[Newsbot]

Title: Don't let climate alarmists muzzle your skepticism
Category: Environmental
Posted By: Alta_redneck
Date: 2017-01-07 17:20:00
Canadian

[Alta_redneck]

This isn't posted in the right place, but it's the only place it can be posted.

[andyt]

Sun's got you all het up,huh?

[newz]

Dr Tim Ball FTW!

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry told Fox News host Tucker Carlson she was so sick of politicization of global warming in academia she resigned from her tenured position at Georgia Tech.

“I’ve been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don’t like anybody challenging their big story,” Curry told Carlson Friday night.

“I walk around with knives sticking out of my back,” she said. “In the university environment I felt like I was just beating my head against the wall.”

Curry, a skeptic that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, announced Tuesday she was retiring from academic life to focus more on her own climate analytics business and blogging. A big reason she decided to leave, though, had to do with the “craziness” of climate science.

“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science,” she wrote in her blog.

“Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc,” she wrote. “How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.”

Curry has been attacked by colleagues for questioning claims made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other scientists who use climate models to claim humans are the main cause of recent global warming.

“There’s far too little funding and effort going into studying natural climate variability,” Curry told Carlson.

“It’s clearly warming, and it’s been warming overall for several hundred years. The key question is how much of the warming, say for the last 50 years, is caused by humans,” she said. “I don’t see a clear signal that it is being caused by humans predominantly.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/07/knive ... z4VBjRQoCm

[Zipperfish]

Interesting. Judith Curry says "Not being caused by humans predominately" So is she saying there is some warming caused by humans. Lorne Gunter asks if humans are changing the climate "significantly." So is he saying ome warming is caused by humans. Can't help but notice all the deniers hedging their bets now.

[BeaverFever]

Such a long journey from their global cooling theory. The end stage us where they pretend they believed in it the whole time and claim ot was liberals who were the deniers. But that's still 5-10 years out.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Interesting. Judith Curry says "Not being caused by humans predominately" So is she saying there is some warming caused by humans. Lorne Gunter asks if humans are changing the climate "significantly." So is he saying ome warming is caused by humans. Can't help but notice all the deniers hedging their bets now.

I'll tell you again what I've been telling you since about 2007.

The central question climate skeptics are concerned about is one of Climate sensitivity. Myself, I learned this listening to climate scientists like Richard Lindzen way back when. One more time, it goes like this...

If there are no feedbacks CO2 will add about 1 degree of warming per doubling. But all that is, is nice weather. To be something we need worry about you need positive feedbacks. If you know of physical evidence human influence or anything else is creating these positive feedbacks produce it. I've been asking to see such evidence for almost ten years. I'm still waiting to see it.

Would you like to see 2007 links again to show you this has been the issue since at least then?

The stance of skeptics of the alarmist doctrine has been consistent. (A Hell of a lot more consistent than the chicken little alarmism stance. That one changes with the weather from global cooling to global warming, or from global warming to climate change or from climate change to climate disruption.)

[N_Fiddledog]

BTW, another thing you've never been able to explain is where does the term "Climate Alarmist" come from if the other side of the question has never been interested in questioning the alarm? The term is at least 10 years old.

[andyt]

And down the rabbit hole we go. An argument worthy of FOG. "Those climate alarmists haven't protested the term vociferously enough. They must agree with it,just like those Moooslims." Slimy.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

And down the rabbit hole we go. An argument worthy of FOG. "Those climate alarmists haven't protested the term vociferously enough. They must agree with it,just like those Moooslims." Slimy.

You're an idiot. If you don't know what the conversation is about stop trying to pretend you do. You're not fooling anybody.

Alarmists protesting the term "alarmism" have nothing to do with anything.

The question is if skeptics didn't used to be concerned about climate alarm - as Zip keeps suggesting - where did the term climate alarmism (used as a dis) come from? It's skeptics who started using it as a pejorative since at least the dawn of Gore and his Inconvenient Nonsense. Obviously skeptics were calling out alarm back then.

But Zip is just bafflegabbing anyway. He knows climate scientists skeptic of the alarm such as Richard Lindzen were saying pretty much the same basic stuff back when as they are today. Why he keeps insisting he doesn't know that I have no idea.

If he genuinely still doesn't know he's incorrect though here's Lindzen back in 1992 proving it.

The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus

[andyt]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

andyt andyt:

And down the rabbit hole we go. An argument worthy of FOG. "Those climate alarmists haven't protested the term vociferously enough. They must agree with it,just like those Moooslims." Slimy.

You're an idiot. If you don't know what the conversation is about stop trying to pretend you do. You're not fooling anybody.

Alarmists protesting the term "alarmism" have nothing to do with anything.

Seems to me it's you having the conversation with yourself and slaying the dragons you made up. You know the voices in your head aren't real, right?

[N_Fiddledog]

My God, but you're stupid, Andy. You're so stupid you think you're smart.

[Freakinoldguy]

andyt andyt:

And down the rabbit hole we go. An argument worthy of FOG. "Those climate alarmists haven't protested the term vociferously enough. They must agree with it,just like those Moooslims." Slimy.

Don't drag me into your bullshit cult arguments. I have enough problems trying to keep you on track when discussing that other cult your seem hell bent on defending.

[BeaverFever]

I'm still waiting for the deniers to explain exactly why they think hundreds of thousands of highly respected people, businesses and institutions from around the world are collaborating in this supposedly elaborate global conspiracy that will destroy civilization, including their own lives and professional reputations. What is the motive?

I've asked them to explain it many times they never have an answer.