Interview with Judy Curry

[Lord of Planar]

You've failed to understand. Nobody knows for sure what will happen but the projected outcomes aren't good. The change in weather could easily result in large food crop failures, massive fires, devastating droughts, devastating water events, more pandemics, etc, etc. You want to roll the dice on that. Why? What's your reasoning for risking it? Try to give some good reasons.

And, yes, it's also a complete existential threat. We could cause runaway climate change.

We roll the dice all the time. Would you have us put a stop to all technological and population advances?

We know that the effect of greenhouse gasses are very minimal in the equatorial regions, and strongest in the polar regions. The effect varies by latitude. What we don't know is the absolute amounts of positive and negative responses from CO2 and other variables. The greenhouse gas hypothesis suggests that we will be able to grow so much more food, as the temperate regions of the planet grow larger. Growing seasons should get longer in northern and southern latitudes. With almost no warming in the equatorial areas, and warmer temperate areas, this as a positive factor for a growing population. In the Arctic, it is still well below freezing. Yes, we have lots of ice melting there, more rapid than we have observed in the p[ast, but look at what else we have.

SOOT!

Notice we don't have the same loss of ice in Antarctica. That's because very little soot gets deposited on that ice. In fact, studies are mixed. Some say there is a net loss, and some say there is a net gain in the Antarctic ice mass. The ice loss is driven in the western area, and the ice gain is driven in the eastern area.

Guess what is there is the western part. The Ring of Fire.

 

[longview]

You've failed to understand. Nobody knows for sure what will happen but the projected outcomes aren't good. The change in weather could easily result in large food crop failures, massive fires, devastating droughts, devastating water events, more pandemics, etc, etc. You want to roll the dice on that. Why? What's your reasoning for risking it? Try to give some good reasons.

And, yes, it's also a complete existential threat. We could cause runaway climate change.

You say nobody knows, but then follow it up with saying projected outcomes are not good!
The reality is only the projected outcomes of certain combinations of variables are not good, and those combinations are nearly impossible.
Consider RCP8.5, an emission lever of over 12 ppm per year for the next 79 years!
CO2 growth for the last 20 years is between 2 and 3 ppm per year!

 

[Threegoofs]

We roll the dice all the time. Would you have us put a stop to all technological and population advances?

We know that the effect of greenhouse gasses are very minimal in the equatorial regions, and strongest in the polar regions. The effect varies by latitude. What we don't know is the absolute amounts of positive and negative responses from CO2 and other variables. The greenhouse gas hypothesis suggests that we will be able to grow so much more food, as the temperate regions of the planet grow larger. Growing seasons should get longer in northern and southern latitudes. With almost no warming in the equatorial areas, and warmer temperate areas, this as a positive factor for a growing population. In the Arctic, it is still well below freezing. Yes, we have lots of ice melting there, more rapid than we have observed in the p[ast, but look at what else we have.

SOOT!

Notice we don't have the same loss of ice in Antarctica. That's because very little soot gets deposited on that ice. In fact, studies are mixed. Some say there is a net loss, and some say there is a net gain in the Antarctic ice mass. The ice loss is driven in the western area, and the ice gain is driven in the eastern area.

Guess what is there is the western part. The Ring of Fire.

The soot accelerates the melting thats resulting from warming. And theres no question its warming. And theres no question its anthropogenic.

 

[maxparrish]

“
Judith Curry: Well, a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. ...

Interview: Climate Change – A Different Perspective with Judith Curry

by Judith Curry My recent interview on the Strong and Free podcast.

judithcurry.com

We are supposed to see her as an unbiased expert, but she starts the interview with a right-wing biased conspiracy statement: “Judith Curry: Well, a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. A lot of it really comes from that kind of thinking.”

That sort of conspiratorial mindset casts a pall on everything else that she says and immediately lessens her credibility by making it seem like she actually has a political rather than a scientific agenda.

Nope. She "starts off" in answering, in detail, two questions from Baskaran, her interviewer. In reply to the first she explained to him her interest in science from the 5th grade, and then in geology and later physics, and finally in meteorology. And she spoke of her eventual Phd from the University of Chicago in the department of geophysical sciences, and her thesis on radiative transfer in Artic weather. In response to a second question from Baskaran on the nature of the conversation of climate change in the 70s and 80s, she mentioned what the major issues were at that time.

Judith Curry: Climate change wasn’t a really big issue at that point. At the time, it was all about geophysical fluid dynamics, trying to understand the circulations of atmosphere and the ocean, radiative transfer, cloud physics. It was, it was very physics based. I would hear in the media about people talking about, Oh, the ice age is coming , or doom and gloom from CO2 emissions, but nobody was really paying attention to all that very much in terms of what I would say the mainstream field until the late 1980s, really. There were some very rambunctious people who were talking about this publicly and painting alarming scenarios on both sides, the cold and the warm side, and most people that I knew and where I was, nobody was really paying much attention to all that.

What I don't see is a "right-wing biased conspiracy statement". But what I do read is of her impression of a mainstream profession in the 70s and 80s, at the time, that avoided getting immersed in the emergent partisan "causes" and sensationalism.

Balkaran then asked and she replied:

Balkaran: ...all I heard of, on a much smaller scale was how important the environment is. It’s taken over so many, so many spheres of our discourse. But in the late eighties, you start seeing this kind of discussion on climate change. What do you think are, were some of the underpinnings that guided both sides, was kind of this kind of protest towards big oil or capitalism more broadly?

Judith Curry: Well, a lot of it comes from the UN Environmental Program. At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil. A lot of it really comes from that kind of thinking. And the UNEP was one of the sponsoring organizations for the IPCC. And so that really engaged more climate scientists and really brought it more into the mainstream. But in the early days, a lot of scientists didn’t like this at all, they didn’t think that we should be going in this direction. And this was even the World Climate Research program and the World Meteorological Organization, they didn’t want to get involved in man-made climate change under the auspices of the IPCC.

So where is that "conspiracy statement"? A characterization of UN's push of internationalism and left's anti-capitalism is an opinion, but the factuality of her statement is correct. In the early days a lot of scientists (particularly the World Meteorological Organization) didn't want to become involved in man-made climate change under the auspices of the IPCC.

Therefore, "The pall" that provides you an excuse to not learn from her scientific work, even if she is a undisputed accomplished climate science scholar, is just that - a political excuse. You don't want to learn anything from someone's whose political viewpoint isn't yours, and you so you operate under the assumption that even on issues of science they must be wrong.

Any excuse for being closed minded, is it?

 

[watsup]

Nope. She "starts off" in answering, in detail, two questions from Baskaran, her interviewer. In reply to the first she explained to him her interest in science from the 5th grade, and then in geology and later physics, and finally in meteorology. And she spoke of her eventual Phd from the University of Chicago in the department of geophysical sciences, and her thesis on radiative transfer in Artic weather. In response to a second question from Baskaran on the nature of the conversation of climate change in the 70s and 80s, she mentioned what the major issues were at that time.



What I don't see is a "right-wing biased conspiracy statement". But what I do read is of her impression of a mainstream profession in the 70s and 80s, at the time, that avoided getting immersed in the emergent partisan "causes" and sensationalism.

Balkaran then asked and she replied:




So where is that "conspiracy statement"? A characterization of UN's push of internationalism and left's anti-capitalism is an opinion, but the factuality of her statement is correct. In the early days a lot of scientists (particularly the World Meteorological Organization) didn't want to become involved in man-made climate change under the auspices of the IPCC.

Therefore, "The pall" that provides you an excuse to not learn from her scientific work, even if she is a undisputed accomplished climate science scholar, is just that - a political excuse. You don't want to learn anything from someone's whose political viewpoint isn't yours, and you so you operate under the assumption that even on issues of science they must be wrong.

Any excuse for being closed minded, is it?

Everything I said was correct. You are just trying to spin her words away from what she actually said. This is a conspiracy theory for,which she provides no actual source other than her own say-so: “At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil.” Show me the “science” in her statements. There was none, It was all her personal opinions that stand in line with those of the common sort of climate change deniers.

 

[maxparrish]

Everything I said was correct. You are just trying to spin her words away from what she actually said. This is a conspiracy theory for,which she provides no actual source other than her own say-so: “At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil.” Show me the “science” in her statements. There was none, It was all her personal opinions that stand in line with those of the common sort of climate change deniers.

Everything was correct until you expressed your opinion based on a uncontextualized quote. What she said and the context in which it was said has now been established and no reasonable person would mistake the question asked or her response to it as an accusation of a conspiracy.

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word conspiracy: It is: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.". So point out to us were either the questioner or the responder (Curry) say anything about "a group's secret plan to do something harmful"? You cannot...

Q: "What do you think are, were some of the underpinnings that guided both sides, was kind of this kind of protest towards big oil or capitalism more broadly?"

A (Curry): “At the time, there was a push towards world government, socialistic kind of leanings, don’t like capitalism and big oil."

But your false characterization of her comment is not your greatest sin, rather it is of your grotesque logical fallacy of irrelevance, that of your assumption her work and argument is wrong on the basis of her presumed political identity.

In short, you won't read more because she is a "politically incorrect" person, and you think your own refusal to learn is an argument.

That won't do, my friend.

 

[watsup]

Everything was correct until you expressed your opinion based on a uncontextualized quote. What she said and the context in which it was said has now been established and no reasonable person would mistake the question or her response as an accusation of conspiracy.

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word conspiracy: ""a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.". So point out to us were either the questioner or the responder (Curry) say anything about "a group's secret plan to do something harmful"?



But your false characterization of her comment is not your greatest sin, rather it is of your grotesque use of the logical fallacy of irrelevance, that of assuming her work and argument is wrong on the basis of her presumed political identity.

In short, you won't read more because she is "politically incorrect", and you think your own biased hand waving is an argument.

You are still welcome to show me an actual science-based as opposed to political-based response in that interview. Please be specific.