Restoring the Sciences: Rethinking Climate Risk with Judith Curry
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2023
- Why do we have a “climate emergency”? Is it real? Or is it a fantasy?
Judith A. Curry, one of our nation’s most prominent climate scientists, takes a sober look at the risks posed by a changing climate, how we assess the risks, the uncertainties, and the likely damage from the determined push to make “climate” a “climate emergency.”
Join the National Association of Scholars on Friday, August 25, at 3 pm ET to discuss “Restoring the Sciences: Rethinking Climate Risk.”
This event will feature Judith A. Curry, Professor Emerita of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, author of Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking our Response, and President of the Climate Forecast Applications Network. Joining us as co-host for the webinar will be Kathryn Kelly, President of Delta Toxicology, Inc., and co-chair of the National Association of Scholars’ Nevada Chapter.
I've been following Dr. Curry for a good many years and I remember when she was a vocal proponent of AGW; then, she began to question the science behind the AGW claims and, finally, arrived at her current position of questioning the entire scientific tenet of manmade global warming. I remember she was reviled by the AGW ideologues and still is. I have admired her strength over the years.
Fossil fuels have been singularly responsible for the advancement of humankind to an extent that is economically incalculable. That is not to say there isn't a downside to some aspects such as chemical pollution of our land, water and air, but human-produced CO2 -- representing about 0.002% of the total atmosphere -- isn't really the pressing issue. Chemical pollution is a much more immediate problem, and that includes the massive pollution created by lithium mining and the production of solar panels.
The vested interest in lithium has been swayed by the ponzi scheme musk.
He's evil.he is a purely money /power driven sociopath megalomaniac.
He's very short sighted if he thinks battery will be superior to to diesel and petrol.
The infrastructure for oil has taken trillions. The EV equivalent would necessarily take tens of trillions
As an MS in earth science I can tell you she is a straight arrow. Pragmatism would be the architect of solutions.
she's is kind of an idiot.
Common sense at last. Thank You Judith for having the guts to tell the truth. Please everybody get as many people as possible to hear this. And as always everybody make your own mind up about what you have heard.
Yes, the whistleblowers are showing how AGW runs a reign-of-terror over the scientific community.
Judith Curry is a straight up LIAR dude
I'm not a scientist but came across this video and appreciate your reasonable views. As an "everyday person," I lost confidence in anything government tells me with statements such as "I AM the science" along with the censorship, bullying and shaming, firing, and insulting labels applied to anyone asking questions during covid19. I now see all "science" through the cynical lens of wondering who is sponsoring / profiting by the "science" being disseminated - usually as gospel that cannot be questioned. Isn't science always subject to change based on new information? Shouldn't scientists with integrity and confidence in their research welcome the opportunity to defend it with facts and reliable (verifiable) data? When some scientist or government refuses to allow questions or discussion, it's no longer reliable, it a dictatorship. I thought science was ALWAYS about seeking more information and vetting it among peers. Scary world when it's all monetized propaganda, or you have to worry that it is. The "climate change" being pushed by the governor of Hawaii as explaining the incredible tragedy in Maui is the latest example of the 1984 world it's become, where once Maui is the "smart city" they've been planning (to become gaziollionaires from) it will be a safe, wonderful world.
You are right. The usual people are hugely benefitting from the projects and 'decarbonization' is tantamount to surrender to world market forces by importing all fuels and off-shoring of manufacturing (but persecution of all and every business that does not "reduce its carbon footprint") on the edict of the EU (Ursula Von der L.). "Dutiful. cowardly Britain" is also cowed into appeasement of Climate Panic merchants like Greta. Banks and engineering consultancies are shovelling government money as fast as they can into their own coffers, in the pretence that there is a never ending supply. They know perfectly well that this is going to stop. I don't trust the bosses of their companies to tell the truth - But of course, their job is to feed the share value and pay dividends. This lie hat Net Zero is needed and possible is one that they have responding to with the words "Yes, we can build that.. do that.." etc. It is not their lie alone. It is social disease that has been sown deeply, but people like Al Gore and many others, including David Attenborough. Neither of whom understand scientific work in any way. The lie is now at government, quango and so-called non-profit level. Government departments have swallowed it, and it's official religion. So I bet we could identify some non-profits people who have investments in the 'environmentalization' and activist greenwashing of the West. It's know this is case in the States. It is not all oil people with fingers in the pie.
It should be the citizens job to disabuse them of their pretence to 'innocence'. ignorance, or both. And then expose them as complicit in what will, if we do not stop it, become the greatest act of civilization's self-destruction in peace-time living memory. The last one was covid19 of course, when much of the West destroyed its economies. Of course, it make things look rosy on the GDP figures as it looks as if there is lots of great economic activity! There are SOME spin-off benefits from the engineering of net zero, but, as engineers realize, and those scientists like Bjorn Lomborg have demonstrated, the vast costs and engineering magical thinking (current impossibilities) required to make everything run on electrical energy are many times greater than any benefit, by some estimates. See Lomborg's twitter feed. twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1729916834600595632
when i cross videos like this! i always ask is there some connection to fossil and nuclear!
600 billion aramco in 2022
30 million for climate science in germany/year.
i do not trust both sides!
@@FranzJStraussbillions for climate alarmism, even in a country as small as Canada, literally billions go to climate alarmism. Including money generated to build hospitals and schools should not be included
@@dennischouinard4923 aha and 600 billions per year to e.g. aramco in 2022🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️🙋♂️ me wont pay anymore 🤣🤣🤭🤭🤭🤭🤭
@@FranzJStraussSo you have a problem with fossel fuel I suggest you get of using fossel fuel Lets see how great life is then Grow up fossel fuel has been great This is why the world is so great now getting better
what a courageous person. judith, i admire you so much.
Hello from Canada. Refreshing to move beyond the dogma. The suffocation of intelligent discussion by climate alarmists is appalling..
More alarming is the purging of climate realism from the universities, which should by rights, be their haven.
being LIED too by Judith Curry gives you comfort?
@@-LightningRod-guess that you cannot handle the facts and uncertainty of the climate
@@johnbatson8779
wtf are you even talking about friend? The science is pretty clear and has been for more than 200 years ,..there is ZERRO doubt that as we add Co2 to the atmosphere we get warming, STOP being Foolish and Stupid , Your ignorance can be cured.
@@johnbatson8779
the Certainty of the Climate in that it is going to get HOTTER is quite clear my friend,...
Stop being Stupid AND Foolish
Nice to see a calm and informative discussion.
if you like being LIED too.
A very interesting talk; thank you Scott. I have listened to Dr Curry alot over the last few years. I'm no scientist but my resounding conclusion is that what she says makes sense. Apolitical, balanced, factual and pragmatic based on extensive scientific experience. Variability, unintended consequences, climate dynamics and uncertainty are recurring themes which we should not ignore. Bankrupting our economies and depriving the poorest of the basic needs to thrive on a media, politically driven whim is immoral. Please keep going Judith; looking forward to reading your book.
And paid for by oil investors…..
Wheres all her oil money if what you claim is true? Because that can be found out fairly easily lol
@@jgreen9361 you think the green economy is less corrupt than big oil?
@@manlystyleunder50you think green money is without corruption?
@@manlystyleunder50 Interesting that Curry doesn’t dispute the enhanced greenhouse effect or dismiss anthropogenic global warming out of hand yet has given her blog over to greenhouse effect deniers and has grown more aggressive in her attacks on mainstream science since her retirement. This is expected of someone who is a flack that has a political agenda. What top leading working scientist creates a blog and hands it over to crackpot outfit that gets funding from fossil fuel lobbyists that has a goal undermining confidence in science? None.
A very good presentation! In this debate what an important voice! Prof Curry is one of the people that turned me from a climate alarmist to a climate realist. She helped me put all those science puzzle pieces those of us who are series about the science were puzzled and unsettled by! Thank you so much for interviewing her!
The highest recorded temp on Earth was 134F in Death Valley on July 13, 1910.
The highest recorded temp in Alaska was 100 F on June 27, 1915.
The highest recorded temp in Hawaii was 100 F on April 27, 1931..
The highest recorded temp in Florida was 108 F on June 29, 1931.
The highest recorded temp in my state, Ohio, was 113 F on July 21, 1934.
These are just few examples of record temps set when CO2 levels were much, much lower.
What’s the first word in global warming?
@@Jc-ms5vv per NASA algorithm the global average temperature is determined by manipulating satellite data to cool the past and warm the present..
@@europaeuropa3673 you can literally see the icecaps/ glaciers/ permafrost rapidly melt. Heatwaves happening everywhere, ocean temperatures through the roof and everything is on fire but yeah I’m sure they’re manipulating the data 😂😂😂
@@Jc-ms5vv travel to the high arctic in the summer like I have done and you will be amazed at all the ice. Yes some of the permafrost does but only where the sun, which shines 24 hours per day, hits it. It's always been that way. Wake up and stop believing the lying con artists like John Kerry.
@@Jc-ms5vv yes, that's how it works. They melt in the Summer, then freeze in the winter covering the same area as it's done for the last 120 years. You can literally see this from the satellite data. But you carry on, Dr Doom.
I have been studying the climate agenda conundrum for more than 15 years now as a privateer. Scientifically and otherwise. One thing that it has become evident to me is the fact that the narrative that supports a dichotomy between Big Oil (or FF industry in general) vs governments is a false one!
There is no such thing! Big Oil are huge supporters of the agenda and one could see that in their own sites, from many years back.
Why is it so? It's because Big Oil not only has one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful, lobbies on the planet and would never allow random politicians to disrupt their core business, but they also know that global oil demand will go up.
And it does!
In the year 2000 FFs in the global energy mix were at 86% and after decades of government "interventions" (that currently are visible from the inflation they have helped to rise - among other things) that 86% number has fell to . . . . . 84% of the global energy mix! A puny 2% reduction and with that 84% being SUBSTANTIALLY larger (in volumes and absolute numbers) than the 86% of the 2000s!
Moreover, more than 500 E&P companies have bankrupted since 2015 in the US alone and this means a lot less competition for Big Oil. Good luck obtaining a new license for E&P purposes (in the West)!
The last nail on the coffin of the "governments vs Big Oil" argument is the fact that, currently, Big Oil companies are one of the main beneficiaries for government contracts to develop. . . . . . . grand scale renewable energy projects, like off shore wind farms.
So they benefit from all angles.
Societies live in a Platonic cave! Propaganda has won.
P.S. Even Judith Curry is wrong on this in assuming the same false dichotomy between Big Oil vs "green" governments and environmentalists. It's plainly wrong. There is no such thing.
This is a good angle to consider. What are your conclusions on their real agenda (why they are using climate change as a farce)? I personally believe it's a major tool to get everyone on board for the "great reset" "new world order".
Just wondering. Which do you suppose is better suited to surviving a massive storm?
- The large concrete structure that contains a coal, gas or nuclear power station.
- Or, a large open field of wind turbines or solar panels.
Which do you suppose can operate during such a storm?
Second to that,, how much diesel fuel is needed to start those bird killing wind turbines??
And what do you do with all those solar panels when they no longer work??
Non of these pseudo SCIENTISTS want to talk about the real damage to our environment!!
Nuclear has been proven to be the cheapest and most reliable form of energy overall.
Exactly.. but don’t let facts get in the way of a good story. Some people have no ability to think critically.
ask Fukashima
Fukashima was caused by a massive TSUNAMI NOT A NUCLEAR EVENT OR CRITICALITY ????@@-LightningRod-
Hellaluja thanks Judith for some sensible conversation 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Put the Name Of The Guest in the Video Title Please. I just found this video after a year of researching Judith Currys work.
thank you very much!
Thanks for the great talk
Here in the uk we are planning our own degeneration into the ruining of our country for very little effect worldwide. We are planning on removing all fossil fuel energy sources with wind and solar and nuclear. Unfortunately the 2050 target will result in us having major shortages. Of electricity by 75% of what we will need. Fortunately this will become evident when Electric Vehicles cannot be charged as there will not be enough power, Then domestic power will need to be rationed then we will realise what damage we have done. Warnings don’t seem to be heard.
Take a piece ofA4 paper and put 1 pencil dot on it. That is what 400 parts per million looks like. Place another dot and that is 800 parts per million. Get it ?
looking forward to the talk
Thank you!
Thanks all, great discussion. A standout point is that the rate of deaths from climate extreme events has fallen by over 95% in the last 120 years. This has almost nothing to do with climate, and is mostly due to plentiful, available and stable energy supplies. At least 8 times as many people die from cold than heat
The secret to restoring trust in the sciences is to start with the scientific journals that are used to publish scientific papers. We have to force the scientific journals to fire the editors who let their ideology dictate the type of papers they publish. The only criteria that should be used by the editors is if the paper submitted are using instruments with the necessary precision and accuracy to support the measurements that substantiate the claims contained in the paper.
Yes, agreed, and whether or not they have correctly used the statistical tools and mathematics to validate the strength of evidence they wish to demonstrate.
How can "scientists" not figure out planned obsolescence in durable consumer goods like cars? How much CO2 is the result of unnecessary manufacturing due to planned obsolescence?
I hope that Neil DeGrasse Tyson watched this.
We need fossil fuels to powr the Haber-Bosch process that gives us the fertilizers we need for the world scale agriculture we depend on. It has been estimated something close to half the population of Planet Earth today is alive because of the harvests made available by that process. Cancel fossil fuels, return to dung and guano and we get Sri Lanka on the big scale.
Anyone over a certain age will remember the regularity with which the world suffered huge famine starvation events. They are now conspicuous by their absence. Reason? The Haber-Bosch process.
What are your thoughts about the potential climatic impact from potential volcanic activity under the western Antarctic ice sheet?
It has its own variability that's been going on for millions of years. Nothing we do will change that. It's one of the most active volcanic areas in the world.
Naturally there's nothing that can be done about volcanic activity. However, regarding the Antartica ice pack and climate, a lot of focus appears to be directed at GHG but wouldn't including the volcanism in Antartica add context? (John Christy, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen - brilliant presentations - but focused on CO2. Prof Bob Carter stipulates context and adaptation - Do you think presenting more on the potential significant impact on Western Antartica volcanism would stress the need to prepare for adaptation to climate? (It may also detract from the hysteria around CO2?)@@cuttingthroughthenoise3086
What was the reference to Maui at approx 35:00? Can anyone elaborate please?
I think she was referring to the disastrous fires on Maui. The connection to what Judith Curry was discussing was a little tangential, I thought, but the connection seemed to be that reflexive opposition to sensible energy policies contributed to the conditions that made the fire so devastating. The greater catastrophe seems to be developing around policy failures to put families back into their homes.
Does it ever occur to RUclips that the United Nations might be wrong about what is causing climate change ? There are many better qualified organisations that don’t agree with the UN.
ELEVEN studies confirm the scientific consensus on climate change. ELEVEN. Over 80 academies of science and all (yes, ALL) of the world's major scientific institutions publicly endorse the consensus findings, which is why every nation on earth is a card-carrying member of the IPCC.
In 2021, Cornell University surveyed the over 88000 climate studies published from 2012-2020 and tallied a 99.9% consensus that human activity is driving climate change. Even Exxon's own scientists in leaked memos have acknowledged that combusted fossil fuels are warming the planet to a damaging degree.
There are currently NO scientific institutions that disagree with the scientfic consensus. Fossil fuel industry propagandists and their front groups and think tanks? Yes. But legitimate scientific institutions? No. If you think there are, name them.
Excellent.
Is it? Have you checked how many times Curry has been wrong in the past?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481
The CO2 myth is totally fanciful. . No serious scientist can believe it!
.
Anything government wants done immediately should usually be delayed, and vice versa.
Rooftop solar with backup storage does have its place in terms of addressing certain infrastructure limitations. Including its environmental impact.
Like all these power issues: a diverse energy portfolio is what's needed, including fossil fuels, which are a superb energy source. Solar, wind, electric vehicles, nuclear power all have their place, but none can carry the whole load. To argue otherwise is dogmatism at work, I'm afraid.
A conclusive, opinion-based interview. Outside of debunking climate science, no real discussion of the the science to this point, which has greatly progressed over the last 30 years.
Or regressed depending upon ones agenda.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Feynman
THE ADOPTION OF THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT RELIGION requires you to not see and to not consider as dominating (and it is dominating), the thermal processes of evaporation/condensation and convection taking place, and to instead focus upon a much lesser detail (infra-red radiation that is merely a much lesser effect of the heat + work energy being delivered by the Sun).
fossil fuels just replaced nuclear energy as the anxiety of the uninformed. People without purpose crave crisis.
The output of the sun is not a constant, though this is always overlooked. Also climate change very rarely affects countries along the equator. There is very little temperature variation there.
that's false. evaporation / condensation etc etc are processes internal to the Earth that don't change the energy balance. What DOES change the balance towards more warming is the greenhouse gases trapping more energy from the sun. It's very simple. So you must be either really stupid or perhaps in the pay of the fossil fuel lobby.
Thanks, Judith Curry is my FAVORITE "climate scientist"!:).... To be honest is a very good virtue! :) Thank you Judith for standing up for your convictions! :)
I don't think she is a climate scientist. She forecasts weather.
@@martinphillips7733”Climate science” is an interdisciplinary set of sciences. There isn’t one science or scientist that is an expert in all of the disciplines that comprise it. Curry possesses expertise in a part of those disciplines.
@@martinphillips7733 Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University in 1974 with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in geography. She earned her geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1982. Curry was a Professor Emeritus and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, a position she held from 2002 to 2013. I would add, there is no such field a 'climate science,' because understanding climate involves a multitude of disciplines.
Regards CO2 and climate, CO2 is not the primary feedback for ice ages, as explained in my peer-review paper.
Confusingly, ice-age cooling begins when CO2 is high, and interglacial warming begins when CO2 is low. The answer is that the true feedback agent is most probably ice-sheet dust-albedo, caused by low CO2. Every interglacial warming is preceded by 10 ky of dust.
Modulation of Ice Ages via Dust and Albedo, by Ralph Ellis.
R
Milankovitch cycles are far more important than any greenhouse gas and albedo effects for such huge swings in climatic conditions over tens of thousands of years. Greenhouse gases could be seen as the "fine tuning" knob in old type radios (and that's still very much theoretical on a planetary basis - never proven to be true) while Milankovitch cycles are the function of moving the needle across the whole radio frequency band.
Ralph, I have downloaded your paper and skimmed read it. You have very detailed examined it over a long timescale 800 kyear. Have you looked also at more recent timescale, since 1850? And in particular the albedo change since 1970, which is the date of the ramping up of temperature? And also albedo over the oceans since 2020, when sulphur was banned from ship fuel. If you click on my icon you will find my email address. I am happy to send you the PDF of my book "Stabilising Global Temperature".
Does land reclamation worldwide also add to sea level rise and does anyone know how big the total landmass has been created from reclamation worldwide? I know some of it is ice in water but a lot is landfill. Tokyo Disney world I think is built on land fill.
I have wondered about this and mentioned this in the past. The laws of displacement would suggest there is an impact. Land reclamation continues in almost every country with a coastline. This is never mentioned or debated.
The volume of land fill compared to the massive volume of the oceans is literally negligible.
Drop in the bucket. Oceans are huge.
Hurricane Rita, arrived 1 month after Katrina and landed at Cameron Parish.
There are more and more scientists coming forward and questioning the current conclusions about climate change. CO2 is helping us to grow more food, our planet is greening up and I think that is a good thing.
The choice of wording (in "I think") shows uncertainty and it shouldn't. It is a verifiable fact that CO2 greens the planet and increases crop yields.
I hope. Have not seen anything improve, such as honest science.
Climate emergency lol - what a complete joke that is not funny, Judith is the one to listen to
Mostly only in greenhouses and hothouses. Yep, planet is greening as predicted by climate science. CO2 causes increased cellulose production hence more tonnage of certain crops, but no increase in nutritional value. Current rate of global warming brings a loss of global biodiversity and favours weeds over crops. When food is grown at elevated CO2 levels in fields, it becomes less nutritious and lose significant amounts of zinc and iron plus grains lose protein. Because of this you need more fields to produce more volumes to make this up and more greenhouses, as you decrease the amount of protein you can produce per acre.
@@rps1689 absolute nonsense! Even if that was true, which I doubt it, (the BS in academia is nowadays so intense that many studies are rewarded just to demonize CO2), I rather have a slightly less nutritional value per gram of food and higher yields than less overall crops (and foliage) in a barren desert planet which is what absence of CO2 brings about. CO2 is the gas of life without which no life is possible (Biology 101). Occam's Razor.
In the last 15 years, science needs 'a narrative ' to help further funding of their research. This narrative is usually a dumb down version of results so the funders or politicians understand plus a dash of hyperbole sauce. The science communication folk are key players in this.
So are many scientists, I'm afraid, working as they do in a scientific landscape that incentivizes funding as ends rather than means. Hyperbole is the inevitable consequence of those perverse incentives. It's the rare person (getting rarer with every passing year) than can avoid that.
Exactly, what ever happened to good old saving the environment, before this save the climate hysteria. The solutions for the former will satisfy the other.
So simple, so obvious, yet so ignored by the climate hysterics. It's more than saving the environment that's motivating this, it seems.
A W E S O M E ! Judith has a brilliant mind.
There have been efficient energies developed, but for some reason the inventors end up dead.
How do “we” know if we are getting hotter or colder? What is the earths “setpoint”? The whole argument is like saying a car is speeding…compared to what speed limit. Just saying it’s warming, cooling, changing means what? Do we know what the earth temperature should be? No we don’t.
yes we do.
@@russmarkham2197 just curious, what should it be, why and what empirical scientific evidence do you have to prove your answer true in all cases?
As far as I can tell, nobody has calculated what the optimum CO2 level should be.
Until these folks are on tv, FOX, we have no chance.
Is it true that the increase in CO2 is leading to an increase in plant growth on the planet.
It is one of the reasons! The slight global warming and the conservation movement more trees is also important. But if you look at increasing coral groth in our oceans, this is one of the better indicators that increased CO2 concentration is increasing overall life growth!
Fossil fuels are too valuable a feedstock in organic chemical engineering to burn. Thorium nuclear and inertial fusion reactors could be providing 100% clean, limitless, too cheap to meter energy.
Solutions are not the desire of the alarmists. Else nuclear proliferation would be moving forward rapidly. Rather, politician alarmists prefer to sustain the boogeyman as long as possible for its benefits to themselves and maintaining power. And malthusian alarmists prefer that we don't find a solution so that the number of people harming Gaia Earth are reduced. They don't want actual solutions like you propose.
The interesting "clients" would be the insurance companies, the 'canaries in the climate change coal mine' but Dr Curry sadly doesn't mention them, especially as risk management is central to the insurance company actuarial assessments when pricing risk, just as they are currently trying to assess pricing for life & health insurance policies in the wake of covid vaccinations.
My research suggests that the Obama's decision to buy an estate on Martha's Vineyard, well within the seal-level change predictions by the climate change alarmists, has not yet been reflected in real property market values.
Have you read her recent book?
great video thank you; and thanks also to Judith Curry for another amazing talk(not presentation ;) ) Love you for your amazing informed voice of reason!
Love your thinking 700000 scientist are talked about all the time What l want is 70000 scientist who are questioning things not all agreeing everything presented about climate change has to be questioned Then you would have people demanding facts At present we have scientist saying a lot of silly things and getting away with it They should be laughed at of what they claim let's get serious
It looks like only the western world is only changing , costing us financially. The cost of production per item of produce, from the west makes it unaffordable.
The other 70% exempted or poor countries from the Paris agreement , tradeable output per country, is financially profitable to the detriment of the western world.
The west has spent alot on furlough and vaccines, so much that, government borrowing is now greatly limited. People`s spending power cannot afford the governments agenda.
Is it a coincidence that both her and Christie have their phd from Illinois universities? Like scientific method or something? Are they experts in modeling/uncertainty? They never created any warming models. They both were in weather forecasting, which is way more variable and uncertain than climate forecasting.
50:41 "from a socio economic point of view...the regional change and variability is far more interesting and important" I think that sums it up
We need fossil fuels to power the Haber-Bosch process that gives us the fertilisers we need for the world scale agriculture we depend on. It has been estimated something close to half the population of Planet Earth today is alive because of the harvests made available by that process. Cancel fossil fuels, return to dung and guano and we get Sri Lanka on the big scale.
Anyone over a certain age will remember the regularity with which the world suffered huge famine starvation events. They are now conspicuous by their absence. Reason? The Haber-Bosch process.
Reach out to the thinkers. Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Peter Hitchens or go big. Joe Rogan and Russell Brand. Get the word out.
Those that root for man-made-doom are unhappy. They want to blame their problems on ‘mankind’, and resent those that are more successful. It makes them feel important to ‘care’. This erases their need to improve their own lot.
The climatistas do seem to think of themselves as victims ...
How high would the sea or oceans rise if the earth or whether was that of Roman time. I have seen paintings of castles on coast lines that had sea motes that are now pastures I would say we could easly go back to ocean and sea heights of that eara
I think I can handle a few degrees warmer over double my electric bill, price of gasoline, and food.
where do you live?
Another excellent scientist says science is about numbers and data, not opinions,
global warming alarmist talking heads never reveal their error margins.
yes they do. Read the science literature
IMHO. Judith Curry's book has not been monstered by the self-styled climate establishment because she is a warmist too. I cannot remember her ever criticizing the greenhouse gas conjecture. Many warmists agree that the suggested tech replacement of renewables plus storage is nonsense.
Not only it's nonsense it is far more environmentally destructive than the current energy sector and its effects. Mark Mills of the Manhattan Instutute has done excellent work on that. So have G&R and Horizon Kinetics.
@@C_R_O_M________ I used to put a lot of effort itemizing why it was nonsense. Now I just call it nonsense. Wind and solar are not dispatchable. There's no storage - which costs a vast amount anyhow. So, even had we the storage, it'd be fantastically expensive.
@@mark4asp : Yeah. I'm on a farm in Australia. I've had roof top solar and batteries since 1995. They are getting better, a lot better but they are still more expensive than the grid. They are useful and economical to run things like pumps but they don't scale up well enough yet. Obviously solar does not scale to grid scale as we have seen in South Australia with their "Worlds biggest battery".
@@buildmotosykletist1987 I'm in the UK where, despite 'global warming' the sun doesn't shine nearly as much as I'd like. Here solar is a laughable joke, and like the snow and wrong kind of leaves on the track routinely disabling our train system, the wind always seems to be the wrong sort of wind for our wind turbines. Utter idiocy.
Curry has, indeed, questioned the non-science behind manmade global warming. It is the primary reason she has been reviled by AGW ideologues.
please stop saying "further ado", it's an "ado" itself
If 'ado' is a state of agitation or fuss, surely there is room for not prolonging it, i.e. proceeding without 'further ado'? 😉
We must have petroleum and also nuclear electric plants.
Unfortunately, it's not just climate "science" but medicine too...
This is not The National Academies of Science, which is a legitimate scientific institution. The National Association of Scholars is a right wing advocacy group.
There is a reason why the CCCM movement exists - to employ PR flacks and advertising professionals, pollsters, lobbyists, and a few retirees from science who disagree with some aspect of conventional climate science in order to to undermine public confidence in science. Most of the money that funds this movement is from "old money" family foundations that primarily support right wing causes. About 1/3 of it is anonymized through a money laundering service called Donors.
Why is asking questions considered “right wing?”
@@TN-pw2nl It isn't, but no lack of right wing think tanks and institutions involved in projects to undermine public confidence in science. CCCM is a good example.
We have investors in fossil fuels, with trillions of dollars at stake. Their fortunes depend on the continuing expectation that they will be able to sell through the known reserves. Every month they can delay rational public policy toward waste CO2 is worth billions of dollars. The half a billion or so they spend each year on "conservative think tanks" and related lobbying and public relations projects to undermine public confidence in science is a good investment.
China Bot
@@rps1689Ccp China Bot. Disregard
Sorry, Dr Curry, I’m not really convinced by your conversion from alarmist to denier. You’re at least a climate realist who takes pains to try to sound moderate and keep a foot in each camp. In my humble opinion, I think that your position is untenable.
This “climate change” fiasco is actually not about the climate. Many scientists and even deniers fail to grasp this and continue to engage the “alarmists” at the technical level at their game and your (sincere) attempt to contribute to solutions is admirable but misguided because you have fallen into their trap of distraction. Intelligent people with a scientific background can easily understand climate “science” data. Yes, climate is complex, but all data must be honest and conform to logic and common sense. The thick reams of IPCC reports are there to occupy and exhaust authentic scientists like you. If you could wake up, you’ll realise that the climate alarmism is just a pretence and an excuse for militant environmentalists to take over political control of the world.
The truth is climate cannot be controlled nor predicted by humans. Yes, you can study climate but it is to better prepare us to adapt to natural periodic extreme weather. The duty of climate “scientists” is not to make wild predictions or collude with politicians to implement irresponsible policies to impoverish the world and sabotage human civilisation. Yes, we can find better solutions to secure our energy needs but that has nothing to do with the climate.
Please give more credit to the intelligent sector of the public. Yes, you are right. The global warming hypothesis is an utterly stupid proposition which right-thinking people shouldn’t have spent more than 2 minutes to see through. It shouldn’t take decades for us to realise that the IPCC and their sponsors are pretending to be stupid just to commit fraud.
Sorry if I sound rude, but I’m not.
Well, somebody had to say it. Thanks for being the one.
Off course we use fossil fuels to create the technologies we need in the future! We are a modern fossil fuel society, and we pay for that with billions of dollars of subsidies to those fossil fuel companies. Shame that money was not going to aid the green energy transition directly!
There is no energy transition, other than an imagined future in alarmist dreams. The more wind turbines and solar panels that are put in use, the greater the demand for fossil fuel-based electrical generating stations to fill in the hours, days, and weeks when they cannot be used. Just check out the demonstration projects that have been established, in Germany and California. How is the green transition working for those two jurisdictions? Since wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity, I would guess that electricity must be the cheapest in those two places. Oops. My guess was totally wrong.
Judith Curry....check out her publishing/research track record or lack thereof, and then her arguing with actual, practicing climate scientists at Realclimate....then revisit this with real data and context.
Realclimate... is a Michael Mann website. The guy who brought us the "hockey stick" that was subsequently debunked everywhere, except by his acolytes. One does not get a tenured university postion and become head of her department by not publishing. Also, Dr. Curry works in the real world advising companies on climate risk. If she messes up, her business fails. If Mann messes up, well, that's an "oops." Unless of course he sues his critics because the demonstrated the flaws in his work.
Nice rebuttal to mr missal! The publishing of anti-narrative voices is quoshed by the ideology. Bringing up uncertainty is valid given the appalling output of the climate models due to their influence on policy.
I suggest you watch the current lectures by Prof William Happer - his basic premise is science based, and confirms the “gas of life - C02” does not drive temperature rises !
@@timbookedtwo2375how has the hockey stick been debunked? You should google the great acceleration
@@chriskshaw7601 More like Mr. MissAll . RealClimate has nothing to do with the real climate. It is run by a group of political-activist pseudo-scientists. Yes, they are "practising" because govt. money is given almost exclusively to such biased, politically motivated pseudo-scientists who do not even pretend to be objective: the fundamental requirement of any scientist.