Hi Alighieri; First, I'd like to commend you for actually spending some effort to reply to my post! I'm so used to brain-dead leftists that it's nice to see someone put in a little bit of effort.
Unfortunately, it comes up short.
The statement you show about Curry is from 2010, a little before the old climate science had acknowledged that their simulations didn't match reality. But the quote you underlined, which I repeat here is completely reasonable:
So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy.
(1) I have no doubt that the planet is warming. I agree with Judith Curry.
(2) I have no doubt that human-generated greenhouse gases contribute to this.
(3) I now doubt that the worst case scenario is catastrophic but the evidence against the catastrophe has come out since 2010. So you need to find a more recent Judith Curry statement on this. Like I said before, if you're going to discuss polling data, it needs to be from 2013 or maybe 2012. Same applies to opinions. Climate science is a new science and the "facts" are changing rapidly.
(4) I don't think the IPCC is a conspiracy. UN politics contributes to it but by and large its findings are fairly close to the typical view of climate scientists. On the other hand, I think that climate scientists did screw up so the IPCC results are changing. I may differ somewhat on the question of Climategate emails indicating fraud. I think they indicate "lying to the public", but fraud is a legal term and I am not a lawyer.
Now getting to the data in the first column, you can see that the belief that global warming exists and is mostly human caused was supported by only 78%. Therefore 22% disagreed. But the alarmists claim 97 to 98% consensus. Sorry, no consensus.
And over time, I expect these numbers will continue to slide in my favor. The trend is my friend.
And about why you should consider numbers from other specialties, well that boils down to the ancient question "cui bono"? Of course climate scientists believe that their work is important. That's partly why they chose the field. And if the reverse position becomes the new consensus, political support for their funding will dry to a trickle and most of them will be *out of work*. It's very difficult to convince someone of a fact that, when accepted as true, will mean that they lose money.
-- Carl |
