Exxon Mobile must be a part of this 'conspiracy' then, too, with the work they did during the 1980s....
November was Earth’s warmest such month on record by a huge margin
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Exxon Mobile must be a part of this 'conspiracy' then, too, with the work they did during the 1980s....
Exxon Mobile must be a part of this 'conspiracy' then, too, with the work they did during the 1980s....
Oh, so now we're trusting whatever corporations say? I find that whole story interesting to say the least. It just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense that a corporation would release a study that did harm to themselves, but then again I never know if you guys are talking about global warming or man made global warming either. Too many arguments are too vague on here.
LOL...any damage done to Curry's career has been done by Curry herself. She was part of the BEST team that was supposed to prove that the hockey stick was a myth. They were funded, in part, by the Kochs. In fact, the Koch brothers were the largest contributor of money for the group. Anthony Watt - of WattsUpWithThat - was so sure they would disprove the hockey stick that he said he would accept their results NO MATTER WHAT the finding. Rather unexpectedly, they found:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
Of course, Watt immediately reneged on his promise. Furthermore, Curry - whose name is on a BEST report - went out and started making disparaging remarks about the work of HER OWN GROUP. Remarks, by the way, that she later tried to walk back.
Last edited:
So, when she played ball, she was okay, but as soon as she turned against the global warming people she was deemed unfit? People aren't allowed to change their mind? Do you have a link to what you are quoting?
Noooo...try again. She co-authored a report she later tried to play as wrong. She then tried to downplay her criticism. She lauded the work of Edward Wegman, saying it should have been included in the IPCC report. Then she was forced to admit that she hadn't read the damn thing when she was unable to explain it's findings. The Wegman Report, btw, was found to contain plagiarized passages - some lifted directly from Wikipedia - and Wegman was formally reprimanded by George Mason University. Yeah, Judith...should have included that. She flatly lied about the writings of Dr. Lawrence Torcello setting off a firestorm among deniers and - again - was later forced to back off her claim.
She has made so many incorrect and misleading statements about the research of other scientists that the question is whether she is purposeful in her testimony of if she simply doesn't understand the science.
No. It was when she then backtracked on what her own data showed.
She was PART of the group, because the leader of the group was a GW skeptic (Richard Muller). Only HE is actually an HONEST and CREDIBLE scientist, who changed his mind when the data showed he was originally wrong.
Regarding your comments on Exxon - we trust them when they are generating data that they actually get peer reviewed and published. When they stop publishing, and start politically attacking their own work, in line with their economic interests, it's probably time to take a step back and recognize that they are no longer credible.
Their own scientists and management stated in their own reports that they had a moral and ethical obligation to society, despite their economic interests, to inform the public about their findings. Unfortunately, they ultimately fell in line with the Saudis and other government oil 'businesses' and politically, rather than scientifically, discredited the data on human caused warming.
Since she can no longer really make money as a scientist (doing GOOD science work) she has found a nice niche as part of the energy lobby's efforts to make speeches that attack the science, using (most often) ridiculously poor arguments which cannot pass scientific scrutiny.
That sounds AWESOME. Let's deny civil liberties to people on that basis. We could eliminate MOST of the gun deaths in the country with an outright ban based on this logic....
I want to know how many likes ciggy has given out since the feature was added. Gotta be in the 6-digits by now.
You know what thirsty people do? They spill. That's always a problem with the fantasies.
What part of that shows she didn't change her mind? It sounds like she decided to play nice, then decided to produce what she thought was the truth and was vilified for it (right or wrong).
The more I hear about the climate change crowd, the more it sounds like Scientology. If you try to leave them, then they will try to destroy your life.
I see. So when someone changes their mind to your side they're "honest and credible", and when someone changes to the other side they are dishonest scumbags. I guess that follows the HROT/Party line method.
Uhhh...how about the part where she has NEVER produced a speck of data to support her BS? Saying "They're wrong" and being completely unable to show HOW they're wrong really doesn't make them wrong.
Unless you're a dumbass. You're not a dumbass, are you?
Ummm....you should work on that reading comprehension, spud.
She 'changed her mind' NOT based on the scientific outcome, but because she didn't believe the outcome. Both she and Anthony Watts were 100% behind the 'new analysis method', until the 'new analysis method' ended up with the same results as ALL of the prior studies.
That's not 'changing to the other side' due to following the science; it's 'changing to the other side' because the science ended up not matching her 'beliefs'.
Credible scientists alter their opinions and hypotheses when the data indicate their previous ideas were wrong. Judith Curry and Anthony Watts have done exactly the opposite - when they didn't get they answer they wanted, they stopped doing actual science and 'doubled down' on the politics.
Really? You post a timescale of 5.5 million years to refute a comment relating to 'decades'? How stupid ARE you?
One pixel on your plot is probably 5000 or 10000 years alone. If this is all you got, you really ARE a doofus.
Are you trying to tell me that she's hasn't given any reasons as to why she changed her mind? I find that hard to believe.
You guys are acting on this craze like it's the truth when you only have an insanely minute fraction of the Earths' temperature. Does anyone even know what the default temp of this planet is?
The big problem is, when you take this all into effect, along with the use of such an easily manipulated subject as statistics, and then you look at what is being done about it (nothing) and then you also realize that politically connected people are making hundreds of billions off this mess, you start to realize that something just isn't right.
You don't understand what he was trying to show you with that graph?
I like when people start poking holes in your arguments, how angry and nasty you guys get. The name calling just starts flowing. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. Many people start that when others are attacking their religion.
You can find it as hard to believe as you want. It's completely immaterial.
It's now on you to find her RESEARCH that disputes the findings of the BEST team she worked with. I'll hang up and wait.
He's the cranky one? He's not the one name calling on here. You guys are really the ones coming off as cranky if anybody is.
You're right. I don't believe it. She sounds like the Edward Snowden of the Global warming religion.
You should be able to observe faster changes at the end of the chart if what you said was correct. But what you said isn't correct. Hell, the Gulf Stream could collapse tomorrow thrusting northern Europe into a deep freeze.
This is the most insanely idiotic argument of them all. Total profits for the entire fossil fuel industry in North America are around $250 billion. You're going to tell me there's more money in green energy? I'll call BS even if you included the worldwide numbers for green energy. So what's your source for your claim?
LOL Snowden had documentation. You have yet to produce hers. Should be a simple matter to call up her extensive research. Why won't you do that?
Damn...smh...and by what mechanism(s) would this collapse occur? You're getting your "science" from Day After Tomorrow, huh?
Soooo...no source. Completely made up. Got it. All you had to say.
That's one industry. The results of the global warming scare is spread out over multiple industries.
What's your mechanism for the complete collapse of the Gulf Stream? Your claim...your source. Let's see it.
Why would anyone go through the trouble to post a source for you guys? Every single source that I've ever seen posted here, that you haven't agreed with, has been met with ad hominem ridicule. It isn't even worth finding a source for you guys, especially when it's something that is basically common sense.
Then it should be documented somewhere. You saying it doesn't make it so. WHERE IS IT?
Soooo...no source. Completely made up. Got it. All you had to say.
I'm fairly confident that HE doesn't understand what he was trying to show me. He just pulls up plots from Google and has no clue what the actual context is...
The context is that the climate has always been in a constant state of change and this effort to "stop" climate change might as well be directed toward stopping the sun from rising every morning.
