Climatologist getting hammered by Democrats for not following "the plan"

[BobRyan]

"Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
...
There she occasionally mocks what she calls "climate alarmists" who say time is almost out unless humanity weans itself off fossil fuels. In her blog and on Twitter, she has also criticized some of the scientists, including Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and Harvard University climate historian Naomi Oreskes, who have become leading voices for climate action. She has testified in front of Congress, boosted by politicians who use her work to argue that environmental regulations and a scaling down of fossil fuel use will be ineffective. Her work is frequently invoked by climate skeptics and denialists. Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
from: PEOPLE: Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

 

[Basil the Great]

Sadly, I have personally seen twice in recent years that Dems and Liberals seem to be more narrow minded than Republicans and Conservatives.

 

[BobRyan]

Sadly, I have personally seen twice in recent years that Dems and Liberals seem to be more narrow minded than Republicans and Conservatives.

And much more effective at destroying opposing views. For the right - opposing the other view involves coming up with a more persuasive case against it. For the left it involves destroying the person that has the opposing view. So they look into their "funding" like the military would do fighting an enemy and knowing that to destroy the enemy you must first cut the supply chain -- that is a key strategic objective when the goal is to destroy them. This was the part that really impressed me.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Correction - A (ie one) Congressional Democrat is investigating. “Investigating” meaning sending letters to the universities of 7 climate change deniers about where their funding comes from. This was in response to revelations that Dr Soon from Harvard - another climate change denier - failed to disclose $1.2 million he got from fossil fuel companies.

Dems' climate probe brings 'witch hunt' accusations

As Climate Wars Heat Up, Some Skeptics Are Targets

Why A Congressman’s Probe Of Climate Denier Scientists’ Funding Might Not Be A Great Idea

Failing to disclose funding sources is a big no-no in science. Every scientist should willingly disclose their sources of funding. Any scientist who objects to this standard should be held as questionable.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

And much more effective at destroying opposing views. For the right - opposing the other view involves coming up with a more persuasive case against it. For the left it involves destroying the person that has the opposing view. So they look into their "funding" like the military would do fighting an enemy and knowing that to destroy the enemy you must first cut the supply chain -- that is a key strategic objective when the goal is to destroy them. This was the part that really impressed me.

Please, tell me what more persuasive argument Republicans have come up with. More often than not, they resort to conspiracy theories and claims of “fake news” and “hoax.”

 

[BobRyan]

Please, tell me what more persuasive argument Republicans have come up with. More often than not, they resort to conspiracy theories and claims of “fake news” and “hoax.”

Republicans have a lot of complaints about what the other side is saying... but where are all the news accounts of "republican anti-climate-change people investigating the funding of this or that professor because they don't like the professor's views on climate"???

Democrats are well known for trying to cow the sources of funding when it comes to someone expressing a view they differ with. Interesting that they take that all the way to "Science".

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Republicans have a lot of complaints about what the other side is saying... but where are all the news accounts of "republicans investigating the funding of this or that professor because they don't like the professor's views on climate"???

Democrats are well known for trying to cow the sources of funding when it comes to someone expressing a view they differ with. Interesting that they take that all the way to "Science".

Where did I claim Republicans we’re investigating funding sources? I merely asked what persuasive arguments they were coming up with? Most of what I here from Republicans vis-a-vis climate change are claims of “hoax” without real evidence.

And, as I said before, any scientist that objects to revealing funding sources has lost all credibility.

Besides, Republicans are too busy investigating the Clintons to work on anything else.

 

[BobRyan]

Correction - A (ie one) Congressional Democrat is investigating. “Investigating” meaning sending letters to the universities of 7 climate change deniers about where their funding comes from. This was in response to revelations that Dr Soon from Harvard - another climate change denier - failed to disclose $1.2 million he got from fossil fuel companies.

Dems' climate probe brings 'witch hunt' accusations

As Climate Wars Heat Up, Some Skeptics Are Targets

Why A Congressman’s Probe Of Climate Denier Scientists’ Funding Might Not Be A Great Idea

Failing to disclose funding sources is a big no-no in science. Every scientist should willingly disclose their sources of funding. Any scientist who objects to this standard should be held as questionable.

your last link includes this -- predictable tactic.

"it makes more sense to look at the companies instead of the scientists themselves. Some Senators are already going that route. On Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ed Markey sent letters to 100 fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations to see if they are funding scientific studies.

It’s not clear if those companies are obligated to respond to that inquiry. But at least this way, politicians can seek the same information without highlighting individual scientists. Investigating fossil fuel industry influence on the integrity of academic research pulls back the curtain on the whole "enterprise, which is useful in and of itself. By all means, scientists should be doing research. And if they somehow prove, with significant corroboration, that humans actually aren’t causing climate change, all the better. This whole situation would be a whole lot easier if they could."

So then - who is funding the pro-climate-change research?? Is it funded by groups that already have a stated position/interest in what the research "Needs" to show?

 

[BobRyan]

"Funding for science has changed with the times. Historically, science has been largely supported through private patronage (the backing of a prominent person or family), church sponsorship, or simply paying for the research yourself. Galileo's work in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, was supported mainly by wealthy individuals, including the Pope. Darwin's Beagle voyage in the 19th century was, on the other hand, funded by the British government — the vessel was testing clocks and drawing maps for the navy — and his family's private assets financed the rest of his scientific work. Today, researchers are likely to be funded by a mix of grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations. For example, a 2007 study of the movement of carbon in the ocean was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Australian Cooperative Research Centre, and the Australian Antarctic Division.1

Other research is funded by private companies — such as the pharmaceutical company that financed a recent study comparing different drugs administered after heart failure.2 Such corporate sponsorship is widespread in some fields. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.3 And, of course, some researchers today still fund small-scale studies out of their own pockets"

It is a "given" that all the funding for the pro-climate-change science comes from institutions already on record as coming down on the side of pro-anthropomorphic-climate-change. Should we then question it? Is the solution to cut off the funding -- or to come up with better science to refute it?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

your last link includes this -- predictable tactic.

"it makes more sense to look at the companies instead of the scientists themselves. Some Senators are already going that route. On Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ed Markey sent letters to 100 fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations to see if they are funding scientific studies.

It’s not clear if those companies are obligated to respond to that inquiry. But at least this way, politicians can seek the same information without highlighting individual scientists. Investigating fossil fuel industry influence on the integrity of academic research pulls back the curtain on the whole "enterprise, which is useful in and of itself. By all means, scientists should be doing research. And if they somehow prove, with significant corroboration, that humans actually aren’t causing climate change, all the better. This whole situation would be a whole lot easier if they could."

So then - who is funding the pro-climate-change research?? Is it funded by groups that already have a stated position/interest in what the research "Needs" to show?

Who is funding pro-climate change research is a relevant question. Those scientists should also disclose who their funders are and, if they don’t or won’t, should be open to scrutiny.

I’m still waiting for the list of cogent arguments Republicans make when denying climate change.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

"Funding for science has changed with the times. Historically, science has been largely supported through private patronage (the backing of a prominent person or family), church sponsorship, or simply paying for the research yourself. Galileo's work in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example, was supported mainly by wealthy individuals, including the Pope. Darwin's Beagle voyage in the 19th century was, on the other hand, funded by the British government — the vessel was testing clocks and drawing maps for the navy — and his family's private assets financed the rest of his scientific work. Today, researchers are likely to be funded by a mix of grants from various government agencies, institutions, and foundations. For example, a 2007 study of the movement of carbon in the ocean was funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Australian Cooperative Research Centre, and the Australian Antarctic Division.1

Other research is funded by private companies — such as the pharmaceutical company that financed a recent study comparing different drugs administered after heart failure.2 Such corporate sponsorship is widespread in some fields. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.3 And, of course, some researchers today still fund small-scale studies out of their own pockets"

It is a "given" that all the funding for the pro-climate-change science comes from institutions already on record as coming down on the side of pro-anthropomorphic-climate-change. Should we then question it? Is the solution to cut off the funding -- or to come up with better science to refute it?

I don’t think it is “given” that pro-climate change research is funded by pro-climate change agencies. The sources listed are largely government grants, not a publicly traded company with a serious profit motive.

Exxon used to fund pro-climate change research - until they decided it was bad for the bottom line.

 

[eleos1954]

"Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
...
There she occasionally mocks what she calls "climate alarmists" who say time is almost out unless humanity weans itself off fossil fuels. In her blog and on Twitter, she has also criticized some of the scientists, including Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and Harvard University climate historian Naomi Oreskes, who have become leading voices for climate action. She has testified in front of Congress, boosted by politicians who use her work to argue that environmental regulations and a scaling down of fossil fuel use will be ineffective. Her work is frequently invoked by climate skeptics and denialists. Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise."
from: PEOPLE: Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

well ... what christians know is that one day .... it's going to get UNBELIEVABLY HOT! ;o) When the Lord destroys the world by fire.

 

[grantdenning]

well ... what christians know is that one day .... it's going to get UNBELIEVABLY HOT! ;o) When the Lord destroys the world by fire.

Until that day comes, which could be many thousands of years away, I would prefer that my kids & grandkids live in a world that hasn't 1st been destroyed by man!

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Politics is ideological and self-interested, so are people meaning neither side of the issue is completely honest and truthful. It only helps to identify sources of funding to ensure credibility, but it should be about the science regarding claims and studies.

Also I do believe there's a difference being a climate denier and a truth seeker. Judith Curry doesn't deny the science and does believe the earth is warming. It's the understanding of climate facts and what it means regarding humanity. Whether it's as apocalyptic and urgent as most feared, and if so could we actually do enough to make a difference.

 

[eleos1954]

Until that day comes, which could be many thousands of years away, I would prefer that my kids & grandkids live in a world that hasn't 1st been destroyed by man!

Isaiah 24:4-6

The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.

 

[The Barbarian]

Correction - A (ie one) Congressional Democrat is investigating. “Investigating” meaning sending letters to the universities of 7 climate change deniers about where their funding comes from. This was in response to revelations that Dr Soon from Harvard - another climate change denier - failed to disclose $1.2 million he got from fossil fuel companies.

That was a serious ethical lapse on Soon's part. But it's understandable. He's writing reports and getting huge payments from companies funding climate denial.

Even many of these companies are now admitting that humans are causing warming. They are now paying people to claim that it isn't that big a deal.

 

[grantdenning]

Isaiah 24:4-6
The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.

Isaiah was referring to Israel when the Jews were driven into exile by the Babylonians. it isn't a future prophesy. Don't destroy the planet cause of some verse you have read in the bible. We still have to live here!

 

[eleos1954]

Isaiah was referring to Israel when the Jews were driven into exile by the Babylonians. it isn't a future prophesy. Don't destroy the planet cause of some verse you have read in the bible. We still have to live here!

When Adam & Eve sinned ... sin entered the world and affected the environment as well.

Genesis 3:17-19
And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

1 Chronicles 29:11

"Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Yours is the dominion, O LORD, and You exalt Yourself as head over all

1 Corinthians 10:26

FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.

The earth belongs to the Lord what happens to it is ultimately up to Him.

On the logical side, IF mankind can do anything significant in regard to air pollution it would take a worldwide effort (not going to happen) ... including China - The air in Beijing is so polluted that breathing it does as much damage to the lungs as smoking 40 cigarettes a day, says a new study.

Pollution problems has been reaching to significant levels by the large amount of wastes generated from the natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic activities, natural forest fires, tornados, flooding, tsunami, etc.

Matthew 24

4 Jesus answered, “See to it that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. These things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Until that day comes, which could be many thousands of years away, I would prefer that my kids & grandkids live in a world that hasn't 1st been destroyed by man!

Isaiah was referring to Israel when the Jews were driven into exile by the Babylonians. it isn't a future prophesy. Don't destroy the planet cause of some verse you have read in the bible. We still have to live here!

Well said. I think it is morally irresponsible and deeply selfish for any Christian to carelessly damage the environment on a whim just because they believe God will destroy the Earth someday.

"Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect."

^ The quote above has been credited to Chief Seattle (Suquamish and Duwamish).

 

[Erik Nelson]

I don’t think it is “given” that pro-climate change research is funded by pro-climate change agencies. The sources listed are largely government grants, not a publicly traded company with a serious profit motive.

Exxon used to fund pro-climate change research - until they decided it was bad for the bottom line.

I refer you to Adam Grant's GIVE & TAKE even just the first chapter there.

Adam grant defines a "taker" mentality. Using the words "black hole"

A taker is someone who tries to exploit every one and everything in their environment taking. And not giving back.

One example, he describes is Kenneth Lay the former executive of Enron. Kenneth Lay made a great show of charity. Fooling people into thinking he was a "giver". But behind the scenes. He milked Enron for everything it was worth flying him and his family around in Enron's private planes and selling $70 Million worth of stock on insider information just before the company crashed.

But then Adam Grant says that, according to psychological profiles. Most top scientists also have the exact same taker mentality.

Top scientists certainly make a show of caring for the environment. And the climate. But behind the scenes. They certainly get a lot of funding from somewhere. If Kenneth Lay was in their shoes. Kenneth Lay would milk. The system for everything it's worth. With no regard for the consequences or for scientific accuracy.

But maybe we should be optimistic is there REALLY any evidence that "Kenneth Lay is science czar" so to speak?

Backreaction: The present phase of stagnation in the foundations of physics is not normal

How long can they go on with this, you ask? How long can they keep on spinning theory-tales?

I am afraid there is nothing that can stop them. They review each other’s papers. They review each other’s grant proposals. And they constantly tell each other that what they are doing is good science. Why should they stop? For them, all is going well. They hold conferences, they publish papers, they discuss their great new ideas. From the inside, it looks like business as usual, just that nothing comes out of it.

This is not a problem that will go away by itself.​