Judith Curry

good luck finding unbiased papers or sources on this topic. best I've found is https://judithcurry.com/

The IPCC is supposed to summarize the state of the existing literature, but it was born political, tends to attracts eco-activists of all sorts and relies more than it should on "grey literature" - unrefereed "reports" written by ecological organizations. The IPCC also to some degree generates the consensus it is supposed to be merely reporting on, in that the lead authors have been known to push specific articles into print supporting "their side" of things and delay articles supporting "the other side" with IPCC deadlines in mind so that their side gets the last word. That's one part of the process where excess alarmism gets to creep in. On the other side, your sources are correct that the result then gets massaged into acceptability. The "summary for policymakers" in particular is the result of political compromises - various country's representatives argue about it and then the rest of the document in some cases gets rewritten to reflect what the summary says, leaving nobody happy. Nonetheless, the IPCC documents aren't terrible and do tend to be worth reading if you really want to know what's going on. On being "past skepticism": The most credible skeptics tend to be "lukewarmers". They believe reality is a bit more complicated and uncertain than has been portrayed, they tend to suspect climate sensitivity is a lot lower than the models predict and they tend to be suspicious of doomsday claims generally. But almost nobody at this point doubts "CO2 is a greenhouse gas"…

The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years The best climate science is still crap. We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural variability. It's been rather telling that IPCC has had to adjust its predictions significantly over the last decade because they haven't matched up with reality. Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to figure out what's really going on. Personally, I find it very grounding to go back to Judith Curry's blog every once in a while to see what a reasonable skeptic is observing in all the political noise around the science. http://judithcurry.com/

Estimates of when the next glacial period would naturally start range from about 2ky to 12ky, so too far away to worry about now. The glacial transitions are somewhat predictable as they are triggered by favorable isolation conditions due to the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the Earth. That's why we can have high confidence it won't happen in the next few hundred years. https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/ http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7344

I don't think you are sincere since you already mention blog and video, which are the usual mantra words of the politicizing discourse but I encourage everyone who is interested to look into https://judithcurry.com/ for an example.

There are absolutely researchers skeptical of catastrophic CO2-induced climate change, Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, Judith Curry, Nakamura Mototaka, Susan Crockford, and many, many others. Curry does a great weekly summary of papers and research that are both for and against the theory that CO2 will cause catastrophic warming: https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/15/week-in-review-science-edition-118/… The difference between historical revisionism and CO2 induced climate change theory is that one is a recorded event in human history and one is an hypothesis about how the world works. It is one for which there does not exist an empirical experiment and for which there is mixed evidence, like so much of nutrition science and psychology, it is one that warrants critical thinking and discussion.

Stop paying attention to the hysteria. It's great for views and clicks. It's terrible for viewers and clickers. "We have been told that climate change is an ‘existential crisis.’ However, based upon our current assessment of the science, the climate threat is not an existential one, even in its most alarming hypothetical incarnations." https://judithcurry.com/2019/12/14/the-toxic-rhetoric-of-climate-chang…

Ok. Two screaming kids... while i don't have time to find the direct sources of scientific comment, they should be referenced in the following article about Hansen's 2015 paper. https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/26/hansens-backfire/ Lol. Don't read the comments, while i find judith to be above board, many of her fans are definitely rabid troglodytes.

You might have seen this but I put it out for other people to see it. Recently It came out that climate scientistic have been manipulating weather data. Essay from the whistleblower: Climate scientists versus climate data https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-d… I posted it to HN as well but it never got any traction. Great read nevertheless. Anyone who has lived for a while has seen multiple climate doomsday predictions that didn't pan out. The end prophecy reminds of a religious sect.

Dr. Curry has addressed the responses linked above from Peter Thorne and Zeke Hausfather in a follow-up posting. https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scien…

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist! I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the scientific community admits to this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0 I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.

> Overpredict? According to what? See, for example, here: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reali… Note that this actually understates the overprediction, because the models whose average is shown included three sets of models that made three different assumptions about how CO2 would rise. But CO2's actual rise over the period where we're comparing models with data was about the same as the assumption of the "worst case" (or "business as usual") scenario, so that scenario is the only one that's relevant to the comparison between models and data. And when you compare just that sheaf of models with the data, the divergence between model and data is even larger. For the reasons why the upper troposphere temperature comparison is more relevant than the surface temperature comparison (which is what is shown in the IPCC AR5), see the article. > According to NASA[1] we're already at a 0.9 degree anomaly for 2017. The IPCC prediction[2] is 1 degree anomaly in 2020 for the worst case prediction in the worst case scenario. But, as you note, the two anomalies are relevant to two different baselines. That means the comparison is invalid, not "not perfect". > if you want to look at IPCC's best case scenarios, the prediction is about 0.1 degree That's for future temperature change under the future best case scenario. It has nothing to do with past temperature change under the actual scenario that actually happened. > See page 11 Those graphs…

John Bates has an extensive blog post describing his allegations on Judith Curry's well-known blog: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-d… It was submitted to HN yesterday but got 4 points and 0 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13574012 Posts submitted to HN in the last month about the effort to back-up climate data from a suspected erasure by the Trump administration got 448 and 85 points. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13488334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13487843 [EDIT] Bates: > I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment. [EDIT2] Rebuttal post by Peter Thorne, who was in Karl's group, although was not an author on the key…

I wasn't trying to convince you that it was part of such a campaign. Rather I was wondering which particular details swayed you, as a presumably impartial observer, to believe one side of the story rather than the other. But since you ask, the main reason I feel like its part of a campaign is because the recently released emails have confirmed that there was indeed such a campaign. Before knowing that (which I think is a solid fact at this point) I probably would have thought that "intense media campaign" was too conspiratorial to be likely. Separately, while I don't know the Guardian author's history and experience, I feel like the vehemence of her language and the viciousness of the chosen quotes is greater than that normally shown in a science story. Also, from previous exposure to Mann and Trenberth, I (rightly or wrongly) start with the assumption that they are more concerned with political message than presenting an unbiased scientific overview. I liked that the first article you linked included a rebuttal from Pielke, and I found his links and counter-argument persuasive. But at this point I'm conscious of my bias toward his side of the story, and thus don't trust my assessment of this particular article. That's why I was asking you which parts you found convincing, so I could try to consider them specifically. --- The quoting of Judith Curry in the second article you linked is interesting. In 2007 she argued against Pielke's conclusions, but since then she…

> One point that it looks like Curry takes aim with more generally is the degree to which there is a consensus about global warming among scientists. She says that 97% of scientists can't believe in it because they haven't studied it or built their own models, etc -- they have "second order belief" In the post below, her primary complaint about the 97% stat is that it doesn't specify the amount of climate change that those people attributed to humans: "After discarding the abstracts that were judged to have taken no position, Cook (2013) reported a 97% consensus that anthropogenic GHGs were causing global warming. However, three-fourths of that consensus was judged to be implied and more than 98% of the agreement was expressed non-quantitatively. Consequently, no widespread consensus exists in these abstracts that humans are responsible for most of the global warming; only that humans are responsible for an unspecified amount of global warming." https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/20/what-is-there-a-97-consensus-about/ I think the 97% stat provides a useful opportunity for those of us who would like to get to truth of the matter but haven't studied climatology and have no interest in spending years studying the subject just to determine the truth of this particular issue. So much of the argument about the subject is "they're wrong, I'm right" followed by technical explanation that you cannot tell who to trust. But you can understand how the 97% claim was reached. It provides…

This is actually an excellent illustration of how organizational incentives seep into data. Imagine you have a historical temperature series record. You have an bureaucratic incentive to find and justify an argument as to why past temperatures should be adjusted downward, making the curve of global warming look steeper. You have no bureaucratic incentive to look for the opposite. The result is that, overall, modern corrections adjust past temperatures downward -- what we'd expect if these biases exist. But this doesn't mean any specific correction is based on "fabricated" research. It's probably perfectly valid. It's just that downward corrections are more attractive to research, because they produce research that has a social impact that the field finds desirable. (Edit: here's a picture of the net adjustments: https://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temper…

Rebuttal: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-… The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. ... The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. ------ The link above also includes more on some of the specifics of the new adjustments NOAA made.

> this is just another anti renewables "I know better than all the experts" blog post https://judithcurry.com/about/ "Interview with Ron Paul" "Interview with Tucker Carlson (Fox News)" "Interview with John Stossel (Fox News)" Impressive list of disqualifications there.

He's a regular guest poster on the blog: He's been consistantly wrong about renewable stuff since 2015 https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/12/true-costs-of-wind-electricity/

At 9:41 I was reminded of this: "...nuclear power could now be around 10% of current cost, and have avoided up to 10 million deaths and 164 Gt CO2 between 1980 and 2015, if not for disruption to progress in the late 1960s and rapidly escalating costs since." https://judithcurry.com/2017/12/21/forgone-benefits-of-disruption-to-n…

This appears to be inspired by an idea published years ago which suggested building industrial refridgeration in Antarctica to achieve the same goals. https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration…

Your maths fails in real life. Seems to be only 10-20% of anti body prevalence is needed for herd immunity due to t-cell protection that wasn't taken into account. The Diamond Princess cruise ship, perfect floating petri dish for experiements, bore this out. Same with London and New York, reach the herd immunity levels of 10-20% and died out. Try this maths https://judithcurry.com/2020/05/10/why-herd-immunity-to-covid-19-is-re…

A little balance: > Identifying a potential human fingerprint on recent sea level rise is confounded by the large magnitude of natural internal variability associated with ocean circulation patterns. There is not yet convincing evidence of a fingerprint on sea level rise associated with human-caused global warming. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

That's not true. The climate models typically show larger rises in temperature than have actually happened. I found this within 5 seconds of Googling: https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reali… I'm not sure how good the source is, but it is consistent with what I've seen elsewhere.

What is with the weird title there? It is written as if we should already know about the existence of such a whistleblower, or maybe it was written up before the name was known. One possibility is he tried to whistleblow to the Washington post, but they sent it to the whistleblow targets, allowing them to develop talking points: "He submitted an earlier, shorter version of this essay to the Washington Post, in response to the 13 December article (climate scientists frantically copying data). The WaPo rejected his op-ed, so he decided to publish at Climate Etc." https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-d…

Original post: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-d…

Judith Curry had something to say about the NASA data as well. I find her analysis quite level-headed. http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/

Dan, you seem like a decent guy. Please read this and tell me what you think: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-%E2%80%9Cd… How can you trust anything the IPCC or its associated scientists have to say when they have openly advocated deceiving the public?

I think http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-t… is a reasonably representative informed article on this.

Could someone please explain to me how the IPCC can be calling for urgent action when their models are looking increasingly busted? http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause… I can see three main possibilities: - their models aren't busted (Judith Curry is wrong, as are those whom she cites) - their models are busted, and that increases the risk (i.e. risk increases as a result of forecasting being essentially impossible) - their models are busted, and they're doubling down on a bad bet for political reasons