Climate change policy

[ey_tony]

all you get is the sound of babbling buffoons listening to each other and repeating what they pick up!

That's exactly the impression I get about many of the people who liberally use the word 'deniers'! Most are just regurgitating what they've been told or picked up from other alarmists!
....and no, before you label me a denier, I'm not remotely a denier, on the contrary I've spent the past 30-odd years looking at the subject of GW since I graduated in Geology/Geophysics back in the late 80s so I just tend to come from a position of being better informed than the average person, especially the clueless crusaders.

What is clearly wrong is that we have Greta Thunberg a high school dropout with no credentials, who can't even answer any questions and reads from a script, getting effectively 24/7 media coverage while such as respected climatologists like Dr. Judith Curry and author of many books and peer reviewed papers gets none and is marginalised by those with vested political interests rather than truth.

You might want to educate yourself by viewing the following links and actually digesting their content rather than simply regurgitating what you've heard and read...

 

[Chris152]

She's doing rather well out of it, rather more money than she was making as an academic, I'd imagine.

'Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.” Olson is the executive director of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has spearheaded youth climate change lawsuits across the United States.
[...]
Trenberth stated that Curry’s shift towards climate contrarianism “coincided with her career moving away from original research and peer-reviewed publishing in academia toward private weather and climate forecasting for companies through her business CFAN, including those in the fossil fuel energy industry.”'
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/...r-to-give-expert-testimony-in-upcoming-trial/

 

[woodieallen]

She's doing rather well out of it, rather more money than she was making as an academic, I'd imagine.

'Climatologist Judith Curry has already billed the state around $30,000 for a report filed in the case Held v. State of Montana, according to the deposition she made in December to an attorney for the 16 young Montanans suing the state. Curry also claimed that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting work, although she did not disclose the full amount Montana will pay her for appearing in court.

Julia Olson, the lawyer who took Curry’s deposition, has described her as “the number one climate skeptic scientist that the Republicans go to for testimony in Congress, that the fossil fuel industry goes to.” Olson is the executive director of the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, which has spearheaded youth climate change lawsuits across the United States.
[...]
Trenberth stated that Curry’s shift towards climate contrarianism “coincided with her career moving away from original research and peer-reviewed publishing in academia toward private weather and climate forecasting for companies through her business CFAN, including those in the fossil fuel energy industry.”'
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/...r-to-give-expert-testimony-in-upcoming-trial/

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise …especially compared to that ugly little jumped-up pig-ignorant little troll Thunberg.

 

[Chris152]

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise

It's a question of how/ to what ends she's using her expertise. As for the second part of your sentence, not sure what on earth that's about.

 

[ey_tony]

It's a question of how/ to what ends she's using her expertise. As for the second part of your sentence, not sure what on earth that's about.

I would have thought the ends are patently obvious, she doesn't agree with the mainstream political views not the scientific views on GW nor is she a climate sceptic or denier as the muppets would label her, she simply doesn't subscribe to the politicisation of climate variability which has been the norm this past three decades with the alarmists.

 

[DrPhill]

Personally, I can’t understand people who ‘don’t trust the experts’ who then pick one expert to believe, even when the views of that expert are in disagreement with the majority. It seems they cherry pick the expert whose views they like.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...scientific_organizations_about_climate_change

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2

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

 

[Chris152]

she simply doesn't subscribe to the politicisation of climate variability which has been the norm this past three decades with the alarmists.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Beat me to it Dr Phil

eta - ps She clearly doesn't have a problem with the monetisation of climate variability.

 

[DrPhill]

Still doesn’t detract from her expertise …especially compared to that ugly little jumped-up pig-ignorant little troll Thunberg.

I find this kind of ad-hominem attack offensive.

I would hope that we could be more adult in our debates