Those that think the scientific community has it all figured out about climate change

[dan_bgblue]

Needs to read this article. Oceanographers have been studying the deep ocean currents of the Atlantic ocean for over 100 years and they still are discovering that they don't understand what is going on and where it is happening. All of the climate models that have been designed over the last 50 years have been using bogus information about the deep ocean currents of the Atlantic which happens to be the major radiator and temperature regulator for the world.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190131143344.htm

[CitizenBBN]

Anyone who ever says any science is "certain" on something like this is a poor scientist. Science isn't certain, that's the whole point.

it doesn't mean nothing is happening, or that we shouldn't always, regardless of climate, try to be environmentally sound, but it doesn't mean we voluntarily become a second rate global power while the rest of the developing world pollutes at massive levels either.

[dan_bgblue]

I guess the Russian's are more concerned about cow happiness that they are about cow flatulence. (https://www.foxnews.com/tech/russian-cows-get-goggles-virtual-reality)

[kingcat]

Let me start by saying I have no doubt that you all know much more about GW than I do.

And I am not certain of anything except that I do not believe there is an agenda on the part of most organizations that support that there is a considerable man made impact on climate change. That just makes zero sense to me.

On the other hand I do believe that industry and corporate entities have sought to poke holes in the belief to save billions and perhaps trillions of dollars over time, by any means necessary, and at any immediate cost. And have greatly skewed even the three percent (or whatever it is) number of publishing scientists opposed to the idea by claiming those who purposely refused to draw any conclusion one way or the other as to cause, only standing behind the gathered data on change itself..as siding with the opposition.

Anyway, given one has that belief, the evidence lies abundantly on the side stating mankind is responsible for the rapid speed up of climate change. But even absent that belief, I've heard and seen the arguments and do observe it from a neutral and unbiased position. That, I am absolutely certain of. It is in no way a political issue with me, but a concern for my children and grandchildren that guides my conscious.

I wish it weren't an issue, but I fear you guys, and those who seek to repudiate the science are mistaken. Jmo.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."


American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)

American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century."

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities "


U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."
U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

And on and on...

[Catfan73]

Thanks for all that Kingcat! I may have to save that.

[CitizenBBN]

Why would there be bias in scientific research? Seriously?

For the same reason the Tobacco Institute, funded largely by the tobacco companies, managed to produce decades worth of scientific studies showing smoking wasn't really that bad for you.

Here are the key questions:

1) How much and in what ways are we warming?
2) Is that warming offsetting or not offsetting other trends, i.e. what are the various long and short term cycles and how are they interacting?
3) How much of that warming is man made?
4) What ways can that be mitigated?
5) In what ways will the Earth naturally mitigate these trends?

and the 8,000,000,000 lb gorilla in the room:

6) What can be done on a global scale to actually affect change in these trends?


that last one is the most serious of them all. The truth is that if we all agree climate change is real, ready to rain hell down on us, and that we're causing it, we still have almost no control, even as a vast and powerful nation, over the outcome.

If we go back to the Victorian era and become vegans all we can do at best is delay it some decades if the rest of the developing world doesn't get on board, and right now they are not so inclined.

That's why leaving the Paris Accords was the right move, b/c the US becoming a 2nd rate economic nation and it still doing nothing more than barely postponing the outcomes of warming even if we accept every other question as going against us.

Truthfully all the proposals on the table for US only action, and global action where China/India/et al don't make severe changes, are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Then there's #7, the one Leftists always forget, but those who believe in the free market know to be true:

7) What market based solutions will be developed in response to demand in order to solve or substantially mitigate the problem?

That's key too, b/c what most of these proposals want is to artificially shift inputs, consumption, etc. in ways that are either vastly inefficient at best or at worst not even more ecological.

What will happen as the need increases, and therefore demand increases, is the development of new technologies that will offer much more meaningful and adoptable solutions versus the insanity of things like the Green New Deal.

[kingcat]

All I have is an opinion about which side to believe Chuck. But I do appreciate an alternative opinion.
Yet I certainly do not see lefties and righties, and "defenders of, or aggressors towards free markets" being at the heart of it. That story line suspiciously serves the corporate bottom line and stands clear of addressing the problem. I understand its out there however.
Personally, I know I take a moderate view on what can be done. And there are some short term benefits to the phenomenon. Corn yields in the "warming hole" of the Corn belt are yearly increased (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191024154108.htm), partly because of an anomalous cooling phenomenon combined with more rainfall..

But imo, the type argument you presented is the very one tobacco companies tried to perpetrate on the public.

I also view the type bias perpetrated on the public by corporate entities with regard to smoking as also a vast minority dedicated to maintaining an exuberant bottom line. That is my point.
And that legitimate science, including many of the agencies listed above are the very ones which exposed that minority as being "for sale" alternate "science".

[CitizenBBN]

All I have is an opinion about which side to believe Chuck. But I do appreciate an alternative opinion.
Yet I certainly do not see lefties and righties, and "defenders of, or aggressors towards free markets" being at the heart of it. That story line suspiciously serves the corporate bottom line and stands clear of addressing the problem. I understand its out there however.

Actually free markets are the bane of corporations. Don't confuse the modern merchantile state with free markets.

Solendra has nothing to do with free markets, nor does most of what has been proposed for dealing with climate change. Isn't it interesting how much we must give up free markets, give up our rights and accept massive government expansion to somehow fight this threat? You don't find that the least bit suspicious?

As for science and bias, the first problem is that even if we agree with every word of what they now say, they don't address most of the major questions above.

[Catonahottinroof]

As with everything in life, just follow the money.
Actually free markets are the bane of corporations. Don't confuse the modern merchantile state with free markets.

Solendra has nothing to do with free markets, nor does most of what has been proposed for dealing with climate change. Isn't it interesting how much we must give up free markets, give up our rights and accept massive government expansion to somehow fight this threat? You don't find that the least bit suspicious?

As for science and bias, the first problem is that even if we agree with every word of what they now say, they don't address most of the major questions above.

[CitizenBBN]

As with everything in life, just follow the money.

Yep. Try to publish a study saying something against current dogma, see how many more grants you get. lol.

That doesn't dismiss the research, but I do have doubts about some of the motives, and some of the research.

But i have even more doubts about the policy conclusions. Total doubt when we get to that part.

[dan_bgblue]

World's country reps can not agree on much of anything except that they know climate change is happening and it is going to get wore if we don't do SOMETHING. They will talk about SOMETHING the next time they get together.

The Madrid Talks (https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-climate-talks-end-little-progress)

[CitizenBBN]

In the Paris Accords all they could agree on is that is happening, it's bad, it must be America's fault, and we should pay the bill regardless.

[ukpumacat]

Why would there be bias in scientific research? Seriously?


Absolutely, there are financial reasons for them to be biased. But, there are far more financial incentives for someone to be against Climate change. That is why some of these large oil companies spend so much money and lobbying efforts on a disinformation campaign.

And frankly (and this applies directly to me), there is a bias of all of us to disregard the Science because it affects our daily lives far more than we would like.

[CitizenBBN]

Absolutely, there are financial reasons for them to be biased. But, there are far more financial incentives for someone to be against Climate change. That is why some of these large oil companies spend so much money and lobbying efforts on a disinformation campaign.

And frankly (and this applies directly to me), there is a bias of all of us to disregard the Science because it affects our daily lives far more than we would like.

Well I don't think the oil companies are going to trick me too successfully, and I'm certainly a big believer in science.

I don't reject the policy b/c I don't like the answer. I reject it b/c the policies fail the basis requirements for policy making.

In debate we call them harm, significance, cause, inherency and solvency. Those 5 things must be present for a policy proposal to be warranted.

Regarding harm and significance, in order to isolate on whether there is global warming and how big the harm will be, even there we've seen some questionable science. That's not to say that nothing is happening, but it's also true we KNOW for a fact one of the leading early scientists to make his name on this theory in fact manipulated his data to make the significance (specifically the urgency of the significance) more dramatic.

Of course the next 3 all have issues too, in increasing order of issue in fact.

Cause - Are humans the cause of the changes? Certainly evidence of it, but how much of it is other things?
Inherency - If we do nothing, will this inherently happen? Ties with causality a lot in this case, b/c we're still figuring out the cycles of our planet and sun.

But the deal breaker for most policy being introduced is:

Solvency - will the proposed action actually alleviate the harm in some meaningful way?

that's the 8 billion pound gorilla in the US policy room. that one is riddled with canyon sized flaws. I'ts unclear many of the policies out there will even reduce the US contribution to warming very much, it's very questionable if they will actually cause MORE net environmental damage in other areas, and of course it's almost obvious beyond debate that if the US did even something as extreme as the Green New Deal that we wouldn't cause a ripple in long term human contribution to greenhouse gases.

If anything we'd actually accelerate the problem as we'd cede most of the global economy to China/India and others, and they'd open coal fired plants as fast as we open new fast food restaurants.

The only answer is the same as every answer to every Doomsayer prediction since Malthus: technology. Not retrenching, not making draconian policy moves based on zero sum science where we presume no changes to the denominator.

Another "cash for clunkers" program will only put more people in poverty out of a job as they can't buy a car to get to work. Focusing on how to turn CO2 and methane into soft serve ice cream? Now that will work, and I guarantee it will happen.

But the science does have a lot of holes and questions, the biggest of which happens not when we use science to understand our world, but when we use it to predict the future. That's when it looks really bad in hindsight. It turns out to be wrong b/c the assumptions we use to predict the future of course all change.

I'm all for reducing the human footprint, but honestly I'm more worried about how we're clear cutting the oceans of life and filling our food chain with plastic and mercury than I am about the temperature. Those I think will cause us far more harm far more quickly, and they are being all but ignored.

[dan_bgblue]

Less methane released from Arctic Ocean than previously believed (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200130115433.htm)

[bigsky]

Want to stop global warming? Reduce your lifestyle 90%. Once you’re huddled in your plastic bag and old tire yurt, roasting bits of rat over a dried dung fire, Greta Thuneberg will be happy.

[GhettoBird]

Want to stop global warming? Reduce your lifestyle 90%. Once you’re huddled in your plastic bag and old tire yurt, roasting bits of rat over a dried dung fire, Greta Thuneberg will be happy.

This message board seriously needs a like button. Made me smile.

[KeithKSR]

The reason there are a large number of studies claiming AGW is because the money all funds those studies.

The “oil” companies put a lot of money into R&D for clean energy. They are energy companies, and exporting new technologies is their future.

[KeithKSR]

Want to stop global warming? Reduce your lifestyle 90%. Once you’re huddled in your plastic bag and old tire yurt, roasting bits of rat over a dried dung fire, Greta Thuneberg will be happy.

The left wants people cold, poor and hungry; that way people will be dependent on them for what little they get. History tells us it is so.

[dan_bgblue]

Scientific community was very sure that the carbon release from the thawing permafrost would be the end of the world, and not they say not to worry. The do not ccome out and say hey we were wrong, they just change the story.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200220141710.htm

[dan_bgblue]

pre-industrial sea-level rise of about two to three millimetres per year in three locations: Nova Scotia, Maine and Connecticut. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200228102254.htm)

[dan_bgblue]

This actually makes more sense to me than CO2 and methane (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200313112119.htm)

[DanISSELisdaman]

Want to stop global warming? Reduce your lifestyle 90%. Once you’re huddled in your plastic bag and old tire yurt, roasting bits of rat over a dried dung fire, Greta Thuneberg will be happy.

Lol!!:sHa_clap2:

[dan_bgblue]

La Nina and climate modeling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtjeNvTwYeU)

[dan_bgblue]

The 100,000 year Milankovitch Cycles. Have you heard of this? Global warming zealots have failed to share this with you..

Linkage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01aFP88qfQs)

Linkage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles)

[bigsky]

https://notthebee.com/article/biden-admin-is-considering-banning-gas-stoves-in-your-kitchen-to-keep-you-safe The dried dung fire is getting closer…

[CitizenBBN]

Just saw that and was going to rage about it, but not much point. The Nanny State in combination with the People's Church of Climate Change is a nearly irresistible force apparently.

[dan_bgblue]

https://notthebee.com/article/biden-admin-is-considering-banning-gas-stoves-in-your-kitchen-to-keep-you-safe The dried dung fire is getting closer…

They did not mention that the fried rat has to be part of the menu, but I apologize for mentioning that as you can't fry a rat on an electric stove, one can only make rat stew or rat soup.

[dan_bgblue]

""It's not climate change that's causing heat waves this summer but no one wants to explain why""

In the 1930s, the government's Heat Wave Index was four times higher (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/not-climate-change-causing-heat-waves-this-summer-explain)

Yearly high temps recorded in Bowling Green from 1893 up thru today. Please note that the official weather station for this location has not moved and was 7 miles out in the country surrounded by fields of grass, plots of trees, and dirt and 0r gravel roads. while the weather station has not moved but is now surrounded by asphalt roads, asphalt shingles and and high levels of operating machinery, thousands of body heat generators etc.

Bowling Green high and low temps by the year from 1893 to 2023 (https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/bowling-green)

[dan_bgblue]

A noted climate scientist discusses climate models and global warming predictions.

Linkage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJv1IPNZQao&t=19s)

[dan_bgblue]

Meet Dr Patrick Moore: Greenpeace co-founder who left the organisation hijacked by political left

He discusses the political investment in climate change, and uses scientific fact to support his point of view and his respect for proven science.

Linkage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkiQ0qIm-M)

He has 2 presentations on the net and this is the link to the 2nd one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1z_6pvM-Q)

Combined, the links take you to approximately 2 hours worth of his talks. I am sure it is because I am bored to death, but I felt like the information provided to be well worth my time to gather.

[bigsky]

Britons will be urged not to heat their homes in the evening as part of a "behavior change" effort to hit "net zero" target.

[bigsky]

Britons will be urged not to heat their homes in the evening as part of a "behavior change" effort to hit "net zero" target.

Just sayin, we are getting closer to the next dark ages and it’s not incrementally but self induced.

[dan_bgblue]

One of the better scientific vs political presentations I have heard since this issue came to bear on the great climate discussion.

Linkage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4YUnZIKneY)

This talk is well worth anyone's time to listen too. Her education and subject savvy is exceptional.

Dr Judith Curry graduated cum laude from Northern Illinois University with a Bachelor of Science degree in geography. She then earned a Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago.

Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She was a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee and has published over a hundred scientific papers and co-edited several major works in climate science. Curry served on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee whose mission was to provide advice and recommendations to NASA on issues of program priorities and policy. She was also a member of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Working Group from 2004 to 2009, a member of the National Academies Space Studies Board from 2004 to 2007, and a member of the National Academies Climate Research Group from 2003 to 2006.

Dr. Curry retired from her university position in 2017, partly because of what she described as "anti-skeptic bias", which she attributed to the political nature of climate science, and that’s part of what she talks to Luis Razo about today – the very tricky relationship between science and politics.

[dan_bgblue]

The agreement was announced during the U.N.'s now-concluded COP28 climate summit in Dubai, which was extended with an "overtime" period as delegates hammered out a deal with commitments related to future fossil fuel usage and other climate-related priorities. The so-called global stocktake represented the first U.N. agreement of its kind to include language calling for nations to transition "away from fossil fuels."

"While diplomats are fearmongering about projected minuscule temperature changes, billions of men, women and children around the world would rejoice at the opportunity to enjoy reliable electricity that fossil fuels provide," American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac told Fox News Digital.

John Kerry, "the pied piper of the elite money swindlers" happily pushed the agreement forward, then left the meeting to sit in his air conditioned gasoline powered limo for a comfy trip to the airport to board his fossil fueled jet airplane for the trip home to his fossil fueled temperature controlled home in the good ole US of A.

Linkage (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/energy-experts-bash-john-kerrys-un-deal-shut-down-fossil-fuels)

[dan_bgblue]

Why do we think the CCP is giving money to the climate hysteria folks? #1. To slow global climate change? #2. To drive the US economy into the dirt? #3. To give Kerry and the Bidens some more money? #4. To drive up the price of soy sauce?

[CitizenBBN]

Why do we think the CCP is giving money to the climate hysteria folks? #1. To slow global climate change? #2. To drive the US economy into the dirt? #3. To give Kerry and the Bidens some more money? #4. To drive up the price of soy sauce?

Very telling isn't it, on two levels.

First of course is the CCP wants the US to not be competitive, and nothing makes you less competitive than taking your most important economic input from cheap and reliable to expensive and undependable.

But it also screams volumes about THEIR commitment to changing from fossil fuels, b/c if they did they would be on the same path as the US and there would be no competitive gain.

If the US goes to very expensive oil, solar, wind (laugh), and they open a new coal fired plant every couple of weeks, they'll blister us on input costs for production, and they know it.

They for sure don't care if their people or anyone else suffers from the effects. These are the people who brought you the Cultural Revolution, forced infertility, slave labor, child labor and so much more.

The thing is, if they and India do not match the US in climate initiatives, then nothing we do will change the course of climate change. That's the part people aren't getting. We just won't make a difference in climate change but we will insure we are a 2nd rate nation economically and militarily.

The only real choice is to rely on fossil fuels, become energy independent and a low cost producer, and then fund research on green energy that is workable. Right now the only option is nuclear power, and the environmentalists don't like that one either.

We simply lack the technology to do much better than we are doing without dramatically reducing our economic competitiveness, other than to embrace nuclear power, which we can certainly do.

[dan_bgblue]

bigsky, please notice the rat on a stick:671:


https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/12/1279/719/cartoon122123.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[bigsky]

My very favorite climate change phrase and there it is! Thank you!

[dan_bgblue]

CO2 , The Gas of Life"-Dr. William Happer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJ7UZjFDHU)

An hour and a half dissertation on the global warming hysteria and CO2's contribution in climate and life on earth.

[dan_bgblue]

Climate "Science" | Dr. Richard Lindzen (http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LVSrTZDopM)

[dan_bgblue]

Linkage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91z7YPCLSWk)

The agronomic discussion alone is worth hearing , (IMO) about plant growth, water usage and CO2's affect on plant growth, health, and productivity is well worth understanding. The greening of the Sahara is no joke and and is another truth that is rarely being reported by the MSM, the proletariat, socialist governments, and the jet setters who fly to meet with others of their ilk who wish to enforce their will upon the poor and misguided of the world.

The presenter is just sharing facts for us to consider, digest, and make very important decisions on our own.