4 ms·

Rebuttal: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-... The gr

Rebuttal: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-... The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. ... The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. ------ The link above also includes more on some of the specifics of the new adjustments NOAA made.

anon1385 11y ago
>regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration Judith sure knows how to play to the gallery.
- guelo 11y ago
  Yea and in other posts she's always defending Ted Cruz. Really makes you trust her sciencyness.
  - briandear 11y ago
    What does Ted Cruz have to do with anything? Do you know anything about his positions? Wasn't Al Gore that said all of the polar ice caps would be melted by now? Wasn't it Gore that also predicted a dramatic increase in hurricanes? When did that happen? Cruz is Linus Pauling compared to Al Gore.
    - guelo 11y ago
      The point is that she shows her political biases by attacking Obama and defending Cruz. As far as Gore, I see you've ingested the appropriate Two Minutes Hate.
Daishiman 11y ago
Ahh, yes, the famous Judith Curry, known by climate scientists as a quack who seems to be rather incapable of understanding the most basic notions of physics necessary to build (or refute, for that matter) any sort of argument in climate sciences.
- briandear 11y ago
  Are these the same climate scientists that were accused of fabricating data by adjusting the adjustments in order to support their political desires? Those climate scientists? Because if anyone is having trouble with credibility right now it's the entire industry of grant-chasing climatologists. The IPCC even admired that climate policy was a means to redistribute world wealth. Does that not scare anyone? Has Al Gore become a billionaire because of a climate 'crisis' he helped invent? I don't know anything about this Curry woman but I do know that political ideology has a disproportionate influence in climate science because it's an ideal Trojan horse for Marxism. It's no accident that extreme leftists are the ones most passionate about carbon. Carbon represents freedom. It's that simple. Even the founder of Greenpeace admits that the whole global warming industry is nothing more than a political scam.
  - tstactplsignore 11y ago
    In your various comments you display such a startling misunderstanding and ignorance of how science itself works that it must be hard for anyone educated on these subjects to know where to begin. The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations. Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work. Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue. Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain. Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.

anon1385 11y ago

>regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration Judith sure knows how to play to the gallery.

guelo 11y ago
Yea and in other posts she's always defending Ted Cruz. Really makes you trust her sciencyness.
- briandear 11y ago
  What does Ted Cruz have to do with anything? Do you know anything about his positions? Wasn't Al Gore that said all of the polar ice caps would be melted by now? Wasn't it Gore that also predicted a dramatic increase in hurricanes? When did that happen? Cruz is Linus Pauling compared to Al Gore.
  - guelo 11y ago
    The point is that she shows her political biases by attacking Obama and defending Cruz. As far as Gore, I see you've ingested the appropriate Two Minutes Hate.

Daishiman 11y ago

Ahh, yes, the famous Judith Curry, known by climate scientists as a quack who seems to be rather incapable of understanding the most basic notions of physics necessary to build (or refute, for that matter) any sort of argument in climate sciences.

briandear 11y ago
Are these the same climate scientists that were accused of fabricating data by adjusting the adjustments in order to support their political desires? Those climate scientists? Because if anyone is having trouble with credibility right now it's the entire industry of grant-chasing climatologists. The IPCC even admired that climate policy was a means to redistribute world wealth. Does that not scare anyone? Has Al Gore become a billionaire because of a climate 'crisis' he helped invent? I don't know anything about this Curry woman but I do know that political ideology has a disproportionate influence in climate science because it's an ideal Trojan horse for Marxism. It's no accident that extreme leftists are the ones most passionate about carbon. Carbon represents freedom. It's that simple. Even the founder of Greenpeace admits that the whole global warming industry is nothing more than a political scam.
- tstactplsignore 11y ago
  In your various comments you display such a startling misunderstanding and ignorance of how science itself works that it must be hard for anyone educated on these subjects to know where to begin. The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations. Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work. Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue. Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain. Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.