Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, October 3. 2023

Is there such a thing as global climate?

John Stossel interviews former climate alarmist Judith Curry.

She kinda suggests following the money and the power.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 16:11 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Judith Curry is my absolute favorite CC scientists. But: There is a Great Big Red Flag in this interview, whether or not you happen to trust John Stossel. It has been over-edited. If you watch closely, you will see a bunch of cuts that encapsulate a sentence or two of her comment. Sometimes it's right in the middle of a sentence.

This should immediately ring alarm bells in your head. Train yourself to spot it. It means that the words of the interviewee have been yanked out of context and are potentially mis-portrayed.

I'm not saying this is happening, she is probably OK with the interview. BUT: I am much more comfortable watching an interview that shows different camera angles, but does not cut across an answer to the question asked. Like the Epoch Times format with Jan Jekielek.

I suspect someone else was asking these questions, and Stossel was filmed separately. Big Phoniness, potentially. But Curry is terrific and deserves the best in interviews.

#1 Aggie on 2023-10-03 19:35 (Reply)

Who do YOU think owns St. Greta?
SOROS!!!

#2 Mark Matis on 2023-10-04 06:05 (Reply)

"Is there such a thing as global climate?"

Yes. No. Maybe. Maybe not.

#3 JJM on 2023-10-04 10:00 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Is there such a thing as global climate?

Curry doesn't appear to address that question. However, climate is normally defined as the long-term weather patterns in a particular place or region. If you were to treat the Earth as a single location, certainly the oscillation between ice ages and ice-free ages would represent a change in global climate.

QUOTE:

How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? Still don't know.

There is significant evidence that humans are the cause of nearly all global warming over the last several decades. See Haustein et al., A real-time Global Warming Index, Nature 2017.

QUOTE:

is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument.

It's certainly more difficult to determine how the extra heat will be distributed through the climate system, but it is not completely unknown. Also, keep in mind that even a few degrees difference in global mean temperatures has caused vast changes to Earth's climate system in the past. Plus, the current warming trend is occurring much more rapidly than anything which would normally occur naturally.

QUOTE:

Climate change is {said to be} quite simply an existential threat for most life on the planet including and especially the life of humankind.

It's not a threat to cockroaches, by any means. Humans are highly adaptable, but whether human social structures are flexible enough is yet to be seen. Consider the problem with current levels of migration, and the strains on resources and political stability. However, the technological problems are solvable, so we are cautiously optimistic.

QUOTE:

And right now we're tracking slightly below the medium emission scenario. And so this gives a much more moderate amount of warming than the extreme mission scenario.

QUOTE:

But wait a second. I see all these record high temperatures. Oh, but there's also record low temperatures.

The number of record highs exceeds the number of records low, as would be expected as the mean temperature increases.

#3.1 Zachriel on 2023-10-04 10:55 (Reply)

On balance, Curry is the scientist and the expert and you are .... not.

#3.1.1 Aggie on 2023-10-04 11:16 (Reply)

There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/03/10/but-if-co2-drives-temperature/

https://canadafreepress.com/article/climate-scare-blown-up-by-geology

#3.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2023-10-04 12:32 (Reply)

Aggie: On balance, Curry is the scientist and the expert and you are .... not.

We provided specific evidence to refute her position. You reply with an appeal to authority. The problem with invoking an appeal to authority is that Curry has been unable to convince the majority of her peers, and she has published little of significance that would undermine the consensus view.

#3.1.3 Zachriel on 2023-10-04 14:18 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm published a piece in the last couple of weeks in which legitimate climate research was not published due to the censoring climate bullies keeping the piece from being published in a science journal.
We all are aware of how Marxists, democrats, media, and the administrative state have censored legitimate data in publications and social media. No one trusts government data sources any longer.
Covid, Climate boiling, Russia Russia Russia, Ukraine money laundering, and elections have cured any trust of the institutions. The institutions deserve that verdict.

#3.1.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-10-04 14:45 (Reply)

No. I provided a rejection to your claims to authority, which were made using simple assertions and without any kind of documentation or citation to support them as reputable ideas.

You know: "Zachriel claims - without evidence - that climate is changing due to....."

Just playing by the rules, eh?

#3.1.3.2 Aggie on 2023-10-04 15:22 (Reply)

Aggie: I provided a rejection to your claims to authority

We didn't make an appeal to authority but made specific reference to the evidence. See Haustein et al., A real-time Global Warming Index, Nature 2017. Your reply was "But Curry is an expert!" Note that we agreed with Curry, in part.

You are cherry picking an expert to support your preconceptions. Henry Stewart Edgell is a geologist. He say the Earth is flat, so it must be flat. It's a fallacious appeal to authority. Curry's views may be worth listening to—unlike Edgell—but she lacks the evidence to support some of her claims.

Aggie: You know: "Zachriel claims - without evidence - that climate is changing due to....."

That is not an accurate statement. We point to evidence. You might want to start with the basic physics of the greenhouse effect. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. The oceans would be frozen.

#3.1.3.3 Zachriel on 2023-10-04 16:12 (Reply)

The climatediscussionnexus.com and the canadafreepress.com articles both disprove the CO2/temperature connection. AGW 'research' funded by government is not 'safe and effective'.

#3.1.3.3.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-10-04 16:35 (Reply)

It occurs to me that you're using the debate over the concept of CAGW as a red herring. You don't know if it's true or not, and don't care. It is merely a tool for achieving your economic, social and political goals.
The relevant question isn't whether it's true, but whether you believe it's true. My bet, which I'd make even at poor odds, is that you don't believe it's true. The operational value used to determine the sincerity of your alleged "belief" is whether what you say is consistent with what you do. That's true in all things, whether it is illegal immigration, race, poverty, or CAGW. Give me a link to your Youtube channel where I can see you EV. Your solar panels or windmill and your battery bank. Let's see your tiny house or 360 Sq. ft. apartment and your ebike. Let's see your back yard garden.
Prove you keep your thermostat at 50 in winter and 82 in summer. Let's see your electric bills.
After all, you insist there's a crisis and that things MUST be done. Prove you're doing them.
You can't prove any of that because you haven't done any of it. Because you don't believe there's a crisis. In fact, you engage in hours of recreational internet usage, a fairly carbon intensive activity, every day. And demonstrate that you're a liar about this issue. Like most of the issues that you advocate for your extreme positions on so fervently.

#3.1.4 James on 2023-10-04 18:12 (Reply)

James: You don't know if it's true or not, and don't care.

The science strongly supports anthropogenic global warming.

James: The operational value used to determine the sincerity of your alleged "belief" is whether what you say is consistent with what you do.

While ‘sitting in a tree, cutting the soles off your shoes, and learning to play the flute’ will presumably reduce your carbon footprint, it is not an effective means to solve the climate problem. Common sense changes at the personal level can help, but will be marginal. The only reasonable solution requires upgrading the energy infrastructure. Continued economic growth is essential for powering the transition, for the development of the new technologies required, and to provide the benefits of modernity to the world’s people.

#3.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2023-10-04 21:04 (Reply)

The 'science' you speak of is nothing more than a government funded narrative. The purpose of the narrative is to make grifting at the taxpayer trough very profitable while also adding to the control and power levers of big government.

#3.1.4.1.1 indyjonesouthere on 2023-10-04 21:14 (Reply)

"Common sense changes at the personal level can help, but will be marginal."
Not really. If the 81 million who voted for Biden just act on their alleged beliefs, there is no question it would dramatically reduce the USA's carbon output.
"anthropogenic global warming." Here's another example of you arguing about something most of the people you're arguing with are indifferent with. You have to defend the "C" in CAGW for "climate change" to be the political tool you want to use it as. Your intentional omission of the "C" and your implicit admission that you aren't making any person sacrifices to reduce your carbon footprint are admissions that you don't believe there is a crisis. Or, like John Kerry, you just want to be exempt from such sacrifices and force others to make those sacrifices.
You're still not engaged in good faith or honest debate.

#3.1.4.1.2 James on 2023-10-05 17:50 (Reply)

James: If the 81 million who voted for Biden just act on their alleged beliefs, there is no question it would dramatically reduce the USA's carbon output.

That is not correct. People, as individuals, don’t decide the source of energy for the community power plant. Nor do they decide on the emissions entailed in manufacturing their automobile tires. The vast majority of emissions can’t be controlled by the individual but have to be addressed socially. The best individual action is simple conservation, such as by insulating homes, but that is not sufficient on its own.

#3.1.4.1.3 Zachriel on 2023-10-05 20:51 (Reply)

If this were just an acknowledgement that "green" technology wasn't mature 10 years ago when you were praising it, isn't mature now, won't be mature in 10 years, and almost certainly won't be mature in 29 years, that would be a sign of real growth on your part.
Alas, it isn't. It's a denial of the obvious fact that the median middle class American can cut their carbon footprint by 50% with person choices. Maybe 60%. It's unpleasant and amounts to a significant diminution in one's standard of living, but isn't that hard. And never mind that 81 million American acting towards a common goal can move the market dramatically.
You prefer to lie and say that technology is the key rather than make the sacrifices you would if you believe there is a crisis.

#3.1.4.1.3.1 James on 2023-10-06 17:52 (Reply)

James: If this were just an acknowledgement that "green" technology wasn't mature 10 years ago when you were praising it, isn't mature now, won't be mature in 10 years, and almost certainly won't be mature in 29 years, that would be a sign of real growth on your part.

You are engaged in black-and-white thinking. Maturity isn’t a binary, but a process of growth. In terms of green energy, science isn’t the primary issue, but technological development and implementation balanced against cost. As energy infrastructure is replaced every few decades anyway, upgraded replacements make economic sense.

Any program that requires people to ‘live in trees’ is destined to fail. Any plausible plan must allow continued economic development.

{Your comments always seem to include a nervous tick, which is being flagged by our spam detector. You may want to check your connections.}

#3.1.4.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2023-10-06 20:24 (Reply)

September 2023, record high temperature anomaly.

#3.1.4.2 Zachriel on 2023-10-05 07:43 (Reply)

Here is another view of the temperature anomaly.

#3.1.4.3 Zachriel on 2023-10-05 16:50 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

A Chris Southern Consulting website.