Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Notice the last sentence. It concurs with Dr. Curry's.
<<
She simply isn't providing anything that can be used for the Cause and so is mostly ignored IMO. Is it because she is a woman? I wouldn't be surprised that is a factor.
“GLOBAL WARMING presents the greatest test we humans have yet faced,” asserted the October 2007 edition of National Geographic. If we are to meet that challenge successfully, said the magazine, we need to “move quickly and decisively―and with a maturity we’ve rarely shown as a society or a species.”
Will such maturity rise to the fore? Working against it are many factors: apathy, greed, ignorance, vested interests, the scramble for wealth in developing lands, and the business-as-usual philosophy of millions who want to maintain a high-energy-consuming lifestyle.
An ancient prophet of God gives us a realistic appraisal of our capacity to solve our ethical, social, and governmental problems. He wrote: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Mankind’s tragic history underscores those words. And today, although armed with significant developments in science and technology, we are faced with previously unimaginable threats. So how confident can we be that tomorrow will be better?
It is true that there has been a lot of talk about tackling climate change and other harmful trends, but little has been done. For example, how did the nations respond in 2007 when the Northwest Passage opened up for navigation for the first time? An editorial in New Scientist magazine answers: “With an unseemly scramble to lay claim to the exposed chunks of continental shelf so they [could] drill for more oil and gas.”
Famous, yes. Prestigious, I highly doubt it.
This is the Dr Judith Curry who disagreed with her own team's scientific findings (BEST) but co-authored the paper anyway. And this is the same Curry who defended the Wegman report although later she admitted she had not bothered to read it.
At least Curry acknowledges key elements of climate science, elements which you and other hard-core deniers here plainly reject. So I'll answer your question with another question. Why should I agree with the 'famous and prestigious' climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry when you do not agree with her on basic climate science?
Let's see, how do we smear Dr. Curry... She is qualified. She is not retired and fighting Alzheimer's. She is not in the pocket of big oil. She is not overly political. She is above reproach...
*Sniff* There will always be a few outliers. It is a 97% consensus, not a 100% consensus. She is only one person. She cannot hurt the cause by herself.
Her theory doesn't generate funding. She needs to study the global warming side of global cooling.
Michael Mann has already declared her anti-science.
no, if anything it is UNDER estimated.
when she says that current global warming estimates are severely overestimated? And that there are huge inconsistencies between observed data and modeled data? Do you think she's not being listened to just because she's a woman?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/28/overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/
