Well, given you refuse to praise others who are gathering the trash put into the ocean by others and how you sneer at their efforts, I know you won't work on the atmosphere and will keep whining. I come here to present solutions.
Judy has actual data on sea level rise. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/#more-24504
You must mean you never noticed. When will you present a solution to the alleged problems over climate?
Let's bring in another climate scientist. This man is Professor Willie Soon at Camp Constitution 7-3-17 Now, how can a genuine climate scientist call it a hoax? To the Democrats, your challenge is to watch the video and do not ask me to translate it to you. If you read this, you can read English and translate it as well.
State a problem and what your solution is. I've seen no data suggesting that removing floating garbage from the ocean will slow warming.
This guy's arguments have been refuted. All you're doing is trolling the interet for guys whose claims you like. You really should be embarrassed.
So, the sole problem with the environment is per you --- warming? Professor Soon explains this. The problem is political.
And your arguments get refuted daily. By actual scientists. I and hopefully the forum will rest a bit easier when you knock off the personal attacks.
No, Curry is a climatologist, clearly identifying this thread as being about climate. Soon has had his ideas refuted by those who are climatologiists.
I have limited myself to posting the arguments of major scieentific organizations. I stand by my statements concerning Soon.
So, you cherry pick your authority. Did you notice that Soon could quite accurately explain why he is not on your bandwagon?
Soon's paper (with Baliunas) was roundly rejected by pretty much the entire field of climatology. He got his paper published by the journal Climate Research. Bush jumped all over it as a justification for amending the EPA report on the environment. Subsequent investigation resulted in the journal falling into disrepute for having published a fundamentally flawed paper. Half the editors resigned due to the fact that the review process had allowed the paper to be accepted. Soon is an embarrassment. Why did you post stuff from him? What research did you do when you decided to post this author as supporting your various opinions? Let's try to post stuff from reputable sources.
Oh but you are the negative authority here. If you don't like it, it never is right. But science does not care who has the proof, just allow it to be proof. As Soon says, a lot of the climate teaching is by those who are politicians first.
Soon basically committed the academic equivalent of fraud when he published that infamous paper. The conspiracy to get it published even took down most of the editorial staff of the journal. Nearly all of the authors in the various papers Soon cited came forward and said their work had been severely and fraudulently misrepresented. By the way, Soon has been predicting global cooling for decades and yet the Earth continues to warm. I'm just saying.
I return this Saturday, the 1st of Dec with more from Dr. Curry. Please enjoy more delightful scientific data. https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/01/week-in-review-science-edition-90/#more-24544 Week in review – science edition Posted on December 1, 2018 by curryja | 28 Comments by Judith Curry A few things that caught my eye this past week.
Amazing that no matter the climate scientist i bring up, out comes the naysayers to insult the source I use. More about Dr. Soon. WILLIE SOON CONTACT WILLIE SOON media@heartland.org312-377-4000 Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This bio and account of the work of Willie Soon debunks lies of the generously funded environmental left’s attacks on an honest climate scientist. At at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in 2014, Soon accepted the “Courage in Defense of Science Award.” "The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.’’ — Dr. Freeman Dyson in the Boston Globe, November 5, 2013 “The Heartland Institute stands four-square behind Willie Soon. He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist devoted entirely to pursuing scientific knowledge. His critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison. We plan to continue to work with Willie on future editions of Climate Change Reconsidered and feature him at future International Conferences on Climate Change.” — Joseph L. Bast, CEO, The Heartland Institute “The truth is that the Smithsonian received a number of grants and then paid Dr. Soon and others salaries and travel expenses. Dr. Soon’s immediate source of funding was the Smithsonian. Nothing more needs saying about this entire issue.” — Dr. Christopher Essex, University of Western Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS (Scroll down for more.) 1. Key facts about the controversy 2. Background 3. Articles defending Dr. Soon 4. Articles attacking Dr. Soon 5. Videos of Dr. Soon 6. Dr. Soon’s biography 7. Correspondence between The Heartland Institute and the U.S. Senate 1. Key facts about the controversy This page presents background information and facts about the controversy as well as links to some of the attacks on Dr. Soon as well as articles defending him. Dr. Soon's biography and a partial list of articles he has written for peer-reviewed journals is at the bottom of this page. In late February, 2015, Dr. Willie W.-H. Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters for major media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. and then became the basis for a coordinated campaign against global warming “skeptics” by liberal advocacy groups, Democratic U.S. senators and a congressman, and their allies in the mainstream media. * Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules. * Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source. * Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead. * The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years. * By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible. * Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources. * The Smithsonian’s investigation into its grant-making process is being led by John Kress, Interim Under Secretary for Science, kressj@si.edu, and Charles Alcock, director of the Center for Astrophysics, calcock@cfa.harvard.edu. 2. Background * Before this phony controversy erupted, “Why Models Run Hot” was downloaded from Science Bulletin some 10,000 times in just a few weeks — a very high number for a scientific paper. As of February 26, the paper has been downloaded more than 22,000 times (combined paper downloads and abstract readings), more than any other paper in the publication’s history. * The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics expressly forbids Soon to research and write about climate change while “on the clock” because it is allegedly unrelated to the center's focus. So it necessarily follows that the grants Soon raises to fund his position at Harvard-Smithsonian — which are agreements between the Harvard-Smithsonian Institution and donors, not between donors and Dr. Soon — did not pay for “Why Models Run Hot." * Soon stated to the Boston Globe in 2013: “No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself.” * The leftist Guardian newspaper reported on February 21, 2015 that Soon's arrangement with Harvard-Smithsonian is one in which he raises his own salary. This is not unusual and doesn’t mean he’s in a junior or inferior position at the center: “As is common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He receives his compensation from outside grant money, said Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics.” * Harvard-Smithsonian is publicly defending Soon: “Pulliam cast Soon’s association with the institutions as an issue of academic freedom: 'Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.' ” * Fifty-seven scientists sent a letter to the Harvard-Smithsonian on June 7, 2010 urging the center to reject the Greenpeace FOIA request in order to “protect Dr. Soon, to safeguard the integrity of the research process, and to reject this effort to bring undue and improper political influence to bear on scientific activities.” Read the letter here. * Climate scientists who favor the alarmist perspective seldom disclose the funding they receive from left-wing advocacy groups or government agencies whose RFPs clearly call for alarmist findings. For example, Michael Oppenheimer (See Why Doesn’t Boston Globe do funding story on UN IPCC & EDF Warmist Michael Oppenheimer?) and (Oppenheimer, a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense) and Kerry Emanuel: (National Academy of Sciences to investigate warmist Kerry Emanuel for failing to disclose insurance industry ties in recent study and Winning! JunkScience forces Emanuel to disclose insurance employers.) * None of the attack pieces dispute the science Soon presents. This is because the journalists simply took a news release from Greenpeace, a radical environmental group with no expertise on climate science and a record of exaggeration and attacks on climate scientists, and reported it as news. The "science reporters" assigned to these hit pieces — even from America's most prestigious outlets —don't know enough about science to comment on the merits of Dr. Soon’s work. * That the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics accepts outside funding to support the work of Dr. Soon and other scientists on its staff is old news. Kert Davies, the source of the latest smear, has been trying to demonize Dr. Soon and the Smithsonian Institution about this since 1997. This latest attempt to smear Dr. Soon and the Harvard-Smithsonian Institution is timed to distract attention some real news that exposes real corruption in the global warming movement: the resignations of the nation's "greenest" governor, John Kitzhaber of Oregon, and the chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Rajendra Pachauri. * Click here to see the emails released by the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace’s FOIA requests.
No, that's a misrepresentation of the main issue I pointed to. I didn't mention anything about Soon being corrupted by some nefarious source. All references to that are simply a deflection. My point is that his paper on the specific issue of science was deeply flawed. Having his cohorts say good things about Soon does not mean his paper is any less ridiculous.
A physicist speaks out Who thinks CO2 is a new gas? Who thinks Man the evil doer is ruining earth? Who thinks Man is in charge of climate? If man is not in charge of climate, tell me what is in charge of climate?
Here is a point by point refutation of this guy's GARBAGE! http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...About-Greenhouse-Gases-and-Climate-Change.pdf
Let's remember that every single substance we humans need in our diet, in our breathig, in our agriculture, etc., etc., may also be deadly if in concentrations that are too high or too low. Nobody in climatology is suggesting that CO2 is bad. But, when the concentration increases, side effects that are problematic become prevalent. Natural systems are always in some sort of balance. When some stimulus pushes on that balance, there are going to be responses that may or may not be positive for any interest group (such as humans living on earth).
