Judith Curry: How Climate “Science” Got Hijacked by Alarmists
August 8, 2023
By Paul Homewood
This is a must watch:
23 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Phillip Bratby on ‘Green’ renewable… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… vickimh234 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… Phoenix44 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… bnice2000 on Global Heating Will Increase P… vickimh234 on How Wet Was The Spring? vickimh234 on Labour’s Green Obsession…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Judith Curry is one in a thousand. A person who stands up for what they believe in. Humanity hangs in the balance without such people. They are the vital steel cables that hold the damn structure up. She is a hero of mine. Thanks for posting this up!
The worst thing is the fact that the former editor of SCIENCE who wouldn’t even consider papers from skeptics is now the head of the US National Academies of Sciences. Their journal…Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences regularly publishes articles that tend to support the “consensus”. More censorship?
She beat me to it. Yesterday I replied to a colleague that my greatest fear for our business was AI. The only story that is allowed on the internet is the so called climate crisis. A balanced view is not allowed because of de facto censorship. That means AI will only support the crisis view and not reality. I am not worried about AI. I am deeply concerned about the lack of real intelligence RI. That is lacking in most of the clowns that mis-govern us.
notify comments
Brilliant. The truth sounds great when you hear it.
Institutional capture by people with vested and ideological interests is not confined to the United States, the UK and the EEC. Just more spectacularly efficient. The penalty is the decline in labour productivity along with the increasing concentration of income and wealth. Empires in the last stage of decline, teetering on the edge of an abyss? Grumpy elder?
‘Money makes the world go round’ and ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ are the two maxims that describe the climate change farce. The climate ‘experts’ know absolutely nothing about climate, or should I say, climates – how they originated, how they function, and whether they have the ability to affect them in any way. But they are more than happy to dance to the tune of the globalists, who pay them to spout rubbish and deceive the simple-minded. There used to be a television series called ‘Fantasy Island’. Now, through these morons, it has become Fantasy World.
I’ve noticed before that when I link to Youtube from here it is ‘blocked.’
YouTube plays games with IP addresses. That is the most likely reason for “blocking”
This video is definitely worth sharing with the world.
“Curry agrees that Climate Change is a problem …”
Again the surrender to the narrative. People must stop doing that.
William Happer’s lectures and his work with Van Wijngaarden are all that needs to be said to show that the whole thing is nonsense and a fraud.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-radiative-transfer-paper-for-five-greenhouse-gases-explained/
“Surrender to the narrative” spot on.
A big and common problem. Showing weakness just encourages them. They are not your friends, nothing is gained by trying to keep onside with them.
The whole issue is a basic misunderstanding of the Greenhouse Effect. Correct explanation :-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NwK5-McCOFaAxpkhAR9RlJcKh2lkA9IQ_u6gFzCcAnQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
Why not call it the Polytunnel Effect? Except that polythene is transparent to IR! Slip that into the conversation, fun for all the family. (Special grades of IR absorbent polythene are sometimes used to prevent scorching of, for example, lettuces by incoming IR.)
I didn’t name it.
Yes, a greenhouse does not mimic the atmosphere or vice versa.
The consensus on the effect is incorrect as shown in the link.
No, indeed, just something else to start some questioning of the narrative with luck.
I love Judith – she’s a brave, talented woman who makes complex climate science understandable
See also: “It’s time for this country’s hard-working, not-so-silent politicians to stop misleading the public about the green agenda” !!!
Business Green Aug 7th James Murray
It will be good to see the full interview….hopefully Paul links to it when it appears.
You are right in your criticism of the consensus science. It is incorrect and for the reason you state. Good luck breaking through.
I agree with Nigel Sherratt and Dennis Ambler (Aug 9th at 0951 am). Although I admire Dr Curry for being able to accept that her initial understanding was erroneous, I can’t agree with her statement that ‘Climate Change is a problem…’ (Note, here I’m using the definition the CC is anthropogenic and due mostly to the emitting of CO2 and other so called GHGs.)
**Put simply, there is no mechanism.**
Expanding on that, there is no physical mechanism whereby the increase in CO2 can possibly cause any significant warming of the planet’s surface or near surface.
The very basic misunderstanding of the Warmist or, in Dr Curry’s case, Lukewarmist narrative is that the downgoing radiation (back radiation) emitted by atmospheric CO2 is somehow – in any way – absorbed for energy gain by a receiving surface mllecule. This is a theme often repeated in various papers and is simply false. The downgoing arrow of energy from the atmosphere to the surface is thermally irrelevant – globally. Such longer wavelength energy cannot be absorbed for internal energy gain by a molecule that is already at a higher energy state. The NASA or Trenberth flow diagrams are scientifically dishonest. It doesn’t matter how many PhDs you have, you can’t change the Laws of physics. To get any course correction in this runaway train of Climate Crisis by cAGW, one has to argue against ‘The Science’ (which is a non-scientific soundbite and has nothing to do with science), and not the extraneous sideshows such as risk, feedbacks and manufacturing of consensus or manipulation of data. ‘The Machine’ will ignore such tactics.
As Nigel Sherratt said, ‘..there is nothing to gain by siding with them.’ An argument based on a false assumption is meaningless.
agree with Nigel Sherratt and Dennis Ambler (Aug 9th at 0951 am). Although I admire Dr Curry for being able to accept that her initial understanding was erroneous, I can’t agree with her statement that ‘Climate Change is a problem…’ (Note, here I’m using the definition the CC is anthropogenic and due mostly to the emitting of CO2 and other so called GHGs.)
**Put simply, there is no mechanism.**
Expanding on that, there is no physical mechanism whereby the increase in CO2 can possibly cause any significant warming of the planet’s surface or near surface.
The very basic misunderstanding of the Warmist or, in Dr Curry’s case, Lukewarmist narrative is that the downgoing radiation (back radiation) emitted by atmospheric CO2 is somehow – in any way – absorbed for energy gain by a receiving surface mllecule. This is a theme often repeated in various papers and is simply false. The downgoing arrow of energy from the atmosphere to the surface is thermally irrelevant – globally. Such longer wavelength energy cannot be absorbed for internal energy gain by a molecule that is already at a higher energy state. The NASA or Trenberth flow diagrams are scientifically dishonest. It doesn’t matter how many PhDs you have, you can’t change the Laws of physics. To get any course correction in this runaway train of Climate Crisis by cAGW, one has to argue against ‘The Science’ (which is a non-scientific soundbite and has nothing to do with science), and not the extraneous sideshows such as risk, feedbacks and manufacturing of consensus. The machine will ignore such tactics
As Nigel Sherratt said, ‘..there is nothing to gain by siding with them.’ An argument based on a false assumption is meaningless.
Apologies for the repeated text after the first ‘meaningless’. I’m on a bumpy train!