It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SkepticalScience and Disingenuous Information - Dr. Curry

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
With the Paris climate talks coming to an end with what is proclaimed to be the salvation of the Earth according to this publication ( At Paris Climate Talks, Negotiators Agree to Save the World ) I feel it is important to point out a specific criticism of climate change activism.

That is the premeditated de-legitimization of anyone working within the field of climate science who criticizes anything having to do with the IPCC or other notable climate scientists.

This quick little expose concerns a popular "climate science" website commonly linked to by members of this message board. I have noticed while perusing its pages a disturbing trend when reading their "debunking" of all claims by one Judith Curry.

Dr. Judith Curry


Curry is a Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; she held the latter position from 2002 to 2013.[6] Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[6][7] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[6][8]

Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[6][8] Curry has been active in researching possible connections between hurricane intensity and global warming.[9][10] Her research group has also done research linking the size of hurricanes and resulting damage that showed that, among other things, the size of the hurricanes was an important factor in determining the number of tornadoes spawned by the system.[11]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[12] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[13] Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[14] Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[14]


She is clearly quite an accomplished woman, however she began to disagree with certain methodologies used by the IPCC and its satellite contributors.

Enter SkepticalScience, a website founded by one John Cook. Mr. Cook holds a BS in physics and he is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change. He is not a climate scientist, but is a powerful voice proselytizing the web with calls for climate action.

I have come to find that it is incredibly hard to locate a section of this well travelled website which attributes to Dr. Curry her numerous accomplishments. Instead what I find on most occasions is a reference to her by name and to those criticizing her with their accomplishments or titles.

Preference for mild Curry


In a recent post on her blog, climate scientist Judith Curry made some rather extreme comments regarding the IPCC and "hiding the decline" (emphasis added)


The first line of his first post and scant little afterwards dating back several years. Most references following this blogger's post from 2011 are along the lines of 'denier,' 'skeptic ( generally followed by mocking ), or 'climate mis-informer.'

Mr. Cook even went so far as to link to a controversial paper leaked by James Hansen as evidence that she does not acknowledge the science. A paper which I have covered in another thread here: Media Lies; NASA's James Hansen Fear Mongering and Sea Level Rise

The short synopsis of that study is that the claims he made to the media are not supported, or EVER MADE, within the report. Further the study was based on a different atmospheric chemistry where the sea level rise was not linked to a warming atmosphere.

Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes


Thus the Luckwarmer case also generally depends on the impacts associated with that climate change being relatively benign. Contrarian climate scientist Judith Curry recently made this case in testimony to the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:

The concern about inaction comes from concern about passing the 2°C ‘danger’ threshold, possibly by mid-century. This concern relies on a very weak assessment that 2°C of warming is actually ‘dangerous’ and that we can believe the climate models (which seem to be running too hot).

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen recently outlined the scientific evidence behind why even 2°C warming is very dangerous for our long-term future.


Of course, once again I will note that the study is the one I linked to in my other thread.

Folks, we need to do better research on who we are listening to so that at the very least we are aware of the qualifications of who is being criticized and who is executing the criticism.

This sort of critique is not designed to engender any sort of rational discussion. The assignment of labels like these are to shame and mock others with the goal of silencing them, hence the reason that such accusations are made in the first few lines of every article. It is not unlike a '15 minutes of hate' before a political speech, the crowd will be so riled up they wont even have the self awareness to examine what is being said.

Lets do better!

If you are interested in reading the analysis of "climate psychologist," Mr. Cook and their debunking of 'deniers' you can find their page here:
Climate Misinformers

-FBB




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I don't even see this as about opposing views, what I see is us little men taking on the might of our planet and its natural cycles, which include periodic ice ages etc etc.

We can certainly make better laws and objectively enforce them against pollution and obvious destruction of the elements our planet needs to keep our air clean etc which - were we do do this, would make a huge difference.

The other thing humans could do is to stop overbreeding. Most men can't afford to pay for their big families and sponge off others who are more discerning and also get victimised because of the 'cultural PC that stops fair criticism of this expectation and practise; plus their disregard of the extra pressures their excessive breeding puts on the planet's resources. But the idea of forcing the change in a planet's natural cycles seems over ambitious despite all the political posturing and new taxes it brings forth.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7




The other thing humans could do is to stop overbreeding.
Not sure I agree ,but am sure that population and CO2 levels do track each other very well . The majority of "over population" usually happens in economically suppressed countries where most people are dirt poor .China as well as India seem to be moving up a bit in the ladder economically ,but at the same time the rate of population increase seems to have peeked . China recently started moving away from it's one child policy and is probably because of the large demographic next in line for the grave .....

eta a short vid on JC ....

edit on 14-12-2015 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Shiloh7




The other thing humans could do is to stop overbreeding.
Not sure I agree ,but am sure that population and CO2 levels do track each other very well . The majority of "over population" usually happens in economically suppressed countries where most people are dirt poor .China as well as India seem to be moving up a bit in the ladder economically ,but at the same time the rate of population increase seems to have peeked . China recently started moving away from it's one child policy and is probably because of the large demographic next in line for the grave .....



To be fair China only moved it to a two child policy so hardly a recipe for overbreeding, in fact I'm not sure why you used China as an example. I think the over population Shiloh was referring to, although not explicitly stated, was more around those on benefits, low wages in economically developed countries having many children when it would fall on the state to provide their welfare, but Shiloh can correct me if I assumed too much as I'm not sure what that has to do with climate change.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

In Canada we have a pretty good social network that helps low income families but has recently to bring in 25,000 refugees from Syria .If Canada wants to maintain it's population then it needs to look outside the country for numbers to do so . The addition of 25,000 to the population may have played out in the demographic numbers and is something the Govt looked at a cost effective measure to address the problem of under populating numbers . The Native population is the only demographic that is growing naturally but if the numbers get too high then that could change the political landscape . The mere fact that Native population grow naturally becomes another "Indian Problem" the Crown faces .



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Climate science owes it's existence to multiple disciplines which puts it far out or reach of understanding for the common person. This also makes it the perfect vehicle to disseminate lies about climate change (meanwhile hijacking the environmental movement) for political purposes.

Allowing India and China to spew all the CO2 they want makes everything else a moot point.

I'm a denier, disbeliever, whatever.
This is science being bent to the will of politicians.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Good post on a tedious topic.

It's funny, but whenever I tell people that it is the existence of opposing, peer-reviewed science that turned me from an AGW-supporter to a skeptic (not a denier), I get attacked personally and "asked" to prove the "why" behind what made skeptical in the first place--as if I keep a list of specifics in my back pocket, just in case some AGW-fanatic needs proof as to why I "switched teams."

I don't understand why this is like a religion and can't be taken at face value for what it is. I think that you hit the nail on the head concerning the '15 minutes of hate,' except that this seems to last a lifetime for some people who can't separate themselves from the fanaticism and alarmism that fuels the apparent adrenaline kick that they get every time they shout down someone with skeptical or opposing views on the subject.

It really does make one question their faith in the rationality of the current human race. Luckily, though, most support for AGW theories is based on apathy more than information gained by researching the science on both sides of the argument and coming to a conclusion through critical thinking. I say "luckily" because that means that there is not a fanatical adherence to ideology that drives the passive acceptance of AGW theory, and hopefully that leaves room for skepticism if they were actually presented with all of the evidence concerning climate change.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Climate science owes it's existence to multiple disciplines which puts it far out or reach of understanding for the common person. This also makes it the perfect vehicle to disseminate lies about climate change (meanwhile hijacking the environmental movement) for political purposes.

Allowing India and China to spew all the CO2 they want makes everything else a moot point.

I'm a denier, disbeliever, whatever.
This is science being bent to the will of politicians.


No, China and India are also signed up to the agreement...

www.bbc.co.uk...

I know it's good to have a fallback scapegoat, happened with Kyoto, right? Doesn't appear to apply here. Science might be being bent to the will of unborn generations, but you go with what is good for you.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




and hopefully that leaves room for skepticism if they were actually presented with all of the evidence concerning climate change.
although all of the evidence is too big of a subject for the regular Joe to take in and understand . Heck most learned people on the subject keep it to their own compartment which only make a small amount of the whole story . Just sitting down with 400,000 years of Ice core data on a graph shows a natural cycle that makes today's warming by comparison a mere midget . The pro-AGW side will always hide the bigger pictures while magnifying a 1/100th of a degree to claim the sky is falling . When I was a kid we rounded off the thermometer and I assume so did the data collectors . That alone leaves a very big gap in the accuracy of the past data . At least when it comes to fractions of a degree .



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Love how the new limits are clearing up the air in Beijing.
You can almost see past your own hand now:




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: uncommitted

Love how the new limits are clearing up the air in Beijing.
You can almost see past your own hand now:





Like the conference has just ended and as if by magic it will be in effect? That graphic kind of shows the effect of pollution very clearly, but nevermind, you blame it on politicians.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Yes, they signed the treaty.
There is no enforcement mechanism and it entirely up to its members to implement.
You think China is going to implode their economy to satisfy some climate change panel?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: uncommitted

Yes, they signed the treaty.
There is no enforcement mechanism and it entirely up to its members to implement.
You think China is going to implode their economy to satisfy some climate change panel?



You think America will? You seriously trying to tell me you don't get smog in America? Please note I am not referring specifically to your location, but the country as a whole.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
With China's rise it will also have to deal with the environment like the US did .



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

What don't you believe about ckimate science?

We are observing a sharp rise in CO2 levels as a direct result of our addiction to burning coal and petroleum for energy, this can not be denied, nor in my humble opinion ignored.

Do you not agree with the concept of radiative forcing, particularly radiative forcing of CO2?(the greenhouse effect)

I feel strongly that those who do not believe in climate science, rarely if ever address the actual science. Instead they turn it into a political debate which acomplishes nothing but muddying what the scientists and actual science is telling us.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Asktheanimals

What don't you believe about ckimate science?

We are observing a sharp rise in CO2 levels as a direct result of our addiction to burning coal and petroleum for energy, this can not be denied, nor in my humble opinion ignored.

Do you not agree with the concept of radiative forcing, particularly radiative forcing of CO2?(the greenhouse effect)

I feel strongly that those who do not believe in climate science, rarely if ever address the actual science. Instead they turn it into a political debate which acomplishes nothing but muddying what the scientists and actual science is telling us.



So do you think the anomalies of the Antarctic ice mass measurements as a result of miscalculations or is the shelf it lies atop actually sinking rather than rising?

That would be an example of talking the science right?

But this thread is more about pointing out the rhetoric which is spammed over the internet that aims to discredit any condescension.

Do you have anything to contribute regarding that?

-FBB
edit on 14-12-2015 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

You mean a graph like this?



While I don't believe that scientists ever really rounded, per se, I do think that the accuracy of old data-collecting methods definitely create too much of a possibility of error to even consider them as accurate enough when we're talking about fractions of a degree and parts-per-millions of chemical compounds in the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Was not directed at you, as your confirmation bias prevents you from even considering that the 'climate scientists' might be right.

Overall the Earth is losing ice and the Antarctica ice gain, is more about overall surface area gain and not so much volume gain. Also the Antarctic is observing a warming trend. This suggests that eventually that Antarctica will see ice loss, but only time will tell.

So do you think the observed rising CO2 levels is not something we should be concerned about?

Do you think radiative forcing if CO2 is not proven?
(that is what my post was about, all you did was rant about Antarctic ice because it casts doubt about AGW to the lay reader).



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
That graphic kind of shows the effect of pollution very clearly, but nevermind, you blame it on politicians.


Or fog...it shows fog, and people misuse the image and call it smog or pollution.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
I feel strongly that those who do not believe in climate science, rarely if ever address the actual science. Instead they turn it into a political debate which acomplishes nothing but muddying what some of the scientists and actual science is telling us.


There, I fixed it for you to make it more aligned with the reality of the situation.

The problem with you, jrod, is that we can post all the links to all the science that we want to, and you either shout down the source or counter with science that you claim trumps other science that may show different data, or suggest different catalysts for climate change, or whatever the case may be. Your argument, as it always is concerning your 'strong feeling,' is wrought with a false claim: Skeptics, even on this site, constantly cite science and counter-claims based on evidence or facts that show their stance to have merit, but you more often than not ignore it, and then regurgitate your claim about your feelings on the next thread about climate change.

It's almost becoming as cyclical as climate change itself, and it's a perfect example of what the OP is talking about.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join