Georgia Tech Climatologist Quits Over “Craziness” In Field Of Climate Science

Curry Senate2.jpg

A MUST SEE interview on Tucker Carlson Tonight, featuring Professor Judith Curry who has recently quit her position as the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Her reasoning is simple yet so very damaging and dangerous, not only to “climate science” but to the fate of all “sciences”. Her resignation is to do with, not only being vilified by colleagues for having a sceptical (scientific) view of “climate change”, but importantly the ongoing ‘monopolistic’ funding of research into the science of man-made global warming, versus the non-existent resources directed toward the study of natural climate change.

This imbalance of government funding skews and distorts the science that is output, and as Joanne Nova notes, a “lack of funding for alternatives leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction.”

The systemic failure self-perpetuates :

  • Where’s the motivation in proving anthropogenic global warming wrong?
  • How serious are they about getting the data right? Or are they only serious about getting the “right” data?
  • “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair, 1935

The oneway-traffic flow of government funding leads not only to an unhealthy distortion of science, but also to an unhealthy bias in the scientific and media reporting we receive on climate change.

MUST SEE interview between Tucker Carlson and Dr. Curry here:

•••

Related :


Continued Hype and Deceit Drive Climate, Energy Agenda – Clobbering Poor Families

“No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition and the poorest among us.”

Such a simple yet overwhelmingly critical paragraph that eviscerates the supposed “global warming planetary crisis”.

As is this:

“It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor. It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.”

Read more of Paul Driessen’s common sense and reasoned argument that is so painfully devoid in the alarmist, schizophrenic world of “Climate Crisis Inc.”

Watts Up With That?

Hurricane Matthew has given climate change alarmists yet another excuse to rail against fossil use and demand a “fundamental transformation” of the US and world energy and economic systems. Reality simply does not support their claims or demands.

Guest opinion by Paul Driessen

Despite constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forcesthat have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

No Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans – with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them. And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from massive wind, solar…

View original post 1,211 more words


The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future.
Armed with such a faith, we might find
it possible to resanctify the earth.

– Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

•••

A MUST-SEE debunking master-class of the global warming agenda, by Roy W. Spencer PhD, former NASA climatologist and climate expert…

•••

Global Warming as a 21st Century Religion

Peter Lilley – Huffington Post UK – Politics – 22 June 2013

G.K. Chesterton said that “when people stop believing in orthodox religion, rather than believe in nothing, they will believe in anything”. One of the ersatz religions which fills the void in recent years is belief in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming. It claims to be based on science. But it has all the characteristics of an eschatological cult.

It has its own priesthood and ecclesiastical establishment – the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; they alone can interpret its sacred scriptures – the Assessment Reports; it anathematises as ‘deniers’ anyone who casts doubt on its certainties; above all it predicts imminent doom if we do not follow its precepts and make the sacrifices it prescribes.

What most clearly distinguishes the Catastrophic Global Warming cult from science is that it is not refutable by facts. As Parliament enacted the Climate Change Bill, on the presumption that the world was getting warmer, it snowed in London in October – the first time in 74 years. Supporters explained “extreme cold is a symptom of global warming”!

The Met Office – whose climate model is the cult’s crystal ball to forecast centuries ahead – has made a series of spectacularly unreliable short term forecasts: “Our children will not experience snow” (that was 2000, before the recent run of cold winters), a barbecue summer (before the dismal 2011 summer), the drought will continue (last spring before the wettest summer on record). Now they say that rain and floods are the new normal. But – hot or cold, wet or dry – global warming is always to blame.

Alarmists are reluctant to admit that the global surface temperature has not increased for 16 years, despite CO2 emissions rising far more than predicted. They wave this inconvenient truth away with the non-sequitur that this decade is the hottest since records began, so the world is still warming. If you climb a hill and reach a flat plateau you are higher than before – but the plateau is flat, not rising. When cornered, global warming alarmists assert that the current pause is simply the result of unspecified ‘natural variations’. That implies that the pronounced warming over the previous 25 years may have been amplified by ‘natural variations’ in the other direction. In which case, the likely temperature rise for a given increase in CO2 may be less than previously estimated or required to produce the threatened doom. Continue Reading »

•••

A HISTORY OF CLIMATE AND RELIGION :

Deep within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.

300-500 years ago, during the Little Ice Age, some 50,000 Europeans were tortured & executed for “Weather Cooking”.

Dr. Sally Baliunas (Staff Astrophysicist, Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics) discusses the history of people’s reactions to extreme weather.

Climate skeptics were seen as witch collaborators during the 16th century.

h/t to Real Science

•••

Related :

Climatism Links :

•••

Afterthought

Upon seeing Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” I became a firm believer in man-made global warming. However, my belief took an abrupt u-turn when I viewed “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. This excellent documentary provided a concise, and profoundly more ‘scientific’ narrative in rebuttal to Gore’s political alarmism.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full) :