The politics of climate change

[BabyBoomer50s]

In the aftermath of Helene and Milton, and all of the pseudo scientific perspectives on the internet and cable news networks, this interview with Dr. Judith Curry is very timely. Her unassailable climate science credentials and clear-headed commentary are well worth the 23 minutes it takes to watch this video. Enjoy, and if this is a subject you’re interested in, her website, Climate Etc, features a treasure trove current research, commentary, and robust discussion. Much of it is geeky, but there’s plenty of interesting reading for the layman as well.

 

[RobDownSouth]

In the aftermath of Helene and Milton, and all of the pseudo scientific perspectives on the internet and cable news networks, this interview with Dr. Judith Curry is very timely. Her unassailable climate science credentials and clear-headed commentary are well worth the 23 minutes it takes to watch this video. Enjoy, and if this is a subject you’re interested in, her website, Climate Etc, features a treasure trove current research, commentary, and robust discussion. Much of it is geeky, but there’s plenty of interesting reading for the layman as well.

<snip>

Judith Curry is a climate change denialist.

She is regularly trotted out by conservative groups after major weather events.

She is a nutter. A nutter with a phD, but a nutter nonetheless.

Next up: CHEMTRAILS!

 

[deckardB26354]

Since you’re posting this video I was thinking that I had two choices: watch as much of the video as I could stomach and then smash myself in the head with a brick as a result from the frustration and anger about how stupid it is, or just continue on with my day knowing that you’re full of shit.

I chose the latter.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Judith Curry is a climate change denialist.

She is regularly trotted out by conservative groups after major weather events.

She is a nutter. A nutter with a phD, but a nutter nonetheless.

Next up: CHEMTRAILS!

You don’t know what you’re talking about and you didn’t even listen to what she said. She clearly states that global temperatures have been rising, that greenhouse gases are rising, and that CO2 and other gases contribute to temperature increases. Her credentials on the subject go far beyond her advanced degrees.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Judith Curry is a climate change denialist.

She is regularly trotted out by conservative groups after major weather events.

She is a nutter. A nutter with a phD, but a nutter nonetheless.

Next up: CHEMTRAILS!

I suppose because you yourself are a fucking nutter that makes you a pseudo expert at pointing out who you believe are nutters too. Just curious but what is your advanced degree in?

 

[ll74]

I'm more interested in her change of perspective and timeline of such. I have no opinion on her or her views.

 

[deckardB26354]

Yes, everyone that’s stupid enough to believe that climate change is currently happening—and speeding up in some places—and that we’re all “nutters” right?

Ok, moron.

Do scientists agree on climate change?​

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

How do scientists know climate change is happening?​

https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck_digest/how-do-scientists-know-climate-change-is-happening/

Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying – IPCC​

https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/

 

[Lazaran]

In the aftermath of Helene and Milton, and all of the pseudo scientific perspectives on the internet and cable news networks, this interview with Dr. Judith Curry is very timely. Her unassailable climate science credentials and clear-headed commentary are well worth the 23 minutes it takes to watch this video. Enjoy, and if this is a subject you’re interested in, her website, Climate Etc, features a treasure trove current research, commentary, and robust discussion. Much of it is geeky, but there’s plenty of interesting reading for the layman as well.

BabyBoobs knows the politics of climate change are shifting to strongly favoring the prescience and leadership of Democrats - and BabyBoobs is terrified. Hence, this thread, which is a transparent attempt at gaslighting about the issue.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Since you’re posting this video I was thinking that I had two choices: watch as much of the video as I could stomach and then smash myself in the head with a brick as a result from the frustration and anger about how stupid it is, or just continue on with my day knowing that you’re full of shit.

I chose the latter.

Ok. Thanks for letting everyone know.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I'm more interested in her change of perspective and timeline of such. I have no opinion on her or her views.

No shortage of peer reviewed papers she’s written on various aspects on climate science.

 

[deckardB26354]

I'm more interested in her change of perspective and timeline of such. I have no opinion on her or her views.

Perhaps this?

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

 

[ll74]

Perhaps this?

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

Yes, I know how to find such things. It just doesn't fit into this thread and I don't have enough time or interest at the moment to discuss

 

[ll74]

No shortage of peer reviewed papers she’s written on various aspects on climate science.

That is unrelated to my interest.

 

[deckardB26354]

Ok. Thanks for letting everyone know.

I’m pretty sure everyone here knows that you’re full of shit.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs knows the politics of climate change are shifting to strongly favoring the prescience and leadership of Democrats - and BabyBoobs is terrified. Hence, this thread, which is a transparent attempt at gaslighting about the issue.



BabyBoobs

The “prescience and leadership of Democrats”

No thanks. Perspectives from credentialed climate scientists work better for me.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I’m pretty sure everyone here knows that you’re full of shit.

Any points of disagreement with Dr. Curry’s comments?

 

[ll74]

The “prescience and leadership of Democrats”

No thanks. Perspectives from credentialed climate scientists work better for me.

I would be interested in why this particular one holds more weight when so many others do not

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I would be interested in why this particular one holds more weight when so many others do not

Since the vast majority scientists agree on the facts she stated in the interview, I suspect the pundits disagree on the politics.

 

[ll74]

Since the vast majority scientists agree on the facts she stated in the interview, I suspect the pundits disagree on the politics.

Perhaps she's just incorrect in her analysis.

 

[Lazaran]

The “prescience and leadership of Democrats”

No thanks. Perspectives from credentialed climate scientists work better for me.

Why did BabyBoobs start this thread???



We. Know. Why.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Perhaps she's just incorrect in her analysis.

Is she wrong that
- temperature is been rising since the 1800s?
- that CO2 and other gases have been rising?
- that GHGs contribute to global warming?
- that natural forces cannot be ignored?
- that the cost of higher temperatures should be balanced against the benefits?
- that there is uncertainty about the impact of GHGs vs natural forces?
- that reducing GHGs and reliance on petroleum based energy will yield positive benefits, but it cannot and will not happen overnight?
- that the transition from petroleum cannot happen without petroleum in the mix?
- that rooftop solar belongs in the mix?
- that modern nuclear power technology is emerging as a high impact part of the mix?
- that AI is fostering major investments in nuclear energy?

Look, 40 years of climate alarmism and international virtue signaling hasn’t made petroleum obsolete.

 

[ll74]

Is she wrong that
- temperature is been rising since the 1800s?
- that CO2 and other gases have been rising?
- that GHGs contribute to global warming?
- that natural forces cannot be ignored?
- that the cost of higher temperatures should be balanced against the benefits?
- that there is uncertainty about the impact of GHGs vs natural forces?
- that reducing GHGs and reliance on petroleum based energy will yield positive benefits, but it cannot and will not happen overnight?
- that the transition from petroleum cannot happen without petroleum in the mix?
- that rooftop solar belongs in the mix?
- that modern nuclear power technology is emerging as a high impact part of the mix?
- that AI is fostering major investments in nuclear energy?

Look, 40 years of climate alarmism and international virtue signaling hasn’t made petroleum obsolete.

Lol

I get that you believe in her message.

But many don't who are in the same field.

Which brings me back to my previous question....why do you give her message more weight than the others?

(And why did her message change?)

 

[RobDownSouth]

You don’t know what you’re talking about and you didn’t even listen to what she said. She clearly states that global temperatures have been rising, that greenhouse gases are rising, and that CO2 and other gases contribute to temperature increases. Her credentials on the subject go far beyond her advanced degrees.

I read her wikipedia entry and when I found out she is a "professional weather contrarian" I made the executive decision ignore anything and everything she might say.

Life is too short to spend listening to nutters, particularly climate change denialist nutters.

YMMV

 

[Chernosoth]

She is a nutter. A nutter with a phD, but a nutter nonetheless.

A female nutter. And a doctor. There is porn for that.

 

[Lazaran]

I read her wikipedia entry and when I found out she is a "professional weather contrarian" I made the executive decision ignore anything and everything she might say.

Life is too short to spend listening to nutters, particularly climate change denialist nutters.

YMMV

Not so much a nutter as an unwitting / well intentioned USEFUL idiot for the climate change denial crowd / cult. (See: BabyBoobs, etc, USING her.)