“WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The Bolt Report with leading climate scientist Dr Judith Curry :
JUDITH CURRY is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Unlike our politicians, she doesn’t think there’s much point to slashing emissions:
CLICK for interview link (0:49s) …
“I don’t think that even if we had the political will we could do very much to change the climate. Carbon dioxide is not a control knob for the climate. It has some effect on very long time scales but it is nothing you can really dial up or down on the time scale of a century and change the climate. There’s a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.” – Judith Curry PhD
WHY THEN IS “CARBON DIOXIDE” (or as climate zealots deceitfully label it – “Carbon Pollution”) THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THEORISED MAN-MADE “CLIMATE CHANGE”?
LIKE with all Socialistic edicts, the answer is absolute power and control over you and your lifestyle.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, explains :
“FOR a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…” – Richard S. Lindzen
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Richard S. Lindzen
IN a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, Lindzen examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.
Prager Uni forward :
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.
“I always thought that there would be consequences for lying during Congressional testimony. I guess not. Mann got caught out in several blatant lies during the Hearing.”
Nuff said. Other than well done JC for your bravery in the face of smear and slander by peers when your only crime was sticking up for and valuing the “scientific method”. Which simply involves questioning and challenging the preferred wisdom of the day (i.e. “Manufactured consensus”) via data and observation.
But sadly, within the established field of climate ‘science’, questioning the preferred wisdom is taboo and heresy.
This is politics, not science.
““That’s why this hearing is going to be so much fun,” Smith said with a huge grin on his normally impassive face.”
Mann-made climate change on the Congressional senate stand! I cannot wait. Nor can the popcorn 🍿!
Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX) rarely expresses his true feelings in public.
But speaking yesterday to a like-minded crowd of climate change doubters and skeptics, the chairman of the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives acknowledged that the committee is now a tool to advance his political agenda rather than a forum to examine important issues facing the U.S. research community.
“Next week we’re going to have a hearing on our favorite subject of climate change and also on the scientific method, which has been repeatedly ignored by the so-called self-professed climate scientists,” Smith told the Heartland Institute’s 12th annual conference on climate change in Washington, D.C.
View original post 144 more words
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:
- Judith Curry : Senate EPW Hearing on the President’s Climate Action Plan | Climatism
- Climate money: Monopoly science « JoNova (Judith Curry IPCC Update) | Climatism
- Climate Etc. – Dr Curry Website
- The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con | Climatism
A sanguine and reasoned post from Judith Curry PhD, American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
A voice of reason well worth reading in light of the rather polarising US election result.
JC Wikipedia brief: Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.
Excerpt from JC Refections :
I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.
The politicization of climate science has gotten extreme. I don’t know where to start in trying to ameliorate this situation, but Congressional oversight and investigation into what is going on in government labs does not seem inappropriate under these circumstances.
It’s a sad state of affairs that climate science has come to this.
Excellent, measured summary of the current political, economic and scientific state of the climate.
A must read for those interested in sifting through the increased climate alarmism and political rhetoric associated with the lead up to the next United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 (or gabfest) held in Paris, in November/December 2015
“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.“
– Barack Obama,
“Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can
choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the
worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose
to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.”
– Barack Obama,
President Obama wipes perspiration from his brow, for impact, during a speech about
global warming climate change under a hot, though not unusually hot day at Georgetown University, June 25, 2013.
Fast-forward January 16, 2014
The following testimony before the EPW committee on President’s Climate Action Plan, will have the President wiping some real sweat away …
Judith Curry – where data and evidence trump alarmist-activism, masquerading as “science”.
by Judith Curry
The content of my verbal remarks is below:
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of clouds and aerosols in the climate system, and the climate dynamics of extreme weather events.
The premise of the President’s Climate Action Plan is that there is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic global warming is already producing devastating impacts. Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain. Multiple lines of evidence presented in the recent IPCC 5th assessment report suggest that the case for anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the 4th assessment report was published.
My written testimony documented the following evidence:
- For the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in surface temperature. There is a growing discrepancy between observations and climate model projections. Observations since 2011 have fallen below the 90% envelope of climate model projections
- The IPCC does not have a convincing or confident explanation for this hiatus in warming.
- There is growing evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations
- Based on expert judgment in light of this evidence, the IPCC 5th assessment report lowered its surface temperature projection relative to the model projections for the period 2016-2036.
The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late 20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate change. Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide, and the level of uncertainty in its value, is a key input into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses, including estimates of the social cost of carbon.
If the recent warming hiatus is caused by natural variability, then this raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural climate variability. In a recent journal publication, I provided a rationale for projecting that the hiatus in warming could extend to the 2030’s. By contrast, according to climate model projections, the probability of the hiatus extending beyond 20 years is vanishing small. If the hiatus does extend beyond 20 years, then a very substantial reconsideration will be needed of the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections of climate change.
Attempts to modify the climate through reducing CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 15+ years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-decadal time scales. Even if CO2 mitigation strategies are successfully implemented and climate model projections are correct, an impact on the climate would not be expected for a number of decades. Further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural internal climate variability will continue to be sources of unpredictable climate surprises.
As a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability on multi-decadal timescales. Further, the IPCC AR5 and Special Report on Extreme Events published in 2012, find little evidence that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that can be attributed to humans.
The perception that humans are causing an increase in extreme weather events is a primary motivation for the President’s Climate Change Plan. However, in the U.S., most types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930’s and even in the 1950’s than in the current climate, while the weather was overall more benign in the 1970’s. The extremes of the 1930’s and 1950’s are not attributable to greenhouse warming and are associated with natural climate variability (and in the case of the dustbowl drought and heat waves, also to land use practices). This sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is symptomatic of pre-1970 ‘weather amnesia’.
The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is heavily influenced by natural climate variability. Whether or not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme weather events, vulnerability to extreme weather events will continue to increase owing to increasing population and concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. Regions that find solutions to current problems of climate variability and extreme weather events and address challenges associated with an increasing population are likely to be well prepared to cope with any additional stresses from climate change.
Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic climate change is the foundation for a far-reaching plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events. Elements of this Plan may be argued as important for associated energy policy reasons, economics, and/or public health and safety. However, claiming an overwhelming scientific justification for the Plan based upon anthropogenic global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to the policy process.
Good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not anthropogenic climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21stcentury climate.
This concludes my testimony.
Obamaclimate Related :
- Climate alarmism’s 10,000 commandments – Washington Times
- Obama’s Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience
- Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s global-warming folly – The Washington Post
- Obama’s climate change delusion – NY Daily News
- Alarmist U.S. report highlights risks of climate change to energy sector | Financial Post
- Obama’s Climate Change Speech Ignores Science & EU Experience
- Shock News : Met Office Contradicts The Messiah | Real Science
- The Top 5 Lies In Obama’s Climate Change Speech At Georgetown University – Investors.com
- Obama’s global-warming claims demolished
Senate Climate Change Testimonies :
- Watch yesterday’s blockbuster performance by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. Roy Spencer at Senate climate hearing | Watts Up With That?
- Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before” « Roy Spencer, PhD
- Don Easterbrook PhD – Climate Change Presentation before the WA Sate Senate Cmte. 03-26-2013 – 1h 30m
- US SENATE : 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims | CACA
- Testimony: House Subcommittee Global Warming: How to approach the science. Richard S. Lindzen
- Statement of Richard S. Lindzen, Climate Change, Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, July 10, 1997
Climatism Related :
- Driessen : A Climate of Fear, Cash and Correctitude | CACA
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | CACA
- Global Warming Was Never About Science. It Was Always About Power And Money | CACA
- ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ | CACA
- The Great Global Warming Climate Shift | CACA
- Richard Lindzen: Cool it on the climate | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
- When Hell Freezes Over | CACA
- ENVIRONMENTAL MUST READ : Bananas deadlier than Fukushima | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- Europe’s Green Energy Basket Case Is Tim Flannery’s Dream | CACA
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth And Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says the IPCC is taking a huge credibility hit over the hiatus – and its pronouncement that it is 95 percent certain that human activity is responsible for most global warming.
“I’m not happy with the IPCC,” she told Fox News. “I think it has torqued the science in an unfortunate direction.”
That torquing, she suggests, is because the money in climate science (the funding, that is) is tied to embellishing the IPCC narrative, especially the impacts of global warming. She is critical of the IPCC’s leadership as well, in particular its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.
“They have explicit policy agendas,” Curry told Fox News. “Their proclamations are very alarmist and very imperative as to what we should be doing. And this does not inspire confidence in the final product.”
View original post 7 more words