's role in this however is all over the place, and many who claim man is entire responsible are the equivalent of religious zealouts.
As are those who claim man has zero responsibility. As was stated in another thread, the balance has been thrown off.
Warming is occurring probably due to increases asphalting and other heat absorbing building . That being said blaming it on CO2 is ridiculous. Predicted Sea level rise has been over exaggerated. Climate change/Global warming is far more complex than blaming it on CO2.
Follow the money and how everyone gets paid. Who is financing Curry?
It is 91 degrees in Tampa with a real feel of 104. What causes the real feel temperature?
Follow the money and how everyone gets paid. Who is financing Curry?
It is 91 degrees in Tampa with a real feel of 104. What causes the real feel temperature?
Last edited:
CO2 traps heat. Heat melts ice. Melting glaciers will cause sea level rise. And CO2 isn’t the only cause, you’re right. I believe the heat index is dependent on humidity.
I was taught as a young scientist that the biggest skeptic of my data should be ME!
Wise words! However, if your grant money/job was depending on you removing your skepticism from your research what would you do? Done deal if it was me.
How's that big 8 cylinder tundra pick up you drive? Pretty good, huh? I was thinking about getting one. What are the pros and cons?
My issue is only with the modeling. So far, the modeling has proven to be off substantially presenting a worse case scenario. I have two friends who are senior scientist working on issues related to global warming. They are more moderate in their opinions than what the IPCC and activist opine. Other than that, the issue is so complicated that I can't really form a reasonable opinion about causes.
It is a good truck. Best thing for me is I drive it only about 5000 miles a year.
Btw, you can search all you want but you won't find a post of mine espousing we get rid of all ICE vehicles.
4x4. I would imagine you would have to special order a 2WD.
agree It is indeed far too complex
The blaming of specifically manmade C02 just doesn't make sense . jmo but it is all about who profits by that narrative. The self flagellation for America on the issue compared to China raises a red flag.
Nitrogen makes up 78% of air while oxygen makes up 21%. The specific density of nitrogen is 97, while that of oxygen is 1.1 – they will mix quite well, and make up 99% of the air or atmosphere.
CO2 has a specific density of 1.51, and is less likely to mix with the other two – in fact the majority of CO2 falls to the ground level where is is either synthesized (photosynthesis) or absorbed by the great sinks of water, forests or prairie.
Volcanos send C02 highest in the atmosphere.
OP found the 1% of scientists that disagree with the consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
Congrats or something.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Congrats or something.
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
Scientific conclusions are not decided by a vote ( consensus).OP found the 1% of scientists that disagree with the consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
Congrats or something.
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
Maybe that is how it is decided by a social science like history.
What was your major emphasis? American? World? Ancient? etc.
Wikipedia? Seems too political from my view.
Did you even watch the video?
Despite my criticism of Wikipedia and its slanted narrative there was one key statement: The funding for CFAN . a climate-risk consulting company whose clients include federal agencies, insurance companies, and energy companies.
weather forecast and climate services: CFAN Climate Forecast Applications Network
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) provides the intelligence you need to manage weather and climate related risks.
www.cfanclimate.net
Looks like a very good company. You?
What dire predictions on Climate Change have been correct?
Last edited:
Another informative video with Curry. Could that alleged 99% disagree?
State a clear counterpoint why she is wrong?
State a clear counterpoint why she is wrong?
Of course there is global warming since we have records but that time frame is a very small smaple size. How do we know this isnt a larger cycle? And with this small sample how can we know the cause?
I do believe we have changed the balance of things. The question is how much and does it matter in the grander scheme of things?
99% of 100 climate change activists polled agree there is climate change. Of course they all agree because they didn't ask those that don't. Also they are very likely to agree because if they don't who pays the grants?OP found the 1% of scientists that disagree with the consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.
Congrats or something.
Judith Curry - Wikipedia
99% of scientists who have studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals agree that climate change is real.
You as a non-scientist are free to disagree and publish your own findings. Good luck.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
99% of scientists who have studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals agree that climate change is real.
You as a non-scientist are free to disagree and publish your own findings. Good luck.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.news.cornell.edu
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change
Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.forbes.com
99.9, 97 whatever. Just change it to a number that works and publish it.
Millions of years ago our own state was underwater. The planet is at least a few billion years old. These are things we absolutely and factually know.
Is it moving towards that again? It may well be.
I think a majority of people agree about that, but the fighting over it goes on.
John Kerry is in China at the moment to discuss climate change with the CCP controlled government. I think he flew in a private jet - unless he used miles rewards on Delta…?
Is it moving towards that again? It may well be.
I think a majority of people agree about that, but the fighting over it goes on.
John Kerry is in China at the moment to discuss climate change with the CCP controlled government. I think he flew in a private jet - unless he used miles rewards on Delta…?
We absolutely and factually know that climate change is happening now and it's caused by humans.
John Kerry's one private jet is having a minimal impact on it. Same with Trump's jet.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.
Yeah, okay.We absolutely and factually know that climate change is happening now and it's caused by humans.
John Kerry's one private jet is having a minimal impact on it. Same with Trump's jet.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.www.google.com
SO grateful for my old friend Mr. Ignore Button.
Have a great day.
Because we know that from our compiled data from the last 150 years compared to the age of the planet at 4.5 billion years. This is the equivalent to me sticking my hand out the door, feeling a raindrop and and declaring its going to rain all week.We absolutely and factually know that climate change is happening now and it's caused by humans.
John Kerry's one private jet is having a minimal impact on it. Same with Trump's jet.
Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.
Your lack of education and credentials on this topic.
A man's should know his limitations.
I have a feeling you don't know what your talking about but ok if you say so.Your lack of education and credentials on this topic.
A man's should know his limitations.
Difference between Your and You're | Your vs. You're
What is the difference between Your and You're? Explore the difference between Your vs. You're, their usage, meaning and examples, only on BYJU’S English.
byjus.com
A scientist is a professional who conducts and gathers research to further knowledge in a particular area. Scientists may make hypotheses, test them through various means such as statistics and data and formulate conclusions based on the evidence.
I don't know what you do, nor do I care. You don't know anything about me, my education, what I do for a living or much of anything else for that matter.
Its a message board and sadly all opinions are valid even if we disagree.
By the looks of it your degree is of the Arts variety. Good for you.Difference between Your and You're | Your vs. You're
What is the difference between Your and You're? Explore the difference between Your vs. You're, their usage, meaning and examples, only on BYJU’S English.
You got me. Grammar error on a message board.
I guess I better run and hide. Message board sleuth is on to me. I best change all my social media accounts.
Nobody knows if 1% or 99% of climate change is due to human activity.
Cow farts and methane gas contribute to climate change.
Latest posts
-
-
Tennis NCAA Tournament: FSU men defeat UCF to advance to Supers- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
Baseball Cancelled: NC State at FSU, Sat. at 7 p.m. (ACC Network)
- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
-