4 ms·

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 ne

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.
  - GlobalChange 11y ago
    If we don't even know about water, how could we possibly know anything about climate? http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-know-about-water http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn... Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy. Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Seriously dude, go back to the conspiracy theories. Maybe go out, meet an actual climate scientist and read the actual scientific literature. You might learn a thing or two. The science behind climate change has nothing to do with any personality or politics and everything to do with physics and atmospheric sciences. Or are you going to debate that the radiative forcing of an atmosphere with CO2 at 450ppm is magically less than one with 250ppm?
tjradcliffe 11y ago
You mean the one who recently published this: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html) Weird how a "quack" manages to get her work into top-tier peer-reviewed journals, isn't it. When one side of an argument descends to ad hominem as their first move, it is a sure sign their side has lost the argument. Unfortunately, ACC is likely real and deserves a strong policy response. People like you, who admit to having no actual argument for their position, are actively damaging the cause of science and good policy.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Yeah, that one, versus the other 97% of other climate scientists who complain that her work is BS and that she has purposely misinterpreted the findings and conclusions of the IPCC reports. Your idea that this is an ad hominem is intellectually dishonest. Curry has been criticized by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists for her outrageous and ignorant interpolation of other climate data. Finally, there is nothing "weird" about people who are quacks publishing things on Nature. Nature is not the end-all of scientific publications, and it's not by any means a specialty publication in the field of climate science.

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.
- GlobalChange 11y ago
  If we don't even know about water, how could we possibly know anything about climate? http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-know-about-water http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn... Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy. Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.
Daishiman 11y ago
Seriously dude, go back to the conspiracy theories. Maybe go out, meet an actual climate scientist and read the actual scientific literature. You might learn a thing or two. The science behind climate change has nothing to do with any personality or politics and everything to do with physics and atmospheric sciences. Or are you going to debate that the radiative forcing of an atmosphere with CO2 at 450ppm is magically less than one with 250ppm?

tjradcliffe 11y ago

You mean the one who recently published this: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html) Weird how a "quack" manages to get her work into top-tier peer-reviewed journals, isn't it. When one side of an argument descends to ad hominem as their first move, it is a sure sign their side has lost the argument. Unfortunately, ACC is likely real and deserves a strong policy response. People like you, who admit to having no actual argument for their position, are actively damaging the cause of science and good policy.

Daishiman 11y ago
Yeah, that one, versus the other 97% of other climate scientists who complain that her work is BS and that she has purposely misinterpreted the findings and conclusions of the IPCC reports. Your idea that this is an ad hominem is intellectually dishonest. Curry has been criticized by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists for her outrageous and ignorant interpolation of other climate data. Finally, there is nothing "weird" about people who are quacks publishing things on Nature. Nature is not the end-all of scientific publications, and it's not by any means a specialty publication in the field of climate science.