Sure, here in the USA, one expects the left wing to attack any scientist not following explicit directives to promote the man ruins climate dialog. I ask if man controls climate and get told, of course not. Then stop bothering us about your alarmist teachings.
You do NOT "present science" what you are calling science is claptrap hooey and junk Science is published peer reviewed articles that are well referrenced. And since you seem to like you tube so much how about this one?
Gosh no, you present memes and not much more. I have created this corner to present science. And you hate science.
Then present some real science Not blog posts Not opinion pieces Not you tube waffle But REAL science Peer reviewed published science
Of course. But will you actually look it over? You constantly refuse science I bring here. Here are 243 peer reviewed papers on this topic. Suggest you look them over. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
I looked over your last piece of rubbish and critiqued it Just because you did not like the critique does not mean I did not read it. I repeat it was NOT science it was film flam with big words made to look like a science paper /And now you plop someone else's list in front of me and demand me to critique those. It is Lindzens papers and I have critiqued them in the past Tell ME though because I have not found it - which of those papers state that climate change in unequivocally not happening
You want to make things up and seek my confirmation? No thanks. Lindzen as a true scientist worked on this till he retired. I see the excuse how you studied his papers and recall them verbatim and brushed this great scientist off. Why are you doing this? Again, are you making money from this?
I repeat - which of those papers backs your contention that climate change is not happening because most of the ones I have read confirm it His colleagues do not seem to think much of his opinions https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...l-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump So, which one of these papers that you have listed says CO2 is not a pollutant?
Lindzen also has been paid to be a "sceptic" As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties. [94] https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
I read her article on WattsUpWithThat, its here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02...te-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/ Its a good article, she clearly supports AGW, believes people who do not believe it are "deniers", but she also really slams the scientific community for screwing up the issue and losing the trust of the people. She also refuted a lot of what the warmists claim, such as the "science is settled". And the comments after the article are pretty revealing as well.
<Reply to Deleted> Curry is clearly not a denier, but she does criticize the scientific community for presenting the AGW subject poorly and thereby creating the "AGW denier" community.
Come one she does more than that since she runs a blog site that is LESS discriminating than WUWT and that is saying something. She was chair of the Berkeley Earth Project until it the results came in and then she did an about face
The climate debate is rather irrelevant at this point. If deniers are correct then we have nothing to worry about and if science is correct there is nothing we can do about it. At this point everyone is so dug in it no longer even matters beyond a debate topic. In my opinion things will soon get really fun (SIC) as THIS really kicks in...we aint seen nothin' yet.
Your video is absolute crap, pumping opinions opposed by the vast majority of climate related scientists around the world. Then it talks about how solutions will fail - which is NOT an issue of whether humans are causing warming. That is, the fact that this publicist doesn't know of a solution is NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE PROBLEM DOESN'T EXIST!!!
Well of course, her willingness to consider all of the science instead of the unscientific dogma puts her in the crosshairs of a new multi billion dollar industry.
Her science sucks badly. In 2013, she predicted immediate strong cooling. That was immediately followed by record warming. She failed as hard as it's possible for a scientist to fail. Trump cultists love that, because they love failure. Instead of sticking around to explain why her science failed so completely, she screamed that all the other scientists were frauds who were persecuting her, and ran from the field. Trump cultists love that, because they love cowardice. She them formed a "forecasting company", which doesn't ever reveal what it's forecasting, or who its clients are. That is, it's a front company that makes it legal to get bribes from conservatives and fossil fuel interests. I mean, given her record of forecasting failure, who would actually want her forecasts? They pay her for "forecasts", and she issues propaganda in return. Trump cultists love that, because they love bribery and corruption.
You mean in 2013 she surmised stadium waves could explain the lull in warming. A far cry from predicting cooling.
Talk about control and influence, Dr. Curry has agreed to take on the "enemy" on their terms. I plan to see if I can free time to watch her or at least see it on you tube. This woman is brave. She can't collect the huge money those blaming humans can make, but she stands up to the huge money. Good for her. https://judithcurry.com/2018/05/28/the-debate/#more-24124
You and i must live with the Democrats or those like them telling lies about Dr. Curry. Merely because of her work predicting hurricanes and selling that data to the gulf oil firms she is supposedly in the pocket of oil. Hell, if one sells salt and pepper to oil firms this puts them in the pockets of big oil too I suppose. They think so strangely.
Talk about cooling, we here in the West part of the USA are tired of hearing of all the warming. We could use warming. It has rocked us two past years of cool. We want to be the Golden State. So where is all the warm?
She has very little reliable track record on hurricane prediction Olmsted to NOAA https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.t...urricane-season-2018-forecast-prediction-noaa
Advice given to Dr. Curry for the debate. nickreality65 | May 29, 2018 at 12:19 am | Reply “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard P. Feynman For the up/down/”back” radiation of greenhouse theory’s GHG energy loop to function as advertised (K-T diagram) earth’s “surface” must radiate as an ideal black body, i.e. 16 C/289 K, 1.0 emissivity = 396 W/m^2. As demonstrated by my modest experiment (1 & 2) the presence of the atmospheric molecules participating with conductive, convective and latent heat processes renders this ideal black body radiation impossible. Radiation’s actual share of the surface heat’s upward departure and an effective emissivity of 0.16, i.e. 63/396. Without this GHG energy loop, radiative greenhouse theory collapses. Without RGHE theory, man-caused climate change does not exist.
