This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Kardashians And Climate Change: Interview With Judith Curry

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by James Stafford via,

Climate change continues to drive energy policy, despite the fact that there is no way to reconcile eradicating energy poverty in much of the world with reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This is one of the many conundrums of the climate change debate—a debate that has been taken over by social media and propaganda, while scientists struggle to get back into the game and engage the public.

Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, as well as the co-author of over 140 scientific papers. Her prolific writings offer a rational view of the climate change debate. You can find more of Judith’s work at her blog:

In an exclusive interview with, Curry discusses:

•    The Koch-funded climate denial machine
•    Why the public is losing trust in scientists
•    How alarmist propaganda has skewed the climate debate
•    How climate change has contributed to a new literary genre
•    The impact of social media and the ‘Kardashian Factor’
•    Climate and the ‘clash of values’
•    Global warming or global cooling?
•    The Polar Vortex and ‘global warming’
•    Extreme weather hysteria
•    Why climate change should not drive energy policy You've talked a lot about the role of communication and public relations in the climate change debate. Where do scientists fail in this respect?

Judith Curry: Climate science communication hasn’t been very effective in my opinion.  The dominant paradigm seems to be that a science knowledge deficit of the public and policy makers exists, which is exacerbated by the Koch-funded climate denial machine.  This knowledge deficit then results in the public failing to act with the urgency that is urged by climate scientists.

This strategy hasn’t worked for a lot of reasons. The chief one that concerns me as a scientist is that strident advocacy and alarmism is causing the public to lose trust in scientists. What is the balance between engagement with the public on this issue and propaganda?

Judith Curry: There are two growing trends in climate science communications – engagement and propaganda. Engagement involves listening and recognizes that communication is a two-way street. It involves collaboration between scientists, the public and policy makers, and recognizes that the public and policy makers don’t want to be told what to do by scientists. The other trend has been propaganda. The failure of the traditional model of climate science communication has resulted in more exaggeration and alarmism, appeals to authority, appeals to fear, appeals to prejudice, demonizing those that disagree, name-calling, oversimplification, etc.

There is a burgeoning field of social science research related to science communications.  Hopefully this will spur more engagement and less propaganda. You've also talked about the climate change debate creating a new literary genre. How is this 'Cli-Fi' phenomenon contributing to the intellectual level of the public debate and where do you see this going?

Judith Curry: I am very intrigued by Cli-Fi as a way to illuminate complex aspects of the climate debate. There are several sub-genres emerging in Cli-Fi – the dominant one seems to be dystopian (e.g. scorched earth). I am personally very interested in novels that involve climate scientists dealing with dilemmas, and also in how different cultures relate to nature and the climate. I think that Cli-Fi is a rich vein to be tapped for fictional writing. How would you describe the current intellectual level of the climate change debate?

Judith Curry: Well, the climate change debate seems to be diversifying, as sociologists, philosophers, engineers and scientists from other fields enter the fray. There is a growing realization that the UNFCCC/IPCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change/Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has oversimplified both the problem and its solution. The wicked climate problem is growing increasingly wicked as more and more dimensions come into play. The diversification helps with the confirmation bias and ‘groupthink’ problem.

Hopefully this diversification will lead to greater understanding and policies that are more robust to the deep uncertainties surrounding the climate change problem. You've also talked about the "Kardashian Factor" ... Can you expand on this?

Judith Curry: The Kardashian Factor relates to a scientist’s impact in social media.  There is a growing disconnect between scientists who impact within the ivory tower, as measured by publications and citations, versus those scientists that are tweeting and blogging. While some of the smartest people on the planet are university professors, most of them simply don’t matter in today’s great debates. The use of the term ‘Kardashian Factor’ is designed to marginalize social media impact as shallow popularity.

Social media is changing the world, and academia hasn’t quite figured out what to do about it. On issues relevant to public debate, social media is rivaling published academic research in its impact. Social media is leveling the playing field and democratizing science. The skills required to be successful in social media include good writing/communication skills and the abilities to synthesize, integrate, and provide context. Those who are most successful at social media also have a sense of humor and can connect to broader cultural issues – they also develop a trustworthy persona. These are non-trivial skills, and they are general traits of people that have impact.  

So, why do I do spend a lot of my time engaging with the public via social media? I’m interested in exploring social media as a tool for engaging with the public, group learning, exploring the science-policy interface, and pondering the many dimensions of the wicked climate problem. I would like to contribute to the public debate and support policy deliberations, I would like to educate a broader and larger group of people, and finally I would like to learn from people outside the group of my academic peers (and social media is a great way to network). I am trying to provoke people to think outside the box of their own comfort zone on the complex subject of climate change. Does the current debate seem to lack 'layers' that get lost in the politics and socio-economics?

Judith Curry: The debate is polarized in a black-white yes-no sort of way, which is a consequence of oversimplifying the problem and its solution. Although you wouldn’t think so by listening to the Obama administration on the topic of climate change, the debate is becoming more complex and nuanced. Drivers for the growing number of layers in the climate debate are the implications of the 21st century hiatus in warming, the growing economic realities of attempting to transition away from fossil fuels, and a growing understanding of the clash of values involved. How does the climate change debate differ, in your experience, in varying cultures; for instance, from the United States to Western Europe, or Canada?

Judith Curry: The U.S. is more skeptical of the idea of dangerous anthropogenic global warming than is Western Europe. In the U.S., skepticism is generally associated with conservatives/libertarians/Republicans, whereas in Western Europe there is no simple division along the lines of political parties. In the developed world, it is not unreasonable to think ahead 100 or even 300 years in terms of potential impacts of policies, whereas the developing world is more focused on short-term survivability and economic development. How significant are cultural elements to this debate?

Judith Curry: The cultural elements of this debate are probably quite substantial, but arguably poorly understood. A key issue is regional vulnerability, which is a complex mix of natural resources, infrastructure, governance, institutions, social forces and cultural values. Are we in a period of global warming or global cooling?

Judith Curry: The Earth’s surface temperature has been generally increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age, in the mid 19th century. Since then, the rate of warming has not been uniform – there was strong warming from 1910-1940 and 1975-2000. Since 1998, there have been periods exceeding a decade when there has been no statistically significant warming.

Continually increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse act to warm the planet, so why hasn’t the surface temperature been increasing? This seems to be caused primarily by a change in the circulation patterns in the Pacific Ocean, although solar cooling is also contributing to an extent that is uncertain. What is the 'polar vortex' and what does it have to do with global warming?

Judith Curry: The polar vortex is a circulation pattern in the upper atmosphere that influences surface weather. Ideas linking changes in the polar vortex to global warming are not supported by any evidence that I find convincing. How does the media take advantage of every major -- or even semi-major -- weather event to make dire climate forecasts or support one or another polarized side of this debate? Can you give us some recent examples?

Judith Curry: The impact of extreme weather events in raising concern about global warming became apparent following Hurricane Katrina. The psychology of immediate and visible loss is far more salient than hypothetical problems in the next century. Hence extreme weather events have been effectively used in propaganda efforts. This is in spite of the assessment of the IPCC that doesn’t find much evidence linking extreme weather events to global warming, other than heat waves. Where should energy fit into the climate change debate, and how much of a concern to the climate is the energy resources drive? Does anyone really know?

Judith Curry: It has never made sense to me for climate change to be the primary driver for energy policy. Even if we believe the climate models, nothing that we do in terms of emissions reductions will have much of an impact on climate until the late 21st century.  Energy poverty is a huge issue in much of the world, and there is no obvious way to reconcile reducing CO2 emissions with eradicating energy poverty. Again, this conundrum is evidence of the wickedness of the climate change problem. You can see our first interview with Judith here: The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

Polar bear



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:05 | 5142496 logicalman
logicalman's picture

95% of the population of the so-called developed world are scientifically illiterate - not by accident.

95% of the population want someone else to do the thinking for them.

We're fucked.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:15 | 5142529 zaphod
zaphod's picture

"The other trend has been propaganda. The failure of the traditional model of climate science communication has resulted in more exaggeration and alarmism, appeals to authority, appeals to fear, appeals to prejudice, demonizing those that disagree, name-calling, oversimplification, etc."

But her first bullet point is "Koch-funded climate deinal machine" 

Do these people even listen to themselves?!? I guess everyone else has figured out to not listen to them, so they don't need to listen to themselves either.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:23 | 5142569 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Curry is a crank. Got herself into hot water over some stupid stuff she said, and then rather than say "okay my bad" she went on a campaign to destroy her peers. Real mature. Getting rich on the denialist talk circuit though, so I guess it's worked for her.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:45 | 5142651 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Anybody who admires the Kardashian's influence can't be that bright.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:35 | 5142828 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

In the U.S., skepticism is generally associated with conservatives/libertarians/Republicans, whereas in Western Europe there is no simple division along the lines of political parties.

...yeah and I just found out 20% of americans think the moon landing was faked. So who cares what these goofs think.

Addressing AGW is a complex multilayered problem but the science seems to be going along just fine. And if people don't understand it, so what? Most tech is a big ole' mystery: computers, tvs, phones - but people are happy to use 'em.

Way too much time is wasted on trying to drag along the lowest common denominator. Develop good alternatives to fossil fuel related products (including agri) and people will use those instead. 

As long as the people who matter (i.e. the people developing shit) understand the science properly that's probably enough.  

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:45 | 5142872 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

People denying AGW understand the science fine. I was shocked to learn that. What they don't like are the implications of the science, so they attack the science as a proxy for undesird lifestyle changes.

I'm sure you understand the distiniction. If it were just an education problem then we could solve it via painless education. Since it's a matter of not wanting to deal with something unsavory, there is not much you can actually do.

Nature is going to win this one. But people will absolutely know what hit them.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:05 | 5142950 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture


People denying AGW understand the science fine. I was shocked to learn that. What they don't like are the implications of the science, so they attack the science as a proxy for undesired lifestyle changes.

Sure, people will tend to disbelieve things which would impact their lifestyle, confirmation bias.

Non-controversial: "my doc says we should have sex more to improve my health. Gotta go with what the doc says!" Controversial: "my doc says I should cut down on eating shitloads of lard and salt to imrpove my health. What does he know anyway??" Non-controversial: "just learned earth orbits the sun! Wow cool!" Controversial: "I just learned organisms evolve, what a load of bullshit!!"

That said, there's a lot of super ignorant people out there. People post childishly wrong stuff on here with regularity and then argue about it. Not as bad as saudi arabia (still execute people for sorcery over there) but it's not great. 



Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:17 | 5142995 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

"(still execute people for sorcery over there)"

Suddenly I feel so much better about myself.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 08:50 | 5144291 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

the modelers are the ones with the trouble accepting the "implications of science" - the entire usefulness of a model is in its predictive capability - but the IPCC keeps telling us "these arent predictions" 'em go!  I mean its only their research grant money on the table, what could go wrong if its learned that its not necessary to throw grant money at any "study" that mentions "global warming" or "climate" in some fashion.



take all these idiot modelers and put 'em on a real environmental task and have 'em clean up the big plastic heap in the middle of the pacific, then they'll be doing something useful.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 15:26 | 5146194 MisterMousePotato
MisterMousePotato's picture

Oh, yeah? Well, my doctor (actually, I saw him on TV) says that in order to have inner peace in our lives, we should always finish things that we start. Simple as that.

So, since I certainly could use a little more peace in my life, I looked around my house to find things I’d started and hadn’t finished.

I finished a bottle of Merlot, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiuminun scriptins, an a box a choclutz. Yu has no idr how fablus I feel rite now.

Sned this to all urfrenz who need inner piss. An telum u luvum.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:12 | 5142973 MalteseFalcon
MalteseFalcon's picture

1.  The climate changes naturally.

2.  Man cannot stop natural climate change.

3.  Man's activities contribute little, if anything, to the process.

4.  To the extent that man's activities do contribute to climate change, the 'offending' activities are completely under the control of states and corporations.

5.  The individual has no control over the activities, but all proposed solutions put most of the onus on the individual in terms of taxes, costs and loss of freedom.

6.  Scientists are for sale and exhibit the herd mentality of lemmings.

7.  The 'issue' does not die a well-deserved death, because large amounts of financial and political capital have been invested.

8.  The 'investors' believe that carbon taxes, etc. are necessary to continue western and banking hegemony.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:23 | 5143018 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

yawn... yeah yeah we know. 

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:01 | 5143968 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

Totally...I came here to talk about Kim' ass....I don't get it....

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 01:38 | 5143773 Ionic Equilibria
Ionic Equilibria's picture

Great sarcasm but perhaps you should tag it as such because a lot of ZHers actually believe this rubbish.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 15:24 | 5146184 MalteseFalcon
MalteseFalcon's picture

Ha, ha.  Nice try.  It's the truth.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 00:13 | 5143642 btdt
btdt's picture

What is unsavory is having to watch a new generation of useless idiots buying into the same old bankster scams. Paint it green and that works for the new crop of fools.

Climate science has been captured and is now just another bankster platform, just llike the -isms of the last century.

And like before, there is an arm of overly eager self righteous young true believers and they will be the zombie shock troops for the banksters.

And when nature does what nature is going to do, we will be left with even richer banksters and a lot of 3rd world people impoverished by the green agenda.

The true belivers never in the last century owned up for their role in the death and destruction in their pursuit of utopia. neither will the warmists troops in this century


funny thing. you come here to ZH for a skeptical (and cynical) view of how power works and yet you are a conventional naive conformist when it comes to the color green.




Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:04 | 5143969 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

"zombie shock troops for the banksters"

agreed.  And, by the way, a really cool name for a band!

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:33 | 5143531 Abbie Normal
Abbie Normal's picture

NASA said the moon buggy fit inside two carry-on size suitcases when disassembled.  Until someone can show that a ladder-frame (pick-up truck based) vehicle with four disc wheels, electric drivetrain, steering, seats, etc. can fit into an overhead luggage compartment of a passenger plane, let alone inside the ultra-cramped lunar module, let's just say all of the other claims are questionable too.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:47 | 5143576 0b1knob
Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:06 | 5143971 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

The fascinating feats of Hollywood abound!  When you mix propagandist banskters with Stanly Kubrick amazing "science" just happens....

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 12:41 | 5145424 Matt
Matt's picture

The Lunar Rover cost something like $1 million in 1969 dollars, so maybe $10 million today. You really want a $10 million go-cart that goes 3 miles per hour? Send me the money, and I'll get right on it for you. Half up front, half on delivery.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 12:45 | 5145459 Matt
Matt's picture

"Develop good alternatives to fossil fuel related products (including agri) and people will use those instead."

That's the key. There is no magical 100:1 EROEI alternative to develop. There are only slight improvements to be made to renewables, and massive reductions in consumption, and some decent gains in efficiency.

Particularly with agriculture where so much water and fertilizers are just leeching through the soil off into the ocean creating huge algae blumes and oxygen-less dead zones.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:35 | 5143064 logicalman
logicalman's picture

As I don't have a TV, I sometimes find myself a bit 'out of the loop'

The word Kardashians kept cropping up in overheard conversations.

I thought they were some new alien species on Star Trek of something, until one day I was in a long line-up at the grocery check-out.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:10 | 5143974 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

"Kardashian" is synonymous with the term "hot, round ass" a "MILF" of course...all living-room, wholesome family topics....we have to give credit to the sage seeds of "Entertainment Tonight", that spawned the USA "selfie" mindset...good times.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 12:51 | 5145487 Matt
Matt's picture

I think its a good counter to the standards of beauty indoctrinated into society via photoshopped images of size zero models. At least they have porportions that indicate greater health and fertility.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:58 | 5142705 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

She says that politics takes too large a role in the debate.  Therefore she has entered politics to set everyone straight.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:28 | 5142810 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Follow the money ...

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:39 | 5142852 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Very complicated topic to understand. Does it mean increase in earth temperature is causing ass to grow?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:43 | 5142861 logicalman
logicalman's picture

More likely the other way around.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:14 | 5143977 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

"increase in earth temperature is causing ass to grow"

Finally, someone who understands the significance of "Kardashian theory"!

I "roundly" suggest, that the current "hot" temperatures may lead to a greenhouse "wetness" that will "plunge" the world into a "deep, dark hole" of challenge.....

...bring it! :)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:42 | 5142858 Lumberjack
Lumberjack's picture

Start with Enron now go to Santander.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 10:01 | 5144459 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

nono that's inconvenient...."money" only means private money donated to realist causes, not government gravy doled out to academics so they can pontificate all year long on their moral and intellectual superiority and tax write offs for big companies that wish to....PLAY BALL!



why do you think it is that they're "able to show so much money given to skeptic causes"


simple, count what you wish to present, just like any other government statistic...just like yamal and the hockey stick...

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:12 | 5142963 Democratic koolaid
Democratic koolaid's picture

The 1000 million hormone fed cattle that fed Ms. Kardashian's round der·ri·ère are the cause of global warming.

Follow the farts and you'll find the cows drinking water in california.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:52 | 5143588 btdt
btdt's picture

Curry is not a crank. She is highly respected across many disciplines invovling climate science.

Quit making crap up in areas you don't follow in enough detail to talk about intelligently.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:18 | 5143979 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

oh, child....did mommy let you try to "think" again?  Remember, she will always be proud of what you say...not matter how naive....

There, there....[pat, pat...]

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:15 | 5144387 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

It is amusing watching her talk out both sides of her mouth though - she talks like a normal person on WUWT, but get her in warmista land and she's mentioning that evil koch money...she reads like two entirely different people depending on her audience. 

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:25 | 5142575 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

You're supposed to do as they say, not as they do.

When I was a kid in grade school back in the early 70s it was all about "the coming ice-age".  We were alll going to freeze to death and/or starve to death as glaciers slowly overran the plains states and choked off our food supply.

The current crop of global warming (er, um, climate change) science hippies will have to forgive me if I'm less than impressed with their new/current "truth" about the world's climate and where it's headed. 

Besides, I thought humans were supposed to have the ability to adapt to their environments.  I guess not.  Rhetoric is the only thing that can change, apparently.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:23 | 5143985 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

You had me until "science hippies"....

Stop lumping anything altruistic into a clusterfuck of millineal naivete....

They are Agenda 21 99% of America....

But hey, let's keep arguing about the "shiny object"...maybe argue about race...gender...the Mexicans trying to steal our scraps....instead of lining up the 1% bansters in the crosshairs....

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:40 | 5144493 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

I thought science hippies was the best part.  How else can one describe the "science" that Hansen "performs"...when one feels the world should operate a certain way, invent science to back it up...all morals and flowers and sasving the earth and shit.  (except the statistics...are shit...)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:35 | 5142620 NOTW777
NOTW777's picture

"While some of the smartest people on the planet are university professors" LOL

yes, when your "science" is proved a fraud blame the Koch brothers or GWB

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:05 | 5142952 KickIce
KickIce's picture

Who receiver their funding from the government, so once again it becomes a simple case of following the fiat.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:26 | 5143993 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

As if the Koch bros or GWB are not part of the NWO Agenda 21 crowd?

As if you are part of the "in group"?  Billionaires love you?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:14 | 5142755 ElvisDog
ElvisDog's picture

Here's all you need to know about "Climate Change" - it doesn't matter if it is real or not. Mankind is going to burn every barrel of oil it can get its hands on, because countries that use oil and natural gas have a huge advantage over those who don't. Climate Changeologists can pass whatever treaties they want. China and India at least won't go along and half the other countries will cheat so they can still burn oil.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:32 | 5144004 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

"Here's all you need to know about "Climate Change""

ED, so why?  Explain why the petrodollar throttle-fest is "inevitable" in your opinion?

Is your answer "what else is there"? ...then "they" have won....

"Zero-hedge" needs to talk more about "zero-point" energy....and who has control over it..."now".

Then all of these "cornfusing" headlines will begin to make sense.....

Hint: Try looking for their boss's bosses....

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 13:00 | 5145528 Matt
Matt's picture

1. The Aether does not exist

2. if humans had unlimited energy, they would certainly destroy the planet.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:40 | 5142632 holmes
holmes's picture

She lost me at  The Koch-funded climate denial machine.

"Her prolific writings offer a rational view of the climate change debate." Really?

Just another fool who doesn't understand that the climate changes:

 it gets hotter, then colder, hotter, colder. Deal with it.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:49 | 5142664 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

ice cores and the rate of change

so man can not affect his environment?

and the earth is not one big environment

if man can not affect his planet, why is he the first species to get off it and visit the moon?

Just because there are elected idiots and evil companies making money off both sides of a large issue does not mean there is a large issue 

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:25 | 5142796 Theta_Burn
Theta_Burn's picture

Man does effect the planet, in a big way.

The #1 way is pollution, fossil fuels, deforestation (a big 1), the collective breath of 9bil people and the cows needed to support them, and lately Fukashima.

Volcanic eruptions add huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Yet all this is just a speck of dust when it comes to the sun, and its effect on our planet.

Get yourself into this series, it really is worth the watch



Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:34 | 5144006 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture


OMG...a rational thinker....stop now or the website will go supernova!

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:18 | 5143000 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

It's getting hotter and we did it, and we should stop doing it, because it's stupid.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:48 | 5143579 btdt
btdt's picture

no it is not getting hotter and hasn't been getting hotter for upward of 18 years.

you are either a liar or a dupe who hasn't read the news in a few years.

the consensus in the warming community is that this is a "pause" before warming starts up again.

warmist models did not predict a pause.

skepticism is warranted.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 01:09 | 5143736 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

no it is not getting hotter and hasn't been getting hotter for upward of 18 years

Your ignorance, corrected:

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:36 | 5144010 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

she forgot to end her claim with " 'nuff said"....or "jus sayin'"....

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:18 | 5144398 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

click your heels and keep repeating it, dorothy

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:04 | 5142497 Rican
Rican's picture

The climate is changing on all planets in our solar system. That big fireball in the sky has a lot of answers.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:08 | 5142505 Theta_Burn
Theta_Burn's picture


Your best source for this topic

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:11 | 5142520 Rican
Rican's picture

Love the C(lie)mate series. Should be required viewing.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:41 | 5142641 RacerX
RacerX's picture

S0 is "The Man" when it comes to shredding the climate change bobbleheads.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:00 | 5142713 knukles
knukles's picture

SO handles the "climate" reality, Steve Goddard ( does a great job poking holes in the "meme" while Thorhill and Talbott take us places that every Quantum bug would love and may well have taken the next step in the Einstein's evolution (as per the unifying force) way past gravity

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:18 | 5142994 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Yeah, except even reason magazine has called him out on his stupid bullshit:

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:48 | 5143577 Nostradumbass
Nostradumbass's picture

Do you mean this same magazine - Reason - the bastion of freedom?

Yeah, I'm convinced now.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:54 | 5143578 Nostradumbass
Nostradumbass's picture


Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:42 | 5144499 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

Pay no attention to the skewings of GISS...

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:38 | 5144013 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

..."da man" sucks...we all be workin' fo da man....that fucker needs to dry up and die already....

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:10 | 5142515 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Let's see.....

Humans have fucked up the land......

Humans have fucked up the rivers.......

Humans have fucked up the oceans.......

How could the atmosphere have got off Scott-free?

Variations in the Sun and the the Earth's orbit/tilt certainly are involved, but they change on much linger time scales than the changes being observed in the Earth's climate. Tends to suggest another mechanism is, at least involved, if not dominant.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:26 | 5142582 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

The usual response to all that is "so what, and I'm making money".

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:54 | 5142681 holmes
holmes's picture
  1.  11 years too long for you?
  2. Solar maximum or solar max is a normal period of       greatest solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the Sun. During solar maximum, large numbers of sunspots appear and the sun's irradiance output grows by about 0.07%.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:47 | 5142879 logicalman
logicalman's picture

There are many periodicities in the sun's activities and if you look at their interplay with planet earth, once you add in the precession of the earth's rotation and the shape of the orbit, things get a bit more complicated.

11 years is just the bit most people know about.

Your comment is a bit 'school text-bookish'

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:34 | 5143061 holmes
holmes's picture

If you really consider the complexity of all of the variables you are throwing about, you would understand the absurdity of trying to predict the future climate via mathematical modeling. Again the historical record shows the climate cycles through hotter and colder periods. Get used to it because mankind can't do anything about it.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:47 | 5143109 logicalman
logicalman's picture

I'm not, to use your term 'throwing things about'

Your comment was, I think you must agree, if you are honest with yourself, a bit simplistic.

I was merely pointing it out.

If evolution teaches us one thing, it is that flexibility is the most important asset a species can have.

You can absolutely bank on change, but I do think 'man' has a part in it.

The earth is a system so complex I doubt humans will ever understand enough of it to have any reliable control over it.

Trouble is, the decision makers are arrogant enough that they believe they can control it. An idiot at the wheel is never a good thing.

Mankind (always chuckle at the 'kind' bit) is just another experiment of the double-helix.

Only time will tell.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:55 | 5143146 knukles
knukles's picture

"If eveolution teaches one thing" it's that nothing is permanent.  MAnkind will die out before mother Earth is gone.  Deal with it.  How, matters not.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 22:13 | 5143230 logicalman
logicalman's picture

I think you and I are in agreement here.

I think I'm fairly good at dealing with reality.

Doesn't mean I like it.

I am one of about 7 billion examples of my species, which exists on a planet orbiting a star, one of about 200,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Hubble's deep field images lead to there being about 400,000,000,000 galaxies in the part of the universe we can even theoretically observe.

Think I feel important?


Tue, 08/26/2014 - 06:40 | 5144021 Majestic12
Majestic12's picture

"Think I feel important?"

No, your absurdly narrow view of astrophysics proves it....

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:34 | 5143532 btdt
btdt's picture

let's see.

in the last 50 years:

- just about every river in the US has improved

- air polllution in just about every US netro area is a fration of what it was in the 60s

- US carbon dioxide emissions are flat or declining

- ocean health near US shores is better by far in most places

- sudden changes in solar activity can and do create equally rapid changes in the earth's climate, as recorded numerous times in human hiistory including int the last two thousand years. warmists accept this as fact.

solar activity has been high over the past 50 or 70 or whatever years. solar activity recently has been extremely low - one of the weakest maxima on record - such low levels has preceeded exceptionally cold periods in the last 500 years.

none of this is controversial among scientists. there is a ton of data on these topcis.


how is it that posters like you and the guy with the kitty cat are such easy dupes for the kultral marxist drivel - on the topic of green - spewed out on campuses by loser baby boomer profs, but here you are on ZH apparently able to see how banksterism works? 

if you can spot bankster scams, what is the matter with you that you can't spot a bankster scam just because its painted green?


and stop insulting Scots, they are trying to dump the English

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:08 | 5142499 alexcojones
alexcojones's picture

What did the poor Polar bears do

before the Kardashians existed?

Trees and plants grew in sub-tropical conditions ABOVE the Arctic Circle. Petrified wood found there proves it.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:15 | 5142536 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Well, yeah.   but you do realize that there was an evolution component that allowed that to happen.   Most of the people worried about climate-change are saying that the Polar Bears will not be able to evolved quickly enough (say, into Koala Bears) to survive a warmer climate. 

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:58 | 5142700 holmes
holmes's picture

I'm more worried about the Kardashians than the polar bears. I know the Kardashians dont have the ability to evolve.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:03 | 5142721 knukles
knukles's picture

Didju see the front page of the Enquirer?  Kim's butt is like the Wookie's 
God Help Us All Tiny Tim

or somebody like Tiny Tim... he just wasn't weird enough

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:58 | 5143029 knukles
knukles's picture

quick the sulfuric acid eyewash

Kayne gonna diborce ukly white shit like dat....

Sheeit... culd squash all dem islamic jihidasts wit one squat, mothhafuckas...
She be nashunal "ass"et

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:50 | 5143117 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Koalas are marsupials

Bears are mammals.

Unlikely a mammal will evolve into a marsupial

Koala = NOTaREALBear

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 22:48 | 5143378 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

So what you are in fact saying is that it is very unlikely that a koala is related to ManBearPig?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:17 | 5142543 logicalman
logicalman's picture

The continents have done a fair amount of wandering about too.

Life has survived a lot worse than mere humans have thrown at it.

As long as atmospherics don't go full Venus, I think a few Homo Sapiens will hang on and, hopefully, finally fulfill the concept of Sapiens.

I doubt the number will have nine zeros at the end, however.

Nature ALWAYS wins.


Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:21 | 5144414 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

laughing at the retardedness of the venus comment

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:17 | 5142508 Mercury
Mercury's picture

To believe that climate change, anthropogenic or not,  and in and of itself is and can only be BAD you have to believe that climate stasis is the permanent norm from which we are now, suddenly deviating.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:17 | 5142544 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

I think it will be another suvival-of-the-fittest test in which the smart-n-savvy people will be pitted against the dumb-n-clueless in a battle to the death.    I'm betting on the smart-n-savvy in this one. 

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:20 | 5142557 Mercury
Mercury's picture

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean survival of the smart and savy, it means survival of the most fit for the particular environment in question.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:24 | 5142577 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

When has manipulating dumbasses with bullshit NOT been useful?   

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:30 | 5142595 Mercury
Mercury's picture

In the context of "survival of the fittest" it only matters whether or not the dumb asses are reproducing at a higher rate than the smart asses.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:36 | 5142623 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Ever notice how the smart-n-savvy's kids don't get killed in the glorious wars?  

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:57 | 5142699 libertysghost
libertysghost's picture

Those who adapt best survive.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:25 | 5142580 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

WE've only been here (we being agricultural, non-hunter-gatherer social organizations) for around 8000 - 10,000 years, eg since end of the last ice-age.  So your statement isn't true.  All we know for sure is

- Climate has changed a lot over the past 4 billion years

- Sometimes it's been warmer

- Sometimes it's been colder

- Human civilization has only existed for a very short period of time, geologically speaking, and the climate has been very stable over that time period (relatively speaking).

Maybe it will get warmer and things will be great, maybe it will get colder and things will be great.  Maybe it will get warmer and things will suck, or maybe it will get colder and things will suck.  And for each of those options, maybe it will have something to do with human activity on the planet, and maybe it won't.  Or maybe everything will stay the same for the next 1000 years.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:39 | 5142630 RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Wait what about that 7 days thingie?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:51 | 5142669 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Just keep putting the cream on it your doctor gave you and you'll be fine in about a week.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:55 | 5142691 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:27 | 5142590 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

But but ... we liked our climate stasis. Don't say you are going to change it. That would be mean.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:51 | 5142672 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

If you like your climate stasis you will be able to keep your climate stasis

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:31 | 5142817 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Maybe not this time. Though it ought be back in about 1,500 years.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 22:30 | 5143300 palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Yeah but they're going to brand it The Nice Age and have everyone ignore the ice sheets.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:10 | 5142517 alexcojones
alexcojones's picture

Eastern Ukrainians and East Coast Libs better HOPE and

Pray for a warmer winter than the last two.

Me? I'm hoping for COOOOOLD, Bitchez. Ice Sheet from Boston down to Lindsey Graham's house in South Carolina


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:15 | 5142539 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

But that could cause a totally unexpected drop in GDP.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:28 | 5142591 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:18 | 5142524 alexcojones
alexcojones's picture

    "Widespread discoveries of surface coal and petrified wood show that Antarctica ... over 600 miles [966 km] north of the Arctic Circle in the New Siberian Islands. ... Geological Survey Report told that Alaska once teemed with tropical plants."

Evolution Handbook 3
Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:13 | 5142979 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Antarctica is NORTH of the Arctic Circle.

Fuck, I need to go back and study some geography!!!

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:12 | 5142525 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

Good article.  

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:16 | 5142540 Tasty Sandwich
Tasty Sandwich's picture

Regardless, no one is going to actually do anything about anything.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:18 | 5142548 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

I don't know about you, but I'll be dead before anything bad happens.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:28 | 5142589 Tasty Sandwich
Tasty Sandwich's picture

I suspect most humans will be dead by 2030.

Not climate change, though.  The collapse of industrial civilization, world war, nuclear power plants and storage pools not being maintained, and all that other fun stuff.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:29 | 5142593 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

So, by that you mean most humans excluding yourself?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:32 | 5142607 Tasty Sandwich
Tasty Sandwich's picture

Nope.  Me too.

Won't be much of a world worth living in anyway.

Amor fati

That whole Y2K thing should have been a wakeup call about what to do with the nuke plants and storage if the grid fails.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:43 | 5142644 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I think my head just exploded.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:46 | 5142656 Tasty Sandwich
Tasty Sandwich's picture

You should probably go to the hospital then.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:49 | 5142659 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

Well, thank God most of us will be dead by 2030.  That will put a lot less strain on the Social Security Trust Fund.

Besides, I never really liked the idea of "retiring".  I'd rather be swallowed by a volcano or engulfed in a 1000 foot high tsunami, anyway.  I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say that.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:58 | 5142698 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

No, I've never had any opinion on whether or not you should retire.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:35 | 5143067 knukles
knukles's picture

The Church of Scientology is always looking for a few good volcano jumpers.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:09 | 5142732 Tasty Sandwich
Tasty Sandwich's picture

I doubt the "trust fund" will make it much past 2020, especially if we have the massive currency problems I expect.

I think John Williams' Hyperinflation Special Report predicts major currency problems by 2015, so we shall see.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:18 | 5142551 logicalman
logicalman's picture

If Goldman Sachs can find a way of making money by improving the world, we might be on to something!

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:23 | 5142566 NOTaREALmerican
NOTaREALmerican's picture

I'm thinkin they'll offer a "High Ground" investment "vehicle" for Elysium Class.   And (maybe) some Canadian Water Futures backed by the full-faith-n-credit of the US military?

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:16 | 5142545 teslaberry
teslaberry's picture

fuck this bullshit. c02 is not a toxin and global warming alarmists have lied through their teeth to get control over the price of electricity to make electricity artificially expensive for the sake of profit------LIKE ENRON. 


plane and simple. 


any cohesive environmental policy would start with trying to minimize petroleum and point of consumption combustion as the number one priority by encouraging the buildout of the electricity grid and production of MORE ELECTRICITY and MORE ACCESSS TO MORE ELECTRICITY BY INVESTING IN THE GRID. 


this is the only solution to replacing petroleum for transport fuel. everything else is a scam. and that is why you see 'everything else' happening but a cohesive policy to eliminate the use of transportation fuel. 


i'm not against gasoline myself, but if you are a harcord environmentalist the ONLY possible step forward is to focus on this problem FIRST as it is the primary problem driving environmental degradation. why?


because fossil fuels are increasingly scarce leading to war. war is the most environmentally destructive of all behaviors unless you believe in mass genocide being natures gift to overpopulation . in which case, don't even attempt to brainwash me into believing in your version of environmentalism without killing yourself first. 

frankly, overpopulation is a big problem, and and a cause of instability and war , but the idea that catastrophic global warming will doom the globe is a huge hoax.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:23 | 5142562 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Just because someone is making money from a crisis doesn't mean the crisis doesn't exist.

The people most involved in arguing against the concept of AGW are often those making huge amounts of money from fossil fuels.

By the way, I think you meant 'plain and simple' - yes, I can be a pedantic fuck.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:17 | 5142762 malek
malek's picture

Nor does it mean the opposite.

Some more platitudes please.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:54 | 5142908 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Can you clarify, please?

Do you mean 'Just because someone is not making money means the crisist exists?

Just trying to understand your point.




Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:55 | 5144550 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

pointing out the logicalfallacy of

"The people most involved in arguing against the concept of AGW are often those making huge amounts of money from fossil fuels."

go ahead and look at the full scope of money flowing and you find that your assertion is only remotely true if you completely ignore the money that the government spends on it.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:30 | 5142603 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

So stop driving and you can at least say you are no longer part of the problem in that regard.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:24 | 5142568 nmewn
nmewn's picture

If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. >>>The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available.<<< Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.

So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.

Judith Curry
Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology

At least she seems more rational than Flak ;-)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:41 | 5142640 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

"we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists."

Such as?

"Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate"

No it's fine. Most of them are just bought+paidfor cranks anyway.

"Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office"

Uh ... what?

"The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available."

Is. Always.

"If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem."

That is called "peer review" and is the norm rather than the exceptions. The only ones skipping peer review are the professional denialist.

"Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc."

Clearly not!

"Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs)"

Why the skeptics? They are just paid to be there and have nothing to add to the body of data.

"to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field"

Uh ... why do we want to keep injecting politics into a scientific discussion?

"A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics."

Again. Why should policy drive ethics? Shouldn't we all just be ethical as a first principle and leave policy strictly out of it?

"And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills."


"I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic."

Fuck that. Publish your work against peer review and we'll all see what we think about your contributions.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:45 | 5142871 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office"

Uh ... what?

I think she meant patent office, see how little things don't really matter to "scientists" when they're looking at the bigger picture? Of course missing something very small can have infinite ramifications in what we're talking about here.

Can't it? ;-)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:49 | 5142887 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I can't follow the role of Einstein in any of this, actually.

Is she trying to say that the opinions of people with blue collar jobs are just as valid as the field observations of climate scientists? If so then that is just populist anti-science and we can move on from there.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:58 | 5142929 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Einstein's true genius was his ability to look at things as they are, not how he would have liked them to be.

(Except when it came to some quantum theory stuff - he hated the probabilistic nature of it)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:11 | 5142970 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

That's an interesting thing to claim about Albert. You realize I hope that his earliest work was not informed by observations, but by what he called thought experiments. Not slamming that, just pointing it out. So to your point, in fact he really did set out to make things how he thought they ought to be, starting from thinking about it.

It makes sense since he was dealing with matters that cannot be (readily) observed in nature, but people really had a hard time with it. After he published his ideas people did go looking for evidence after the fact ... and found it. At the end of his life he had the same problems with quantum theory as others had with his relativistic theory. Hard to know where to stand on that one.

But this is all physics played out at the very fast and very small. Doesn't apply to daily life (where is my transmat machine?!?) and there are a lot of things closer to home.

Like -- climate science.

Which is a real science based on real observations of real things in the real world.

That's why I don't get how Einstein plays in any of this.

Yeah I'm a scientist. Not a climate scientist, but that doesn't matter here. It means I get all this. I really get it. I have read a little of nature's infinite book of secrets, and what little I read regarding AGW scared shit out of me.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:29 | 5143039 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Nothing wrong with thought experiments.

The speed of light pretty much falls out naturally from Maxwell's equations.

The insight was the bit about it being the same whether you are 'moving' (relative to what? hence Relativity) or not.

He then ran with the logical consequences of the idea and found that they predicted something that had never been observed - 1917 eclipse observations confirmed that the sun's gravity bent light, as his theory said it does - to a good degree of accuracy, as well.

Interestingly, his Nobel Prize was for the photoelectric effect, not relativity.

Theoreticians need Experimentalists, and vice versa.

If you really want to bend your head, scientifically, take a look at Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics. It's on a similar level to Relativity in the way it looks at the consequences of a theory and runs with it.

I'm with you on the 'scared the shit out of me' bit, but not for myself. I'm on my 60th trip around the sun, so it's not a worry for me, personally. As a late starter on the kids thing, mine are 19 & 20. I worry for them, but I think (hope?) I've equipped them reasonably well.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 22:23 | 5143270 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Whats even more interesting is my comment to you disappeared. Some other time perhaps, I've got a couple of room mates who have my undivided attention.

No, not like that ;-)

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 10:06 | 5144433 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

The difference here cougar, is that Einstein's thought experiments wound up being backed up by consistent mathematics that was backed up by experiment and observation!  (we'll leave his QM blunder aside)


AGW Climate Sciencetm, however, consists of thought experiments that turned into computer programs...that dont bear out reality...


No accurate prediction, despite shitloads of backward curve fitting so as to say see it replicates the past!


Well, I guess I could go try to convert ISIS to atheism...their minds are about as open to a different point of view...


do I really need to point out the fallacy of "we dont need to consider any critiques of our material"....well....we ingrained enough at any rate, thanks climategate pal review process....oh right, that didnt happen now, did it?





‘If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. ‘
-IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch,


more Storch,

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.



“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 20:52 | 5142893 btdt
btdt's picture

"we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists."

Such as?


"Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate"

No it's fine. Most of them are just bought+paidfor cranks anyway.


"Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office"

Uh ... what?

"The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available."

Is. Always.


"If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem."

That is called "peer review" and is the norm rather than the exceptions. The only ones skipping peer review are the professional denialist.


"Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc."

Clearly not!

"Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs)"

Why the skeptics? They are just paid to be there and have nothing to add to the body of data.

"to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field"

Uh ... why do we want to keep injecting politics into a scientific discussion?


"A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics."

Again. Why should policy drive ethics? Shouldn't we all just be ethical as a first principle and leave policy strictly out of it?

"And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills."


"I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic."

Fuck that. Publish your work against peer review and we'll all see what we think about your contributions.



Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:02 | 5142934 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Well that was certainly amusing.

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 09:48 | 5144517 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

nice deflection








Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:24 | 5142572 booboo
booboo's picture

"Positions for sale, see the Director of University Grant Office for more information"

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:31 | 5142600 Al Huxley
Al Huxley's picture

Board positions at Exxon, Shell, BP, et al by appointment only.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:26 | 5142583 Fuku Ben
Fuku Ben's picture

New strategy Same Paradigm:

Gore (Red) & Lies out

Sex (Blue) & Stupidity In

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:31 | 5142608 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

We've been in a cooling trend for the last 12000 years since the holocene maximum as shown by ice core H2O isotope analysis in both greenland and antartica.  Yes, we have been warming since the little ice age as the author states.  Grapes were cultivated in northern endland during the last medieval warming period from 1000-1400 AD, so the earth was substantially warmer then than now, but still below that of the holocene maximum.  Lower highs and lower lows-traders call this a downtrend-AGW believers get fooled by natural cycles and think they can "model" chaotic systems.   Enjoy the interglacial while it lasts boys and girls-its going to get very chilly again in the northern latitudes.  And when it does CO2 will go down as the solubility of gasses in oceans increase at lower temperatures.  When it warms up again ocean outgassing will increase CO2 atmospheric concentrations  just as it has for the last 9 or 10 glacial/interglacial cycles of the last 900000 years.  But there's nothing humans can do to prevent these natural cycles except adapt.

As for "predicting" the temporal evolution of a complex nonlinear system like a planetary climate with multiple feedbacks using some sort of computer model, it can't be done as the modelers have shown by their incorrect predictions made 20 years ago for the current conditions-which they now call the "pause".  As time goes on the predictions become even more useless, but do suck up valuable research funds.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 23:13 | 5143464 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

The modeling attempts, so far, tended to have the heavy thumb of their funders pressing down on them. Their terms of reference set them up to make mistakes!

However, that there was an ulterior evil agenda probably behind promoting models that made mistakes does not mean there is no problem. (Indeed, see my comment below about how extremely bad that problems really is!)

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:35 | 5142617 kchrisc
kchrisc's picture

The earth's mean radius is about 3,959 miles. About 99% of the earth's atmosphere, by volume, is below 60, 000 feet (~12 miles). By adding that 12 miles to the radius and working thru the math, one finds that the volume of the earth’s atmosphere from the surface to 12 miles is 2,370,706,688 cubic miles. .039% of that , or 924,576 cubic miles, is carbon dioxide.

Now mankind burns 3 to 4 cubic miles of "fossil" fuels a year. Assume 100% of that is carbon diode, it isn't, but just assume it is for simplicity. 3 to 4 cubic miles a year isn't even a rounding error in the above numbers.


And that is the non-greedy inconvenient truth.

An American, not US subject.


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:00 | 5142932 logicalman
logicalman's picture

Positive feedback loops can really fuck things up.

Exponentiallity is a bitch.

Starts off slow and easy to ignore, then HOLY FUCK!


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:49 | 5143112 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

Probably should look out for the reef 20m ahead rather than monocular the ever growing land mass approaching from your crow's nest. 

Exponentiality is a bitch - agreed - and so is entropy.  The complexity of human hubris will likely be our downfall.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:51 | 5143131 logicalman
logicalman's picture


Mon, 08/25/2014 - 21:55 | 5143142 Apply Force
Apply Force's picture

Maslow comes to mind - the base of that pyramid does not involve plumbing, grocery stores or light switches.  Chance favors the prepared.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 22:02 | 5143181 FredFlintstone
FredFlintstone's picture

I really dig the simplicity of your analysis. The 3 to 4 million cubic feet of fuel, much if this has to be is in liquid and solid form correct?

Tue, 08/26/2014 - 08:35 | 5144241 Massholio
Massholio's picture

I'm not an AGW advocate, but I'll point out the serious flaw in your analysis. We can take for example a liquid fuel like hexane. 1 mol of hexane is ~ 100 mL and contains 6 mol of carbon. Each mol of carbon is converted to 1 mol of carbon dioxide that occupies ~ 22L at atmospheric P/T. Burning ~100 mL of hexane leads to the formation of 6*22L = 132L of gas, so your estimate is off by roughly 3 orders of magnitude in termes of volume occupied by the resulting carbon dioxide. That is science, not an inconvenient truth.

Mon, 08/25/2014 - 19:35 | 5142621 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

People are obsessed with consistency. They want things to remain the same. They draw imaginary borders, build huts on the shore or next to active volcanos and hope they're still there when they come home from work.

Well, the climate has always been changing. Land only appears to be static in a span of a human life while in reality the whole globe is continuously morphing. Water levels change. Chemical composition of things varies.

We can either try to conform things to our liking, wasting valuable time and resources, or we can adapt by taking advantage of the positives.

We live in a post-ice age climate. It is by every measure better. In fact we still have land trapped in ice waiting to become available for agriculture and settlement. We are carbon based life forms and heat increases propagation and distribution of carbon. Bad? Excuse me! We're made of this stuff, and so are the animals, plants and most living things. More building blocks mean more life and there is more life because of the heat - not less.

Release of hydrocarbons can be credited for making all of this new organic mass available. Plants certainly don't complain about greenhouse gases. You know what a "greenhouse" is? It's a place where people grow plants, for crying out loud! Is that bad?

Are we not allowed to refer to ourselves as carbo-based life forms anymore?

Enough of this bullshit! Controlling climate is a futile effort. Let's recognize it for the changing unpredictable thing it is and look on the bright side of things (pun intended). Instead of looking 100's of years into the future, let's settle with the fact that weather forecasting does decent enough job for everyday use and leave it at that.

As for climate scientists - I'm glad the hype got derailed. Maybe now they can put the matter to rest and go find real jobs, instead of waiting for another government handout, like a bunch of welfare mommas.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!