‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

AGW is not falsifiable. The warmists have abandoned the null hypothesis in favor of any event, no matter what it is, cooling, warming, less rain, more rain, less drought, more drought, as all caused by CO2 without every doing the basic science of understanding natural variability first, which, if you knew anything about climate science, is not well understood.

 

I understand that DearLeaderMcIntyre fed you some conspiracy theories about Mann, and you believe them with all your heart.

I also understand that cults needs demon-figures to hate and rally the faithful against, and Mann is one of the people they've chosen to demonize.

Are you still out to have Dr. Mann sentenced to the gulag for doing science that's inconvenient to TheParty, or do you condemn those past efforts of yours?

 

No natural cycles theory explains the increase in backradation, the stratospheric cooling or decrease in OLR. Hence, the null hypothesis is decisively disproven by those direct observations. And anyone who wasn't ignorant of the science would have known that, which is why no deniers know it.

You're also trying to pass off the "global warming theory says everything proves global warming " cult myth. Total nonsense, as here are just a few directly measurable things that would disprove global warming.

1. A lack of long term increasing temperatures
2. A lack of long term sea level increase
3. A lack of stratospheric cooling
4. A lack of decrease in OLR in the GHG absorption bands
5. A lack of increase in backradiation

And you also evaded the issue of how denialism is unfalsifiable, revealing denialism as pseudoscience. If you disagree, please list some things that would falsify denialism.

 

The hockey stick comes completely from the bristlecone data series. Take that data out and the hockey stick goes away.

Where has McIntyre gone wrong in his analysis of Mann's work. Even members of the hockey team were not comfortable with it per the ClimateGate emails. Have you read "The Hockey Stick Illusion" ?? Those other "hockey sticks" came from members of the hockey team claiming complete independence from Mann's work but indeed using the same bristlecone data.

 

You are probably not aware of all the other scientists that do not respect Michael Mann. Here, you can read for yourself.

A Disgrace to the Profession

The World's Scientists - in their own words - on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science - Volume One

Excerpts.

"The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that's what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science... It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst." ~ Professor Jonathan Jones of Oxford University

"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist..

There is no point in any scientific group endorsing this. We are not crooks. And yet if we endorse this we are becoming that." ~ Helsinki University Professor Antero Järvinen

“The ****** guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are (*)(*)(*)(*)ty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. If anyone deserves to get hit it is ****** Mann.” ~ Wallace Smith Broecker Newberry Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University,

"Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. " ~ Eduardo Zorita Spanish paleoclimatologist. As of 2010, he is a Senior Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research

"Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences." ~ Atte Korhola Ph.D., Professor in Arctic Global Change

"A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC." ~ Hans von Storch German climate scientist, Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg

I could go on but it is apparent that people like you rather find the alarmism from a neophyte scientist more attractive than the science and no amount of truth will dent that skull of true belief.

 

The real world data falsifies the computer models. The globe is warming and has been since the inflection point of the little ice age. But the climate sensitivity to CO2 is demonstrably much less than the IPCC consensus value of 3 and at the lower range of the IPCC range of 1.5 - 4.5 (the IPCC just lowered the lower bound under advice of their experts, not modelers). Since the A1B scenarion doubles the atmospheric CO2 concentration from 2000 to 2100 (350 ppm to 700 ppm) the global temperature will be ~ 1.5 deg C warmer in 2100 referenced to 2000.

BTW, I'm not a denialist - I'm a "lukewarmer" (per Dr. Michaels).

 

Then tell us why the troposphere, where AGW is supposed to show first according to the AGW hypothesis shows no warming for 18+ years from both satellite records and radiosonde readings? Tell us why even Karl's Pause Buster data shows a slowdown?

 

There has been no global warming since 1998. Even Karl's manipulation (substituting ship intake for buoy data) resulted in a warming below the models scenario.

 

What Karl did to say the current (adjusted) warming is no different:

The problem is it cooled from 1950 to 1975 so if you compare 1975 to 1999 the current (Karl adjusted warming) shows a slowdown, a hiatus so to speak, from the previous warming, something that was not foreseen by the alarmists. Then if the hiatus went past 10 years they were in trouble, 10 year passed then it was changed to 15 years, then Karl comes along and just makes it conveniently disappear by adjusting the data, again, to make the present warmer and the past cooler. Karl’s own paper is an admission that the models have been exaggerating by well over double.

 

Agreed. I participated in the discussion of Karl's manipulation in one of the other global warming threads.

 

Poor, poor Judith Curry. Like all immature whiners everywhere, blaming others for her own failings. She wasn't tossed out of the tribe. She walked over and joined another one, and now complains that her new tribe didn't win immunity.

 

Judith broke lockstep and must be punished.

 

She seems to be doing just fine.

https://judithcurry.com/about/

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/files/currycv.pdf


And here are her comments on the latest from Mr. Hockey (Stick) himself.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/01/26/on-the-likelihood-of-recent-record-warmth/#more-20976

 

Easy. You're just wrong. The troposphere does show that warming trend, both from satellites and radiosondes.

Have you figured out yet that all the info your cult fed you is bogus? Once you understand that, everything will make sense for you.

 

Karl's work was good, and you're pushing a fraudulent version of events. You may not understand that, but scientists all know it, which is why your argument is ignored.

Scientists also all know that the models have been spot on, and that your lukewarmer theories have been debunked by the real world. This graph (IPCC AR5 figure 1.4) even leaves off the past few record breaking years, which would show warming running ahead of the models.

 

Wait, isn't it a denier staple claim that all scientists holding dissenting views are fired, harassed, blackballed, etc.?

Looks like you just conclusively debunked that claim.

 

When I pointed out your cult had ordered the cultists to demonize Dr. Mann, immediately running to prove it by quoting "You're like a child molester!" head propagandist Steyn was probably not your best move.

But then, you also hold the openly Stalinist belief that scientists who oppose TheParty should be sent to the gulag, so it's not like there are depths of sleaze you won't stoop to.

 

How can you claim that the substitution of inaccurate data for accurate data is good ??

And with regard to the Fig 1.4 of IPCC AR5 it appears that some shenanigans (including a Temperature scale change) have occurred between AR4 and AR5:

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

- - - Updated - - -

No, it is not. You are misinformed of that.

 

He's exactly right:

 

Well, except for the data you would have something.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, so the only scientist you will listen to is the political Michael Mann while ignoring the hundreds of other scientists that don't respect him.

 

Judith broke lockstep and was punished.

 

Fortunately Judith has tenure so yes she is fine. If she was accepting government grants to prove AGW is a clear and present danger she'd be looking for a new gig. Once you accept the so called research grants (the bribe money) you don't kill the goose laying the golden eggs, you hand feed it it's favorite food.

 

The government grants given by the GOP run congress? Those government grants? The GOP that denies AGW? That GOP? LOL

 

Deny, obfuscate and deflect is the best you can do.

 

I see you do not deny that it is the GOP that is funding AGW research. The people on your side get smaller and smaller. LOL