Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

[JoeB131]

this is your ugly President calling YOU the people he SUPPOSEDLY Represents names...you voted for it

SNIP:
By Justin Sink - 06/25/13 02:40 PM ET





President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, saying he lacked "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real."

"We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the "overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements" put "to rest" questions about pollution affecting the environment.

SO what's wrong with any of that?

The Plutocrats know that if we do something, they won't make money, so they spend money keeping stupid people like you denying what should be obvious to all.

The world is getting warmer, and people are responsible.

 

[skookerasbil]

this is your ugly President calling YOU the people he SUPPOSEDLY Represents names...you voted for it

SNIP:
By Justin Sink - 06/25/13 02:40 PM ET





President Obama angrily blasted climate change skeptics during his energy policy speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, saying he lacked "patience for anyone who denies that this problem is real."

"We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

Earlier in his remarks, Obama said the "overwhelming judgement of science, of chemistry, of physics, and millions of measurements" put "to rest" questions about pollution affecting the environment.

The world is getting warmer, and people are responsible.

but nobody cares s0n.........

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/26/proud-moment-for-warmists-president-of-real-flat-earth-society-believes-in-the-global-warming-hoax/

 

[JoeB131]

[



but nobody cares s0n.........

]

So we should only care about the coming apocolypse when it endangers your viewing of "American Idol"?

Leadership is addressing the real problems, not just the ones that win popularity polls.

Either Global Warming is a real problem and needs to be addressed or it isn't.

 

[editec]

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

Oh the horror!

The more historically accurate US political term for those folks is KNOW-NOTHINGS.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Another couple of inchs of rain in the northern tier in 2011, and the price tag would have seemed minor.

Strange, I thought that most of the models actually predict less rainfall in the norther hemisphere. Are you using those imaginary models again?

Dumb fuck. The Fort Peck dam spillway was starting to fail. That is an earthfill dam. Had the spillway failed, the dam would have washed out, and every dam downstream is also earth fill. Every major city on the Missouri, and the Mississippi south of the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi would have been flooded. That would have been our first trillion dollar weather event.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

Oh the horror!

The more historically accurate US political term for those folks is KNOW-NOTHINGS.

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

 

[Bfgrn]

Obama mocks skeptics of climate change as ‘flat-Earth society’

Oh the horror!

The more historically accurate US political term for those folks is KNOW-NOTHINGS.

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

 

[TakeAStepBack]

argumentum ad populum. Or the head count fallacy. Logical fallacies never win an argument.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” - T.H. Huxley


Plus, you dont have the data on your side for support. All that needs to be done is post the observations that has deviated heavily from prediction to show how fuckign wrong you are. Then you wheel out the head count fallacy when you lose the data debate. The head count fallacy that never even was. Since 97% of scientists is a lie.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/...n-global-warming-in-the-literature-a-comment/

Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus.

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.

 

[Bfgrn]

argumentum ad populum. Or the head count fallacy. Logical fallacies never win an argument.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” - T.H. Huxley


Plus, you dont have the data on your side for support. All that needs to be done is post the observations that has deviated heavily from prediction to show how fuckign wrong you are. Then you wheel out the head count fallacy when you lose the data debate. The head count fallacy that never even was. Since 97% of scientists is a lie.

?Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature?: a comment | Watts Up With That?

Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus.

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.

Like I said...

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.

WOW, a BLOGGER, who could have predicted...

Citing a chronic liar and poser...

Christopher Monckton is a non-scientist AGW denier, who has had articles published in The Guardian and in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of the American Physical Society (whose Council subsequently disagreed with Monckton's conclusions) claiming that global warming is neither man-made nor likely to be catastrophic.

Monckton has made various false claims in the past such as that he is a member of the British House of Lords, a Nobel Prize winner, inventor of a cure for HIV, winner of a defamation case against George Monbiot and writer of a peer-reviewed article.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sure, character assassination works just like argumentum ad populum. Still, you dont have the data to support your view. Regardless of who delivers the message.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sad Trombone Sound Effect - Wah Wah Wah FAIL Sound - Fail Horns - YouTube

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMpXAknykeg]Sad Trombone Sound Effect - Wah Wah Wah FAIL Sound - Fail Horns - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

Sadly, I continue to have to repeat myself. You seem like an intelligent person, but then you continue to talk past me and ignore what I say. That is not a sign of intelligence, that is more likely to be arrogance and/or dogma.

AGAIN...My belief is we address pollution. Because if we address pollution, it will take care of 99% of the goals of addressing AGW.

I am as far from Dr. Doom as you can get. As I mentioned before (again): The possibilities that a 21st century smart power grid could unlock is HUGE. With a major investment in infrastructure and clean energy like solar and wind, we could, in a relatively short time have almost FREE energy, Every home could to become a power plant and put energy into the grid. It would be efficient and environmentally sustainable.

Dr. Doom would be the regressive right who falsely believe dirty energy like coal is a cheap energy source. Actually it's probably the most catastrophically expensive way to boil a pot of water that has ever been devised.

Didn't talk past you at all.. You imagining crap??? Every word of my last response was in response to your request to "name one power plant ... or polluter that emits ONLY CO2"

When I did so --- you deflect back without a comment. Should I even ATTEMPT to please you in the future?

There is no earthly reason to not finish the clean-up of power plant emissions that we have already accomplished. Without the propaganda about "carbon" and pollution. Mitigating "pollution" by fingering CO2 is gonna lead down some really silly paths. For instance, agriculture is charged with about 30% of man's CO2 load. And LIVESTOCK is more than 1/2 that (shouldn't be with honest accounting for the wildlife it displaced, but the entire game has no honest auditors). You gonna IGNORE those components just to shutter the fossil fuel generators?

Lemme ask you a question... Have you EVER seen the daily production chart for a well built well sited wind farm? Think you can run an advanced society on an energy source that doesn't produce two days a week and every 5th hour?

You got approximately NOTHING that is a TRUE alternative.. Just a bunch of sketchy supplements. It's ante up time and the bluffing is out of control... WHAT are ya gonna replace it with???

Your hydro answer is true, and also based on deception. Not all hydro is the same. And even the worst case scenario over the life of a hydro plant is much more enviro friendly then any fossil fuel.

That's not entirely true either. THis revelation that Hydro does have a considerable CO2 footprint is relatively new.. And we have yet to completely assess the contributions. You will STILL find myriads of bad quotations saying that "hydro is completely free of GHGases". All that needs to be purged and the science done. What we KNOW is that NEW hydro installations vary from 25% to 600% of the GHGas emissions of fossil plants. And that the CO2 contribution is just the beginning because all that rotting vegetation contributes mostly METHANE (not CO2) and that is many times more potent as a GHGas.

This doesn't even take into account the loss of Carbon sinking because you LEVELED a considerable amount of environment to build your hydro facility..

There is no single clean energy source that will run an advanced society. We need all hands on deck. And a smart grid is essential, so energy can be diverted where needed, shut down where needed. There is also a need for 21st century storage of energy. Parts of Europe are light years ahead of America.

That's the chilling admission that will keep your "plan" marginalized.. We don't want you or Obama or the eco-frauds with their sketchy lists of alternatives and NEGAWATT conservation anywhere NEAR a smart grid if what it represents to you is an authoritarian opportunity to "divert ... and SHUT down where NEEDED".. You want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. I want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL..

I feel no need to rebutt your faulty view that the Europeans are making monumental progress that we ignore. The latest rounds of subsidy cuts, and citizen outrage over the REAL COSTS of their fantastic ventures into "alternatives" is common knowledge. Germany for instance has torn up pristine mountains to place reservoirs and piping for water storage of renewables. A patently BAD ecological and desparate engineering solution to salvage their misplaced investments in wind and solar.

Pollution...there is no silly path away from pollution and there is no propaganda attached to pollution. It is harmful to human, fish and foul. It can ONLY survive by a malfeasance of the free market. There is never anything cheap about it.

The more I hear what you have to say, the more I hear a cynic. No forward vision, no thinking outside the box, no progressive ideas. Just protect polluters at all costs and bury your head in the sand. Ignore real world realities and call them 'conspiracy theories'

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

I have plenty of "forward, out of the box" thiinking. I'm looking at the big picture engineering of decreasing the use of coal plants and moving transport away from oil..

I have very solid suggestions for BOTH of these. You have jack shit irrational "hope and change".

YOU and yours want to move transport energy to already antiquated and energy limited grid. You push pullling 1W chargers out of my wall so that YOU can charge your plug-in EV in 20minutes using the equivalent grid load of 150 houses....

That's insane public policy.

I --- want to pull the subsidies from the EV/battery crowd and at least share them with the FuelCell EV folks who are now winning the engineering war.. A transport sector built on fuel cells and hydrogen requires NO ADDITIONAL GRID GENERATION and NO GRID UPDATE.
Instead --- MY SOLUTION solves the "proper use" of wind and solar by recruiting them to make hydrogen OFF-GRID. So that storage isn't even an issue because it's stored in the fuel itself..

You need to muzzle the brainless morons telling us how to do this crap and lying to folks about what really is pollution and what wonderful "alternatives" they have...

 

[flacaltenn]

[



but nobody cares s0n.........

]

So we should only care about the coming apocolypse when it endangers your viewing of "American Idol"?

Leadership is addressing the real problems, not just the ones that win popularity polls.

Either Global Warming is a real problem and needs to be addressed or it isn't.

To paraphrase Mark Twain.. The rumors of our imminent demise have been greatly exaggerated.

To be brief -- (because we've done this a zillion times) your theory of GWarming says that the temperature warming contribution from a DOUBLING of CO2 -- and considering that CO2 ALONE as a factor --- will cause a 1.2DegC in surface temperature. Where the theory is gonna go off the rails and fail is where YOU'VE been told that the earth is gonna warm by up to 6degC by the end of century. The theory states that the relatively mild warming due to increased CO2 is just TRIGGER for a fragile Earth climate to execute a death spiral into feedbacks and processes that ACCELERATE that warming..

NONE of that has ever been seen. MOST of that part of the theory is highly debateable. AND the estimates for that "acceleration factor" still range from about 1.5 to 6 in the scientific lit..

If you think doubting THAT as a bar for the apocalypse makes me a "flat earther", you're welcome to that opinion.. But not many folks at the moment are interested in mitigating a 6degC rise this century when for 12 years --- the global surface temp has hardly moved..

How sure are you REALLY --- that we live on fragile planet with death wish. Where a 1 or 2 deg increase FROM ANY SOURCE in temp triggers armaggedon??

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh the horror!

The more historically accurate US political term for those folks is KNOW-NOTHINGS.

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

Are you saying that there are no HIGH CREDENTIALED dissenters as members of ANY of those organizations? Or that the main office made a feel good public policy statement without consulting and obtaining permission from their memberships??

My prof organization made a similiar statement. Membership is not happy with some of statements that have been issued.

 

[Oddball]

Oh the horror!

The more historically accurate US political term for those folks is KNOW-NOTHINGS.

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

All you have are blatant lies repeated over and over again, foolishly believing that they'll become true through repetition.

That idiotic and pure bullshit 97% number was debunked within hours of its release.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

All you have are blatant lies repeated over and over again, foolishly believing that they'll become true through repetition.

That idiotic and pure bullshit 97% number was debunked within hours of its release.

It's even worse than that. This one pulls out argumentum ad populum as EVIDENCE of Goebbel's warming. I mean, old rocks at least looks at the failed models as evidence, but evidence by head count?

Evidence, in this case is observation. Unfortunately for these nutbars, the evidence shows that their theory has already crumbled and is in need of serious remediation. Instead, they go right back to the same failed models and try to explain it away.

It might help to get more people interested in the actual science if they became honest in their scientific approach and pushed out the propaganda to the fringes instead of embracing it and chanting it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Right. That's why you warmer doomsday turds get your ass handed to you in every single thread on the topic. It's got to be some kind of brain damage to believe in such an obvious fucking lie.

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

All you have are blatant lies repeated over and over again, foolishly believing that they'll become true through repetition.

That idiotic and pure bullshit 97% number was debunked within hours of its release.

In science, we only need a couple qualified dissenters to prevent "consensus". It's not very democratic. But then neither is a membership in one of those huge technical societies..

Not picking on this scholar in particular --- but she qualifies as "a recent skeptic of GW theory"..

Climate Chnage

Climate Feedbacks
"Thermodynamics in the Climate Feedback System," in Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, by J. Curry and P. Webster. [Text] [Figures]

"The Nature, Measuring, and Modeling of Feedbacks," Presented at SEARCH Open Science Meeting, Seattle, 2003. [PDF]

Liu, G., H. Shao, J.A. Coakley, J.A. Curry, et al., 2003: Retrieval of Cloud Droplet Size from Visible and Microwave Radiometric Measurements during INDOEX: Implication to Aerosols1 Indirect Radiative Effect. J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D1): art. no. 4006. [PDF]

Uttal, T., Curry, J.A., and 26 others, 2002: Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 255-275. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, D. Perovich, and J.O. Pinto, 2001: Application of SHEBA/FIRE data to evaluation of sea ice surface albedo parameterizations. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15345-15356. [PDF]

Holland, M.M., J.L. Schramm, and J.A. Curry, 1997: Thermodynamic feedback processes in a single-column sea ice/ocean model. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 327-332.

Arbetter, T., J.A. Curry, M.M. Holland, and J. M. Maslanik, 1997: Response of sea ice models to perturbations in surface heat flux. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 193-197.

Curry, J.A., J. Schramm and E. E. Ebert, 1995: On the sea ice albedo climate feedback mechanism. J. Climate, 8, 240-247. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, MC. Serreze, and E.E. Ebert, 1995: Water vapor feedback over the Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 14,223-14,229. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., 1995: Interactions Among Aerosols, Clouds and Climate of the Arctic Ocean.The Science of the Total Environment, 160/161, 777-791. [PDF]

Curry, J.A. and E.E. Ebert, 1992: Annual cycle of radiative fluxes over the Arctic ocean: Sensitivity to cloud optical properties. J. Climate, 5, 1267-1280. [PDF]

GENERAL INFORMATION


Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography


Professional Experience

2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Awards/Honors

2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor

Professional Activities (last five years)

World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme

Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )

American Meteorological Society

Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)

National Science Foundation

Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)

Department of Energy

Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)

NAS/NRC

Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)

NOAA

Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008

Other

Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH GRANTS

Current Research Grants

Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)

Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)

Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)

UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)

Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)

Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)



TEACHING
Courses Taught

Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate)

Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate)

Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate)

Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate)

Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate)

Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate)

Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)

Think SHE gives a ratzass about what the Nat Science Fndtn. or Amer. Meteor. Soc press releases say????

 

[Old Rocks]

argumentum ad populum. Or the head count fallacy. Logical fallacies never win an argument.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” - T.H. Huxley


Plus, you dont have the data on your side for support. All that needs to be done is post the observations that has deviated heavily from prediction to show how fuckign wrong you are. Then you wheel out the head count fallacy when you lose the data debate. The head count fallacy that never even was. Since 97% of scientists is a lie.

?Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature?: a comment | Watts Up With That?

Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus.

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.

Dumb old man. Watt has no degree in any science, neither does the pretend Lord Monkton. In fact, the House of Lords actually issued a statement that Monkton is a pretender and not a Lord.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yea, as evidence and proof one one side has 97% of scientists, every reputable science organization and academy from American Association for the Advancement of Science to Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences.

And you have....

BLOGGERS and every dirty energy cartel

All you have are blatant lies repeated over and over again, foolishly believing that they'll become true through repetition.

That idiotic and pure bullshit 97% number was debunked within hours of its release.

In science, we only need a couple qualified dissenters to prevent "consensus". It's not very democratic. But then neither is a membership in one of those huge technical societies..

Not picking on this scholar in particular --- but she qualifies as "a recent skeptic of GW theory"..

Climate Chnage

Climate Feedbacks
"Thermodynamics in the Climate Feedback System," in Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, by J. Curry and P. Webster. [Text] [Figures]

"The Nature, Measuring, and Modeling of Feedbacks," Presented at SEARCH Open Science Meeting, Seattle, 2003. [PDF]

Liu, G., H. Shao, J.A. Coakley, J.A. Curry, et al., 2003: Retrieval of Cloud Droplet Size from Visible and Microwave Radiometric Measurements during INDOEX: Implication to Aerosols1 Indirect Radiative Effect. J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D1): art. no. 4006. [PDF]

Uttal, T., Curry, J.A., and 26 others, 2002: Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 255-275. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, D. Perovich, and J.O. Pinto, 2001: Application of SHEBA/FIRE data to evaluation of sea ice surface albedo parameterizations. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 15345-15356. [PDF]

Holland, M.M., J.L. Schramm, and J.A. Curry, 1997: Thermodynamic feedback processes in a single-column sea ice/ocean model. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 327-332.

Arbetter, T., J.A. Curry, M.M. Holland, and J. M. Maslanik, 1997: Response of sea ice models to perturbations in surface heat flux. Ann. Glaciol., 25, 193-197.

Curry, J.A., J. Schramm and E. E. Ebert, 1995: On the sea ice albedo climate feedback mechanism. J. Climate, 8, 240-247. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., J.L. Schramm, MC. Serreze, and E.E. Ebert, 1995: Water vapor feedback over the Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res., 100, 14,223-14,229. [PDF]

Curry, J.A., 1995: Interactions Among Aerosols, Clouds and Climate of the Arctic Ocean.The Science of the Total Environment, 160/161, 777-791. [PDF]

Curry, J.A. and E.E. Ebert, 1992: Annual cycle of radiative fluxes over the Arctic ocean: Sensitivity to cloud optical properties. J. Climate, 5, 1267-1280. [PDF]

GENERAL INFORMATION


Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography


Professional Experience

2002- Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program
1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State
1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University
1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Department of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Awards/Honors

2006 Georgia Tech Sigma Xi Award, Best Faculty Paper Award
2004 Fellow, American Geophysical Union
2002 NASA Group Achievement Award for CAMEX-4
1997 Elected Councilor, American Meteorological Society
1995 Fellow, American Meteorological Society"
1992 Henry G. Houghton Award, the American Meteorological Society
1988 Presidential Young Investigator Award, the National Science Foundation Councillor

Professional Activities (last five years)

World Meteorological Organization / International Council of Scientific Unions / International Ocean Commission / World Climate Research Programme

Global Energy and Water Experiment (GEWEX) Radiation Panel (1994-2004 )
GEWEX Cloud System Studies (GCSS) Science Steering Group (1998-2004 )
Chair, GCSS Working Group on Polar Clouds (1998-2004 )
Chair, GEWEX Radiation Panel SEAFLUX Project (1999-2004)
Science Steering Group, Arctic Climate System (ACSYS) Programme (1994-2000)
Steering Committee, IGAC/SOLAS Air-Ice Chemical Interactions (2003- )

American Meteorological Society

Executive Committee of the Council (1998-2000)
Councillor (1997-2000)
Awards Committee (1995-1997)
Editor, Journal of Applied Meteorology (1993-1996)

National Science Foundation

Panel to review NCAR (2002)
Co-Chair, Science Working Group, Surface Heat Balance of the Arctic (SHEBA) (1993-1996)
Atmospheric Sciences Observing Facilities Advisory Panel (1994-1997)
Arctic System Science (ARCSS) Steering Committee (1993-1995)

Department of Energy

Executive Committee, Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program (93-96) Chair (1997-2000) and Member (1993-2000), Science Steering Committee, ARM Alaska site

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Lead Mission Scientist, FIRE Arctic Cloud Experiment (1996-1999)
Technology Subcommittee of the Earth System Science and Applications Advisory Committee (1997-2003)
Review Team, Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (1998-1999)

NAS/NRC

Climate Research Committee (2003-2006)
Space Studies Board (2004-2007)

NOAA

Steering Committee for the Postdoc Program in Climate and Global Change, 1994-1998
Council on Long-Term Climate Monitoring 2002-2004
Climate Working Group 2004-2008

Other

Executive Committee for AGU Board of Heads and Chairs (2004-)
External Review Committee, Environmental Sciences Department, Rutgers University (2000-2001)
External Review Committee, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue Univ (2003)
Nominating Committee, AGU Atmospheric Science Division (2004-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH GRANTS

Current Research Grants

Towards the Understanding and Parameterization of High Latitude Cloud and Radiation Processes. DOE ARM, 12/01/02-11/30/08, $720,000 (PI)

Applications of Aerosondes to long-term measurements of the atmosphere and sea ice surface in the Beaufort/Chukchi sector of the Arctic Ocean, NSF, 9/1/99-8/31/06, $3,997,402. (PI)

Arctic Regional Climate Model Intercomparison Project: Evaluation and Interpretation of Cloud and Radiation Fields Using Data Products from FIRE.ACE. NASA, 12/03-12/07, $525,000. (PI)

UAV Systems Analysis for Earth Observations: Education and Outreach. NASA, 3/05-3/08, $350,000 (PI)

Global analysis of ocean surface fluxes of heat and freshwater: satellite products, NWP analyses, and CMIP simulations. NASA, 10/1/05-9/30/10, $1.4M. (PI)

Parameterization of cloud particle activation and diffusional growth. NASA, $450,000, 11/1/05-10/31/08 (PI)



TEACHING
Courses Taught

Hurricanes (Georgia Tech, grad/undergrad)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (Georgia Tech, graduate)

Thermodynamics of the Earth System (Georgia Tech, undergraduate)

Preparing Future Faculty (University of Colorado; graduate)

Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (University of Colorado; graduate)

Remote Sensing of the Atmosphere and Ocean (University of Colorado; graduate)

Aircraft Probing of the Lower Atmosphere (University of Colorado; graduate)

Future Faculty Training (University of Colorado; graduate)

Engineering Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Engineering Senior Design Lab (University of Colorado; undergraduate)

Survey of Meteorology (Purdue University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Thermodynamics (Purdue University, Penn State University; undergraduate)

Atmospheric Physics (Purdue University, Penn State University; graduate) Cloud and Precipitation Physics (Purdue University; graduate)

Think SHE gives a ratzass about what the Nat Science Fndtn. or Amer. Meteor. Soc press releases say????

Do you think any other scientist gives a rats ass about what she has to say if the evidence does not agree with her position?

The policy statements of the USGS, NOAA, and similiar organizations in all the other governments on this planet all state that AGW is a fact. As do the policy statements of all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and and major Universities. Now if Currey has new information that shows these positions to be incorrect, these are the people she has to convince. If she wishes to play politics, using dishonest mouthpeices such as Watts, then she will lose all standing in the scientific community.

 

[flacaltenn]

argumentum ad populum. Or the head count fallacy. Logical fallacies never win an argument.

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” - T.H. Huxley


Plus, you dont have the data on your side for support. All that needs to be done is post the observations that has deviated heavily from prediction to show how fuckign wrong you are. Then you wheel out the head count fallacy when you lose the data debate. The head count fallacy that never even was. Since 97% of scientists is a lie.

?Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature?: a comment | Watts Up With That?

Upon inspection of their data file, the latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a climate consensus really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that consensus.

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed.

Dumb old man. Watt has no degree in any science, neither does the pretend Lord Monkton. In fact, the House of Lords actually issued a statement that Monkton is a pretender and not a Lord.

That don't matter a whit in this case.. THe work from Monckton was simply debunking the 97% claim.. Doesn't REQUIRE a lordship or PhD in Climate to read abstracts and search for the word "MAN" does it now GoldiRocks?? Why --- even you might be able to do that after a couple more quarters of academics..

I listen to the CONTENT -- NOT the credentials at first... If credentials mattered to me, why would I spend lunchtime chatting with you???