Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink

“Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Following is her verbal remarks as delivered to last week’s US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”

12 Responses

  1. Wow, shes’ a chair at the Georgia Institute of Technology?

    The organization whose endowment fund – the Georgia Tech Foundation – has as trustees including such luminaries as former leaders from Goldman Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and on and on.

    Gee, what’s more likely? That the vast majority of the world’s scientists – many of whom DO NOT depend on corporate money – are wrong or that the American et al researchers who have direct ties to big oil/wall street $$ are toeing the line for their paymasters?

    Seriously, again, AGW can be both real AND a tool that is being manipulated by those in power to consolidate their power/wealth. It doesn’t need to be a hoax in it’s entirety. They are not mutually exclusive and the above in fact makes much more sense.

    For example, jihadist terrorism did indeed exist at one point before the CIA/Mossad started faking it and using to its own ends but that doesn’t mean it did not have real roots at some point. They were lot of legitimate non-hoax gun deaths before they started begin faked by TPTB to further an agenda.

    Again, the anti-AGW when viewed against other conspiracies/hoaxes looks like shit as concerns backing support, logic, common sense, cui buono? and every other metric by which truth seekers judge these things.

    Again, as someone who’s spent decades researching this stuff I see this as a disheartening trend as it undermines perceptions of researchers claims in other areas.

    Oh well.

    • Silliness… I have some advice for you…

      1. You use way too many talking points in each post. You should use some restraint and spread them out to more than one post so that your playbook is not so exposed and so obvious.

      2. Same thing about the dosage of “mockery” and “talking down to” you engage in… Your success rate in getting any of your talking points across to the readership is inversely proportionate to how big of a douche you sound like with your language.

      3. Even if it is in pretense, you should post a few comments about some of the other subjects discussed on this website so that we don’t wake up to the fact that you are a paid climate-change watchdog. Make them short… Unless you get paid by the word, in which case, just fire away… I know times are hard…

      4. Do not lump up different conspiracies as proof or disproof of the AWG narrative. It’s a logical fallacy very frequently used by your kind, and it will not go past the smell test of most of the readers, let alone the owner, of this website.

      5. Try to ask your course instructors or your superiors about ways (and language) that would make you sound smarter than you are. It’s one of your weakest sides.

      Perhaps I am being unfair… Perhaps you are still interning at some propaganda outfit or another. Perhaps this is your first real world assignment… If that’s the case, we’ll wait till you ripen up a bit more…

      Now, how bout that COP21, eh? We are all safe now!!! So are all the 3rd world dictators and their families, who are now on a 100 billion a year payroll… Oh goodie. I wonder if they will spend some of that money to to upgrade their militaries to fight climate change more effectively.

      Polar bears must be drowning in their own vomit as they watch this in disgust.

      Lastly… Since you studied the subject for decades, could you explain one more time how this scheme is gonna work?

  2. Hi Silliness,

    You obviously didn’t do your homework. Otherwise you would have come across this tidbit in Zbigniew Jarowoski’s document, which, by the way, is dated by now, meaning that the disparity in funding has most certainly and since widened considerably since Jarowoski wrote his paper:

    “According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during the past 10 years, promoters of the man-made global warming hypothesis received more than $50 billion in funding in the United States alone. On the other hand, the skeptics who doubt that this hypothesisistrue, received only $19 million over the past 20 yearsfrom ExxonMobile, i.e. 0.04 percent of what promoters gained in half that time (EPW 2007).”


    You see, Silliness, money is money. It doesn’t matter what the source is, or at least not always. Of course, private business will always fund what it imagines will redound in its favor by way of profits. But have you noticed that the people who rule our public institutions tend to be drawn from the moneyed classes? So what appears to be in the public interest is first and foremost in the interest of capital, be in the short or long term.

    So yes, follow the money. Be careful to note the disparity between which side of the debate gets 99.96% of the overall funding — and that was roughly in the year 2007.

    Gee, what’s more likely? That the vast majority of the world’s scientists – many of whom DO NOT depend on corporate money, but on grants that will only fund studies that strive to prove AWG – are wrong or that the American et al researchers who have direct ties to big oil/wall street because they have to begging for crumbs and can only find it among private interests who believe they will see their profits atrophied by broad based emissions curtailment? Although, it’s true, the CO2 schemes thus far concocted seem to do nothing about actually reducing emissions so much as increasing the profit making opportunities of big finance.

  3. Norman, do you think that the reason why people who support AGW received more money is because there are many many more of them as opposed to the tiny fraction that support anti-AGW theories? Or are do you not understand simple math? What’s the per scientist rate?

    Furthermore, why do you think every major corporation gives money to just about every single environmental organization across the board? Familiar with the term “green-washing”? Hello…..

    Corporations shower cash wherever they see their vested interests lie and that includes in areas in which their actions run completely contrary to those to whom they give such money such as the environment etc etc. They have more than enough of it.

    It’s not that all the work/issue that those environmental groups address are hoaxes – the corporations know that – it’s that the corporations want such orgs to bend/soften the impact/reporting on work that they do.

    They co-opt all of the organizations but that doesn’t mean that what lies at the core of those institutions is a hoax.

    The total and complete effing horseshit that is all things Edward Snowden is yet another example that Scott has thoroughly covered and which he was correctly out in front of nearly everyone else.

    Yes, Internet security and privacy and government spying were real issues but TPTB didn’t say that all those issues were hoaxes to gain control of the situation. Rather, they just cooked up the Little Eddie Psyop to steer the “conversation” towards CISPA etc etc and how they wanted the world to deal with the issue y’know in a way THEY would like.

    Again: real issue/topic –> hijacked towards TPTB own ends through a cookie cutter hoax i.e., Eddie Snowden.

    Really, I believe TPTB don’t effing care if AGW is real or not as they saw an existing issue/opportunity/Rahmian crisis that they could bend to their liking and that’s what’s happening.

    It doesn’t need to be a hoax to lessen their concern for the future of mankind or not because THEY NEVER HAD ANY to begin with.

    If the confusion caused by anti-AGW people keeps Big Oil making $$$ for another decade or two that’s more than enough for these greedy effers and by now they’ve thoroughly co-opted all of the international organizations so that any remedies provided will be in tune with their making more money longer than that.

    • Silliness,

      I’ll be lazy in my reply and simply refer you to something I wrote and posted elsewhere. I tried copying and pasting it here, but I guess the post was too long for WordPress and it is now in quarantine, waiting for Scott to decide on its fate. Here is the link:

      Read it or not.

      The gist is this:

      ” ‘Climate scientists’ who manage to sell their theses to the wealthiest or politically most powerful patrons will receive the most by way of research dowries, but perhaps also more importantly, will be the ones whose ‘viewpoints’ will come to dominate public opinion, or at least appear to do so, since the uniformity of public opinion (through the mechanisms of the corporate media and universal education, tightly under the control of the dominant sources of funding in our society) is also a phenomenon under the sway of the wealthiest and most powerful patrons in our midst. Consequently, the ‘truth’ or ‘untruth’ of the hypothesis of AGW has little to do with its dissemination and acceptance in a broad cultural sense. That dissemination and acceptance is predominantly determined by ‘political’ factors, by who it is that controls the main channels of information distribution. In our society, regardless of which position on the issue of ‘global warming’ becomes prominent, that control ultimately rests with the corporate capitalist cartels. One can therefore expect that irrespective of the scientific validity or invalidity of the AGW hypothesis, the version deemed most propitious to advancing both the short- and long-term interests of the ruling elite will also be perceived to be, whether in ‘fact’ or not, the dominant ‘scientific consensus.’ The ‘truth value’ of this politically generated ‘consensus,’ then, whatever it may be, is and will continue to be incidental, largely arbitrary and coincidental, in a word, an accident, like so much else that is characteristic of our age and era.”

      As for simple math: more than 99% of all funding goes to research biased in favor of the hypothesis of AWG; less than half of one percent goes toward research examining hypotheses that if proven correct, would invalidate or seriously call into question the hypothesis of AWG. If you don’t look for something, you won’t find it, will you? How convenient might that be for the TPTB?

    • “What’s the per scientist rate?”

      Here is an interesting read addressing may failure to understand simple math:

      Title: The conceits of consensus — by Judith Curry

      . . . where we learn, among other things, that 47% is the new 97%

      Just some simple math for you, Silliness.

    • Oh Silliness, Norman is so polite and thorough. He is attempting to sway you with logic, but you already know the things he is telling you, don’t you? But, gosh darn it, you’re still trying to tie too many things together at once to give yourself credibility/believability/perceived integrity/authority/sincerity/persuasiveness/influence.

  4. There are still way too many mountebanks claiming to speak for the truth community oozing out of the carcass of what passes for public opinion these daze. One would think people could review and cite the Vostok core samples, if indeed they were the experts they pose as. All the relevent evidence shoots down Al Gore’s Al Gore Warming theories. But the bullshit is deep. To boot, our professor Curry right off the bat says she does not even question greenhouse gas theory.. Her limited hangout kind of chat is exactly what i expect from the idiots holding down academia disseminating this greenhouse gas ‘consensus’ big lie which as you will see in the link below, is not actually consensus. AGW does not even have any evidence at all behind it because it is physically impossible!

    AGW shills have everything backward in cause and effect because CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming, not leading. Suggest everyone look at the geohistory of carbon dioxide concentration and temperature. for, the charts do not lie. Gore in fact could never explain why his theory was exactly contradicted by the evidence, saying only, ‘It’s complicated’. Yes I guess a complete fraud is sorta complicated to explain.

    First, solar activity- like sunspots- causes a warming of earth’s surface, covered three fourths with water. Heat is sunk in ocean currents, that form in heated zones like an El Nino, near the equator. Surface and atmospheric temperatures rise as solar energy is absorbed, then carbon dioxide rises in response to its warmer ocean medium. Carbon dioxide rise lags temperature rise, not the other way around. Suggest all review causality and the second law of thermodynamics. The clockspring of entropy, cause and effect, only unwinds in one direction in this universe. .

    This whole thing smacks of a beta test to determine how many morons a complete hoax could hook and cook.

    Twenty thousand years ago the glaciation was so extreme there was a land bridge across the present Bering Straits and sea levels were three hundred feet lower. Antarctica was once subtropical. Things did not change from there to here due to smokestacks and SUVs, sorry not even by Gore and his mansions. Earth changes normally in huge swings over millenia and always has without any human influence. Solar activity is most important. Volcanoes and asteroids can impact climate change far beyond a backwards greenhouse gas theory ever could. Highs in the carbon dioxide concentration are followed by cooling thoughout geohistory, CO2 increases the heat radiation of the thermosphere, the opposite of the greenhouse theory.

    • Yes, it’s funny how anthropogenic emissions fail to explain the end of the last glaciation peak or the much warmer period that dominated some six to eight thousand years ago, but all of a sudden it becomes the ‘only’ possible and conceivable factor driving climate change today.

      I guess that the multitude of factors that in the past made for dynamic and extreme climate variations simply and altogether stopped having the least bit of influence on anything these past one hundred and twenty years or so.

      Clearly, if the AGW hypothesis is to be believed, natural climactic variation had finally petered out into a steady state harmony, thereby demonstrating how in the end natural history, if left to alone, will always and inevitably reach a certain height and state of perfection, after which it simply and naturally comes to an end.

      But then, then came the humans with their misguided and evil efforts at industrialization, shattering the perfection of mother nature. And so it was that Paradise was lost not once, but twice.

      Strange how the holy Bible seems to get everything right every single time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: