A rational voice on "climate change"

[StreetScooby 5]

Judith Curry sums it up pretty well... This document is her testimony to a house committee.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JCurry-20150415_0.pdf

Quote

Anthropogenic climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but the potential magnitude is highly uncertain. We know that the climate changes naturally on decadal to century time scales, but we do not have explanations for a number of observed historical and paleo-climate variations, including the warming from 1910-1940, the mid-20th century cooling and the 21st century hiatus in warming. Disagreement regarding climate change arises from our recognized uncertainty regarding natural climate variability.

Quote

Overreaction to a possible catastrophic threat may cause more harm than benefits and introduce new systemic risks , which are difficult to foresee for a wicked problem. The known risks to human well-being associated with constraining fossil fuels may be worse than the eventual risks from climate change , and there are undoubtedly some risks that we currently don’t foresee.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

She's a denier/contrarian/misinformer. At least that's what the alarmists call her. Sure, she is a real climate scientist with the credentials, etc. And sure she fully supports AGW theory and agrees that CO2 causes warming.

She is lumped in with Inhofe and the like as a climate denier because she doesn't see evidence of catastrophe and thinks that there is too much overreaction and rhetoric.

What I find most telling is that even the most hardcore deniers seem to like Curry. The ones who disagree that CO2 causes warming don't seem to have a problem with her. But the alarmists do. They hate her. And why?

Probably has something to do with having a lot to lose when reason and moderation are discussed. Curry, as much as anyone, can really fuck up the gravy train.

Again, j point out that she is testifying before Congress. Because the argument isn't about whether warming is happening. It's about who gets the money to try to find out how much is occurring and what to do about it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[StreetScooby 5]

Having read quite a bit about "climate change", it's clear to me that the "options" being advocated aren't going to make a hill of beans difference in warming itself. The only thing that will change is the government will take more money out of our pockets, and gain more control over our lives, ...for nothing.

We are all engines of karma

[lawrocket 3]

StreetScooby

Having read quite a bit about "climate change", it's clear to me that the "options" being advocated aren't going to make a hill of beans difference in warming itself.

Correct. They aren't. Which should lead to the question, "then why are the non solutions being so forcefully advocated?" We see it more and more frequently stated that it is the right thing to do. That there must be something to destroy an evil and immoral petrochemical industry.

Quote

The only thing that will change is the government will take more money out of our pockets, and gain more control over our lives, ...for nothing.

Oh, it'll be for something. That is, we can all feel better that at least we don't have Shell to worry about anymore. Gas is $10 per Gallon and the electrical grid is unreliable, inflation is through the roof but we are making the world a better place for all to suffer through.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>She's a denier/contrarian/misinformer. At least that's what the alarmists call her.

I don't think she's a denier at all. Can you cite a single alarmist who has called her a denier? What does she deny?

[Coreeece 2]

lawrocket

***Having read quite a bit about "climate change", it's clear to me that the "options" being advocated aren't going to make a hill of beans difference in warming itself.

Correct. They aren't. Which should lead to the question, "then why are the non solutions being so forcefully advocated?" We see it more and more frequently stated that it is the right thing to do. That there must be something to destroy an evil and immoral petrochemical industry.

Quote

The only thing that will change is the government will take more money out of our pockets, and gain more control over our lives, ...for nothing.

Oh, it'll be for something. That is, we can all feel better that at least we don't have Shell to worry about anymore. Gas is $10 per Gallon and the electrical grid is unreliable, inflation is through the roof but we are making the world a better place for all to suffer through.

Shell seems to be confident in their future. I know in the last several months they've been building a viral campaign targeted at informing millennials about the benefits/future of natural gas and how they intend to be global leaders of LNG production and carbon capture/storage technology...and the recently proposed acquisition of the BG group shows that they're serious about it.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,120]

>Oh, it'll be for something. That is, we can all feel better that at least we don't have
>Shell to worry about anymore. Gas is $10 per Gallon and the electrical grid is unreliable,
>inflation is through the roof but we are making the world a better place for all to suffer
>through.

Gas may be $10 a gallon, but you will spend less of your income on it overall. The electrical grid will be more reliable, and you'll be able to pay for any level of availability you like. Inflation will be about what it's always been.

Perhaps that's a hellish nightmare to some, but to me it's just tomorrow.

[DanG 1]

Why aren't you upset about the second paragraph quoted in the OP? That's not science, it is policy. I thought you didn't like it when scientists weighed in on policy.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>She's a denier/contrarian/misinformer. At least that's what the alarmists call her.

I don't think she's a denier at all. Can you cite a single alarmist who has called her a denier? What does she deny?

You've linked to this site before because you seem to trust it.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_blog.htm

https://www.skepticalscience.com/misinformers.php

Look who is in that group. skeptical Science puts Curry on the same page as Palin And Pawlenty and Inhofe.

This is a site that you link to, Bill. My statenent stands. The site doesnt call her a denier. It just calls her what it calls Rubio.

Care to reconsider? Will yoou be posting any more from this bullshit hack site?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Why aren't you upset about the second paragraph quoted in the OP? That's not science, it is policy. I thought you didn't like it when scientists weighed in on policy.

Because she's admitted it. She says that in climate policy and science are adjuncts. She comes out as an advocate foiking advocates. And is hated because she admits what is going on.

Yep. Its policy and she is saying that scientists don't KNOW and that it would be wise for policymakers to hold off until they have a better idea. She is being witch hunted, as well. Part of the game. And she says its policy not science. Hence she is open to policy attack.

Which is fine.Science doesn't say what is best. Because science offers no opinions. Science doesn't care.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>>Can you cite a single alarmist who has called her a denier? What does she deny?

>My statenent stands. The site doesnt call her a denier.

So you gave an example of a site that doesn't call her a denier - and you cannot name a single site that does - but you will still claim that alarmists call her a "denier/contrarian/misinformer?"

OK then.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>>Can you cite a single alarmist who has called her a denier? What does she deny?

>My statenent stands. The site doesnt call her a denier.

So you gave an example of a site that doesn't call her a denier - and you cannot name a single site that does - but you will still claim that alarmists call her a "denier/contrarian/misinformer?"

OK then.

Correct. She is merely lumped in with those who have been.

Bill. Do you agree with skeptical science that Inhofe and Curry should be categorized the same.If I were to start a list of people with strong leadership abililities and list Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Leopold II, Billvon, Pasha, Saddam, etc., a message is being sent. I characterized you along with several others that while I Was explicit that they all had strong leadership abilities, everyone knows the message being sent.

I'd of course mention how I said strong leadership. A list like that would send a message.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Yep. Its policy and she is saying that scientists don't KNOW and that it would be wise for policymakers to hold off until they have a better idea. She is being witch hunted, as well. Part of the game. And she says its policy not science. Hence she is open to policy attack.

Please. You're fine with her policy statements because she agrees with your position.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

Yep. Its policy and she is saying that scientists don't KNOW and that it would be wise for policymakers to hold off until they have a better idea. She is being witch hunted, as well. Part of the game. And she says its policy not science. Hence she is open to policy attack.

Please. You're fine with her policy statements because she agrees with your position.

I do agree with her policy statements.

On the other hand, I also agree with her othrr statements about politics. Curry is the person out there saying that science doesn'tmake policy. She also readily admits that scientists painting subjective policy ambitions as objective scientific truths are disingenuous.

I'm a scientist.Trust me. This is best for everybody. No.

Scientists SHOULD be informing policymakers. Scientists should be advocates if the want to be. But separate the science from the scientists.There are important distinctions.

Now, show me where Iever said a scientist should not be a policy advocate. I have frequently said that a scientist doing so enters a different world. That world is one where the scientist is subject to a whole different scrutiny. Curry opened herself up to challenges not related to peer review.

And that's fine. So she can totally expect more shit like Congressional fact finding looking into her finances.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>f I were to start a list of people with strong leadership abililities and list Stalin, Mao, Pol
>Pot, Mussolini, Leopold II, Billvon, Pasha, Saddam, etc., a message is being sent.

I could never get the trains to run on time.

But no, that attempt would just get a chuckle from people. If you started a more serious list of people who have been involved in patent litigation, and listed my name along with several other people, then that would be an accurate list - even if some of the people you listed had filed frivolous patents. If, however, you claimed that "Billvon has been involved in patent litigation/tax fraud/murder!" then that would be inaccurate.

[kallend 2,150]

billvon

If, however, you claimed that "Billvon has been involved in patent litigation/tax fraud/murder!" then that would be inaccurate.

We only have your word for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Did you not call her a 3%er?

[billvon 3,120]

>Did you not call her a 3%er?

?? No. Are you thinking of someone else?

[brenthutch 444]

From your post on another thread:


Re: [brenthutch] "How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong" [In reply to] Quote | Reply
>Judith Curry, a CLIMATE scientist, recently testified before congress stating just that.

Yes, there are those 3%.

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

Did you not call her a 3%er?

Seems you are wrong again.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=3%25er&search_type=AND&search_fields=sbjbdy&search_time=&search_user_username=billvon&sb=score&mh=25

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Premier billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
United States Send a Private MessagePM Add to FriendsFriend

6000 jumps in 22 years


Registered: Apr 5, 2001
Posts: 67687

Apr 17, 2015, 8:40 AM
Post #55 of 102 (287 views)
Shortcut

Re: [brenthutch] "How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong" [In reply to] Quote | Reply
>Judith Curry, a CLIMATE scientist, recently testified before congress stating just that.

Yes, there are those 3%.

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

Premier billvon (D 16479)
Moderator
United States Send a Private MessagePM Add to FriendsFriend

6000 jumps in 22 years


Registered: Apr 5, 2001
Posts: 67687

Apr 17, 2015, 8:40 AM
Post #55 of 102 (287 views)
Shortcut

Re: [brenthutch] "How to convince a climate skeptic he’s wrong" [In reply to] Quote | Reply
>Judith Curry, a CLIMATE scientist, recently testified before congress stating just that.

Yes, there are those 3%.

Isn't it a little early to be drinking?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 226]

Never

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

Never

Go for it

[brenthutch 444]

Truth hurts, get over it sunshine.