Last edited:
Prediction: Losing election simply due to climate scepticism
- Thread starter OddTrader
- Start date
Usually a competent writer should be able to write up convincing articles, with careful drafted words, for either opposite side of politics in order to earn a good living. At different times.
That's quite normal! And a right thing to do so!
Just a practice of viewing from different perspectives!
That's quite normal! And a right thing to do so!
Just a practice of viewing from different perspectives!
So you have no proof. No link. No URL to support your assertion.
Your assertion is a complete fabrication.
No it's not you dolt. She said it herself.
When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: [2]
“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry.......
There is more to the quote but it doesn't matter.
Whats your point? She did research and she got paid for it. Ohh the horror.
I guess all the global warming alarmists are working for free, in their $1.5 trillion a year industry.
Well let's let everyone decide for themselves by giving them the ENTIRE quote.
"“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
the one I liked was in the documentary Dark Winter and the guy said, Heck yes I take money from fossil fuel. Do you really think the global warming crowd is going to give me any money?
This simply serves to once again demonstrate how far the climate cabal will go to twist the facts.
Curry writes on her blog Climate Etc. that her views on climate change are best summarized by her recent Congressional Testimony. The following quote is taken from her testimony (PDF) on the President's Climate Action Plan: [21], [22]
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:
************************************************
What reduced estimates? Based on the cherry picked el nino year of '98?
The only way one can say they over-predicted warming is by ...
1) Using 98 as a starting year and ignoring long term averages and trends.
2) Ignoring the constant heat build up in the oceans, which is surprising considering that her training in geophysics should have informed her that 90% of the earth's climatologically active heat is in the oceans and that they have tremendous and variable influence on climate and weather. Maybe she just forgot.
In short, while she may have some credible points regarding the avoidance of "groupthink" it seems that she is a bit of an attention whore, is fishing for petro-dollars and is essentially wrong when she says that there has been a pause in global warming and that the models have been wrong or over-predict the effects of increasing CO2.
And let's not forget, she is just one voice in a huge chorus. She gets outsized attention because she is singing a tune that appeals to a certain very interested minority.
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:
- The hiatus in global warming since 1998
- Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
- Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century”
************************************************
What reduced estimates? Based on the cherry picked el nino year of '98?
The only way one can say they over-predicted warming is by ...
1) Using 98 as a starting year and ignoring long term averages and trends.
2) Ignoring the constant heat build up in the oceans, which is surprising considering that her training in geophysics should have informed her that 90% of the earth's climatologically active heat is in the oceans and that they have tremendous and variable influence on climate and weather. Maybe she just forgot.
In short, while she may have some credible points regarding the avoidance of "groupthink" it seems that she is a bit of an attention whore, is fishing for petro-dollars and is essentially wrong when she says that there has been a pause in global warming and that the models have been wrong or over-predict the effects of increasing CO2.
And let's not forget, she is just one voice in a huge chorus. She gets outsized attention because she is singing a tune that appeals to a certain very interested minority.