Judith Currys meget interessante svar under et nylig intervju

Startet av Jostemikk, mai 21, 2014, 15:14:04 PM

« forrige - neste »


Under en reise til Australia ble Judith Curry intervjute av Quadrant Online. Jeg siterer deler av spørsmål/svar-runden, og noen av svarene er også forkortet noe. Det er forsåvidt ingen overraskelser for de som har fulgt bloggen hennes, men det kan være greit å ha disse korte, konsise svarene å henvise til for de som debatterer annet steds.


Doing science by consensus is not science at all, says the climatologist all the alarmists love to hate. Not that the enmity bothers Judith Curry too much -- and certainly not as much as the debasement of impartial inquiry by which the warmist establishment keeps all those lovely grants coming

When climatologist Judith Curry visited Melbourne last week she took the time to chat with Quadrant Online contributor Tony Thomas. The professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology is something of a stormy petrel in the climate-change community, as she has broken ranks with alarmist colleagues to question the articles and ethics of the warmist faith. This has made her less than popular in certain circles, even inspiring Scientific American, house journal of the catastropharians, to brand her "a heretic" who has "turned on her colleagues."

Such criticism leaves Curry unmoved. If anyone needs counselling, she says, then it is those academics who continue to preach the planet's sweaty doom despite the fact that no warming has been observed for almost two decades.

TONY THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself

(a) as at 2009

(b) as at 2014,

and why has there been a shift (if any)?

JUDITH CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3.  Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more sceptically.

THOMAS: The US debate has been galvanised in recent weeks by strong statements against CO2 emissions by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. What is your view of the case they made out, and your thoughts about why the statements are now being made?

CURRY: I am mystified as to why President Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change.

THOMAS: Re the halt to warming in the past 15-17 years, has this been adequately explained to the public? If it continues a few more years, is that the end of the orthodox case?

CURRY: Regarding the hiatus in warming, I would say that this has not been adequately explained to the public, the IPCC certainly gave the issue short shrift.

The hiatus is serving to highlight the importance of natural climate variability.

THOMAS: What empirical evidence is there, as distinct from modelling, that 'missing heat' has gone into the deep oceans?

CURRY: Basically, none.

THOMAS: Should there be a 6th AR from the IPCC? Why/why not?

CURRY: In my opinion, the IPCC has outlived its original usefulness.

THOMAS: What has been the most significant advance in the case that 50+% of recent warming is NOT human-caused?

CURRY: The stagnation in global temperatures since 1998 is causing scientists to take a much closer look at natural climate variability.

THOMAS: Are you supportive of the line that the 'quiet sun' presages an era of global cooling in the next few decades?

CURRY: One of the unfortunate consequences of the focus on anthropogenic forcing of climate is that solar effects on climate have been largely neglected.  I think that solar effects, combined with the large scale ocean-circulation regimes, presage continued stagnation in global temperatures for the next two decades.

THOMAS: Are you supportive of the arguments of Varenholt, Svensmark et al that indirect effects of solar irradiance are seeding clouds and causing cooling in this phase of the sunspot cycle?

CURRY: It seems to me that solar effects on climate are much more complex than the sun as a source of heating, and that there are indirect effects of the sun on climate.

THOMAS: Why is academia so strongly supportive of the orthodoxy, if the orthodox case is flawed?

CURRY: Well, that is a topic for social psychologists at this point.  The academic community has a lot invested in the case for anthropogenic climate change – substantial government funding, prestige, and political influence.
Ja heldigvis flere der ser galskapen; men stadig alt for få.
Dertil kommer desværre de der ikke vil se, hva de ser.



Takk for den, Joste!

Satt og prøvde å få tid til å legge ut denne selv, men nå kom du meg supert i forkjøpet.
Denne svir nemlig akkurat nå skikkelig i alarmistsinnene rundt om, stol på det!

For Curry er ikke noen The Team der ute kan avfeie som "just another non-published denier jerk", eller slenge ut av seg "en typisk Rasmus Benestad-spyttklyse" nylig om en høyt utdannet debattant som er mye klarere i hodet enn ham selv: "du er et håpløst tilfelle og du mangler elementar kunnskap om fysikk", o.l.:

Hun har nemlig vært i det faglige lederskiktet over de fleste av dem som har dannet sin lille konspiratoriske alarmistklubb under dekke av IPCC-paraplyen. Currys stadig mer kritiske holdninger til hva disse driver med, er også en interessant analogi til hekseprosessene The Team m/klakkører nå kjører hemningsløst mot den nylig frafalne klimanestor Bengtsson:

Hver av de tidligere topp-etablerte forskerne som forlater deres faglige samrøre representerer nemlig en akutt fare for at deres stadig mer hjørneinnmalte spill veltes for godt.

Merk: Selv på et kuppet wikipedia der The team har faste folk til å skrive ned opposisjonelle (jfr. Connolley-skandalene og de tilhørende RealClimate og ScepticalScience-klikkene) klarer de ikke å unngå innrømme sånt som:

- Curry is a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.[3]
- Curry serves on NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission is to provide advise and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy.
- She is a recent member of the NOAA Climate Working Group[3][4] and a former member of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Climate Research Group.[3][5]

- Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[3][5]

- Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999),[9] and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002).[10]
- Curry has published over 130 scientific peer reviewed papers.[11]
- Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.[11]

Vi snakker kort sagt om en person i en litt annen divisjon enn våre hjemlige wannabees som synes å fremdeles streve med den lille gangetabellen og ordinær rettskriving, for ikke å snakke om gravitasjonslovene og generell analyse- og statistikklære.

Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten