Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

CFC replacement was hardly inexpensive. Chillers, which all commercial buildings use, had to be retrofitted and refrigerant replaced. That cost, of course, adds overhead and ends up getting passed on to the consumer. Nothing is free.

 

Of course you outline the whole problem with climate science. Anyone that has not fallen inline is an heretic as many of the scientists that question are labeled like Judith Curry because she keeps an open mind and actually gives the opposing view some time and thought. There is plenty of bias but only one side is considered biased and those are the skeptics when being a skeptic is actually a sign of good science as hypothesis should be challenged with science and not advocated as fact without challenge.

The AGW consensus crowd has created a monster intertwining science with political and environmental agenda that is trying it's hardest to silence good scientific procedure. Many have fallen for it with easy dismissal of one of the few outlets for the contrary science though it is obviously more biased than some of the scientists blogs like Curry's who gives a much more even hand but allows debate, unlike SKS.

 

I fear that you're right. Sadly the complacency and short-sightedness of Big Oil and its sponsors is doing nothing measurable, despite its protestations, in real investment in alternatives. We all know fossil fuels are a finite resource but, when short term profit is the more attractive alternative to longer-term gains, they won't commit until oil costs rise so high that only the very wealthy will be able to afford to drive IC cars. At that point they'll panic.
And, no, I don't think fracking and shale oil is any more viable than sticking a Band-Aid on gushing artery. Poor analogy but you catch my drift; perhaps re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is more apt.

 

Not only that, but the US Military takes global warming and climate change quite seriously. They are building contingency plans for how to deal with increased terrorism and conflict as a result of reduced resources and calamities.

 

There are no alternatives that can compete with oil price-wise. I'm sure thre are plenty of scientists scrambling to find a marketable alternative because the profit potential is so high. Whining about "big oil" is very productive...........NOT. Every resource is finite. Something might be derived from plants but that something will have to be burned so replacing one combustable fuel with another combustable fuel is not a solution.

 

Nobody, including myself, has a problem with Judith Curry. As you see from her website, she still publishes in peer-reviewed journals and has kept her academic job at Georgia Tech, where she still teaches courses on atmospheric science. So, your imaginary which hunt and blacklisting of scientists outside of the "norm" seems to be non-existent. If the great "tag the line" conspiracy would exist, wouldn't Georgia tech have kicked her out, or at least prevented her from teaching relevant classes, because of their fear of losing federal grant money only supporting pro-AGW researchers?

I do have a problem, though, with hack like Watts et al. You, however, seem to be lapping up their koolaid, despite your ability to think beyond such politicized soundbites.

 

I didn't say CFC replacement was not expensive. However, the expense was on a total different order of magnitude than transitioning away from fossil fuels.

On the other hand, wasn't the cost of CFC replacement worth it, by making sure that places like Australia are still inhabitable? Would America have absorbed the long line of Australian emmigrants, fleeing the ozone hole, caused by potentially favoring the gain of very few with money over the loss of billions?

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with your shale oil analysis. If it weren't for big oil entrenched infrastructure, shale oil wouldn't even be competitive with PV solar at its current state of development.

 

Im pretty sure they have one for the zombie apocalypse too. They write up plans for everything.

 

It's plain to see the climate is changing like it has countless times over the last 4 billion years. At one point about 65 million years ago it was warm enough, herbivore dinosaurs and the plant life to support them lived about 400 miles from the North Pole. The fossilized remains don't lie. That happened without man or burning fossil fuels. So far the "scientists" if that's what you call them, will only commit to "more than likely" human activity is driving climate change.

Oh my it seems our fossil fuel emissions are waifing across the 140 million miles of space and polluting Mars as well. Ooooffffaaaa!

 

Judith Curry has tenure and is close to retirement so she now feels she can speak out.

“If I were nontenured scientist, I would fear for my job! But I am a senior scientist with retirement in my sight, so I can afford to do what I want, say what I think.”

“I no longer write government grant proposals. I have lot more independence. I truly feel liberated by not having to chase dollars”

There is a reason that most of the skeptical scientists are in the same position of not having to rely on pumping out papers since scientists are rated on the number of papers they publish and not having to chase dollars, which, BTW, are government dollars.

“I was on that treadmill, I am mostly off it now and it is very liberating to be off that treadmill”

Now, Curry links to WUWT on her blog but not to JoNova so you should ask yourself why instead of the typical character assassination and dismissal.

 

the 'daily mail' is a tabloid newspaper, not so different than the 'national enquirer'

david rose's mistakes on global warming are widely known among people that keep up with science journalism


Humiliating mistakes by 'The Mail on Sunday'

The Mail on Sunday’ is facing humiliation after two articles published earlier this month which attacked the evidence for climate change were revealed this week to contain embarrassing errors.

The two stories on Arctic sea ice and the forthcoming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were written by David Rose, who has been assigned by the newspaper’s editor and deputy editor, Geordie Greig and Gerard Greaves, to undermine the science of climate change through a campaign called ‘The Great Green Con’.

But the campaign is now is disarray as the newspaper has been forced to admit that Rose’s Arctic ice story was based on a typographic error, and the other article contained major mistakes and misrepresentations.

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/Commentary/2013/Sept/Humiliating-mistakes-The-Mail-on-Sunday.aspx


"A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' – a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961-1990 average."

"A year ago tomorrow" would have been 7 December. The Met Office issued its forecast (not a "prediction") on 10 December.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science

 

Why would I even look? It's a joke source like everything about "Climate Change" the left calls fact.

Looks like our co2 is warming Mars too!

 

Australia is in the Southern Hemisphere and it is closer to the equator than it is to the Antarctic. The Antarctic ozone hole has not changed, only the Arctic and only by 4% and that is based only on the short satellite record and would be hard pressed to say it can be differentiated from natural variability on such a short timescale. This is the kind of alarmism that just turns off people that know better.

 

you won't look because you know you're wrong

how many times does that have to be debunked?

muller takes money from the koch brothers, it's obvious what he's doing

you know you're on the wrong side of an issue when rush limbaugh and glenn beck agree with it

[video=youtube;tciQts-8Cxo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tciQts-8Cxo#t=120[/video]

 

No alarmism there. The ozone hole stopped growing after the CFC ban was instated, which was the intended effect. Of course, to heal it may take another few decades, since the lifetime of the offending compounds is long. Plus, CFCs may have not been the only culprits.

However, the ozone hole is actually a good example where concerted action DID make an effect. The CFC levels in the atmosphere have been measured and they clearly stabilized after the ban. I don't know what you point is here? That the ban was expensive and hurt some business? Sure it was. However, I'd rather hand a healthy environment and a livable planet to the next generation than ensure short term profit for a few corporations. I guess our views widely differ on this.

 

NATURE of which we are part of

 

Utter nonsense indeed

 

The Navy's Use of Biofuels is Inefficient and Costly
The Navy is wasting taxpayer money by pursuing biofuels as an energy source.es their wasting billions of our tax dollars on green weapons go figure

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2012/07/19/the-navys-use-of-biofuels-is-inefficient-and-costly

The Navy does what the government tells it to do

 

Well, before you smear Mann (and I don't know much about him), it may help to look at his CV, which is actually publically available:

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv.php

The titles of his grants and the sums received are clearly stated, so you can make up your own mind as to whether there is a problem or not. In fact, the NSF also lists titles and abstracts of past and current grants, so you can look at his abstracts.

When I look at his list, I see nothing in terms of grant activity that would not be expected from a distinguished professor. In fact, I know distinguished and even full professors who have brought in much more funding than him working in totally unrelated fields. In addition, the granting process is highly competitive. For example, NSF funding lines are in the range of 10%. So it is not like someone can just hold out their hand and say "look global warming" and they automatically get millions of NSF dollars.

So, before you use sources like the nationalreview to rant about people you know nothing about, do your homework and look at their public CV. I bet you can even find his salary online, because many state universities have an obligation to make salaries public.

Note in edit: Before anyone gets confused: The grant funds are actually used to run the research and the lab. Only a relatively small amount (probably) goes to supplement his 9 months salary (normal for academics) in the summer, when he doesn't teach. That amount is set by his base salary and not negotiable, so he can't just decide to give himself a big raise through the grant money. I am just mentioning this because I have a feeling that many posters on here have no clue as to how the academic system works.

 

Looks like he got a ton of money to me

 

As I said, this is money to run the research. A graduate student costs about $55,000 a year, including tuition. So, the $300,000 grants he has gotten from the NSF don't go very far, maybe pay for two grad students, some instrumentation, supplies, travel and some of his summer salary. Plus, there is indirect costs to cover administration charges (often 55% of the direct costs). His grant activity is nothing unusual, and, I would say, on the low end for a distinguished professor.

 

Exactly and he is a global warming backer thats how he gets all those grants

Looks like a bit more than 300,000 to me

 

Are you listening to what I am saying? Heck, I have gotten almost as much lifetime funding as him, and I do not work in climate research. His granting activity is not unusual and just indicates that he is successful in his field and a good grant writer. The NSF doesn't just say: we only fund pro-AGW research. I know, since i have sat on many panels.

 

As you said before he got 6 million spread over 20 years. That's about $300,000 per year. You won;t run a large research group with that, and you are not going to get personally very rich, since, as I said, most of the funds go to research and not his won salary. Try to take off the partisan blinders and your hate for academics.

 

Exactly

Of course they wont admit it.

- - - Updated - - -

Im sure he is not the only one receiving money like that

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490

The “well funded” climate business – follow the moneyhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/the-well-funded-climate-business-follow-the-money/