The New Jersey Business & Industry Association provides information, services and advocacy to its member companies to build a more prosperous New Jersey. We are the nation's largest statewide employer association. Our members employ more than one million people.
Considering trends in environmental policy and global commitment to reduce carbon emissions, there is a significant risk to investments in technologies heavily dependent on fossil fuels, such fossil gas, become stranded and wasted assets.
So the 'life isn't fair' prima donna is still around? Not staying to hear more failed predictions and egregious pseudo-correlations. Earns a 'do not recommend channel just by her presence.
Blah blah blah.... More of the same smoke blowing up each other’s butts.... Most of the ‘Real data’ has been taken out of complete context and proportion and regurgitated to today’s hysterical death speeches and forecasts.. At best it’s a brilliant scam at worst it’s complete lies...
Climate changes. CO2 can't change climate if there is no greenhouse effect. The fact is the greenhouse effect is a nineteenth century superstition based on an eighteenth century myth.
I think there is a Satanic element to climate catastrophe, it is anti-human in so much as we are supposed to hate ourselves for causing climate change.
I've watched presentations by Dr Curry on several occasions. She has always presented clear and concise review sthat are compelling. Unfortunately on this occasion she is clearly reading answers to questions in a way the removes spontaneity. It gives a laboured version of what she has previously presented without rehearsal. This presentation dilutes impact.
10 minutes in had to turn it off ...2.5 million sq miles of forrest burned in my backyard (B C Canada) She wont say anytrhing bad...just what you want to hear...all the other scientis are wrong lol .... she was paid for brought here for just that reason...I am 54 and researched atmosphic Phys. when I was 17... Energy Policy Conference....100 million barrels of oil a day produceing about 35 Billion tonnes of co2 per year...what could go wrong....Well...LOTS!!!!
Hello , I see few folks like myself but hey I talk a few relatives and they awesome we talk about minors, but since it can talk to school board about working environment and bad issues I said to them town hall meetings issues with smokers and bad smell of marijuana is child endangerment. So I said to the relatives I don't blame ya . Sorry but do agree .
CLIMATE CULT Timeline to Apocalypse 1970s - Global cooling will kill us all. 1980 - Correction, looks like Global warming will kill us all. 1990s - Global warming will definitely kill us all. 2000s - Global warming stopped. UN memo (original). Let’s call it Climate Change because the temperature keeps fluctuating up and down leading to a 14 year temperature pause while CO2 continued to rise unabated. 2010s - Everyone realises climate change is normal. UN memo (1). Let’s call it a Climate Emergency. 2010s - There was no climate Emergency. UN memo (2). Let’s corrupt the science with unlimited funding to government controlled institutions who are willing to falsify temperature data, then call it a Climate Crisis. 2020s - The Climate Crisis failed to eventuate. UN memo (3). Let’s find a useful idiot and name her Greta. She will be our climate cult Goddess. Australian climate cult members were busy exploiting the dry summer starting many fires leading to many arrests for arson. 2021 - Greta failed to change the climate and just yelled at everyone. 2023 - UN memo (4). We will wait for El Nino to arrive and we shall call it Global Boiling. To ensure success the cult got busy with arson attacks throughout Europe starting in Greece when 79 arsonists were arrested. Arson arrests are made in Canada after a big season of wildfires. 2024 - Everyone realises El Niño is a natural event that has always occurred for as long as the Pacific Ocean has been in existence. 2025 - UN memo (5). We shall declare CO2 a toxic hazard that will kill us all. 2025 - UN memo (5) is immediately cancelled when a 9 year old pointed out that CO2 is the trace gas of life without which we and all carbon based life forms do not exist. All that carbon came from CO2. It is called a trace gas because there are traces of it measured at an incredibly low 420ppmv or 0.042%. Barely enough to raise the temperature in a room full of climate cult members releasing methane in a desperate attempt to raise the temperature. 2030 - The climate cult is exhausted from its endless lies but manages to double down for another decade of stupidity with fresh funding from corrupt governments and corporations making lots of money from intermittent renewable energy that never works when the wind stops and the sun sets. 2040 - The climate cools while CO2 continues to rise and everyone realises temperature and CO2 have decoupled. UN admits defeat and commences the biggest compensation payout in human history. Now we can add permafrost Methane release as the latest fake disaster according to COP 28. Every single climate cult doomsday prediction date has come and gone with nothing to show. How many more decades do we tolerate the climate cult clowns that destroy everything they touch.
It's tragic what we (the United States) have done to Europe. We just couldn't handle them getting cheap abundant gas from Russia so we made sure to put a stop to that in the most kinetic way possible.
You kind of glossed over the fact that "somebody" blew up the Nord Stream pipelines. Kind of an important topic in a conversation about the future of natural gas.
Another problem with women who work high paying jobs is they usually don't start families. They aren't willing to date men making less, so they just remain alone indefinitely. Also having kids becomes something "out of the question" due to prioritizing her career. Nobody wins, except the company owners and the government (due to more tax revenue).
Same old same old Curry, that washed out of climate research decades ago, and went into administration when she couldn't reconcile her scientific findings with her strong political beliefs. More recently, she retired from academic administration, to become a full time political activist, on behalf of fossil fuels investors. Interesting that Curry doesn’t dispute the enhanced greenhouse effect or dismiss anthropogenic global warming out of hand yet has given her blog over to greenhouse effect deniers and has grown more aggressive in her attacks on mainstream science since her retirement. This is expected of someone who is a flack that has a political agenda. What top leading working scientist creates a blog and hands it over to crackpot outfit that gets funding from fossil fuel lobbyists that has a goal undermining confidence in science? She often lies about what expertise and consensus are, because her purpose is to convince folk that there is no consensus and that scientific expertise is an excuse for corruption. Such is the realty with her political agenda. She needs you to think that the research scientists are the ones who are political, not the fossil fuels interests that pay the salary of the "skeptics." She is also known for lying about Oreskes, Conway, Flannery, and Schneider because those authors identify the conflicts of interest that drive the "skeptic" attacks on mainstream climate science.
Soft ball interview. Obviously the questions are crafted based on a ready written script that she's reading off of and pretending she's answering questions...
Hello Dr. Curry, You may be missing a view points of interest: Earth's tilt is starting to change. This may be account of the loss of weight created when the ice caps melt. With ocean temperatures over 100 degrees it will not take long for the south pole to melt increasing sea levels by 200 feet. Water only comes in three forms, water, ice, or vapor. If it's not ice what will it be. This may be the reason for the increase in floods all around the world. The distance between the earth and the moon is changing which will not have a positive effect on earth's tilt. It's funny that you say that the temperature is creeping up slowly, that is exactly what the murals of Egypt show. If you live near the ocean I suggest you move to higher ground. Here is what my Native (Hopi ) friends have to say about the subject: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bxCr3_71GmI.html tom
The south pole melt and raise sea level. I think I was about 11 years old when I first did an experiment with a block of ice floating on water until it melted and discovered the water level did not change. Most of the rest is mountains and land. There is also the largest glacier in the world down there. Problem for your theory is that it is all below sea level and would have the effect of lowering the sea level should it melt. A relative of mine did venture to the south pole to find out what was there, unfortunately he never returned.
Morning owenpope353. You are correct. Ice that is already floating will not increase sea levels. It's the ice that is still up on the land. Sorry you lost your relative. thomas o. mills@@owenpope353
My nation had average temperatures lower in every season in 2023 than in 2022. You have been indoctrinated by froth. IPCC originally said they could not substiate global warming was due to man. Then politics crept in and we got what they preach now
Anyone imagining Dr. Curry as a scoundrel should maybe start by watching Freeman Dyson interviews on Climate Change and see if they can overcome his roadblocks to acceptance of climate hysteria. They aren't difficult ideas: measuring temperature is hard, predicting climate requires knowing all relevant variables and their strength of influence (scientists are no where near that omniscient), money (funding) makes it impossible for science department heads to express doubt and thereby threaten the gravy train for themselves, colleagues, and grad students, etc. Also, the Climate Gate emails are available online, and CDN (Climate Discussion Nexus) does a good job explaining the backstory so you can have an accurate understanding of just what happens behind closed doors among the climate change true believers.
The “Climate gate” data dumps and the public relations storm that followed proved only two things. That followers of "climate skeptic" blogs are insanely gullible and that no evidence of scientific misconduct was found in those data dumps, and the organized political opposition to climate science is able to generate and broadcast a vast quantity of material in support of its narrative, very fast. Phrases were cherry picked from long conversations, and false contexts spun around them. Here is one of the two most commonly shown fragments, which are sarcastic jokes. "We'll keep that paper out, if we have to redefine the peer review literature!" To anyone who knows how peer review works, and its foundational role in scientific publishing, the notion that it could be redefined is hilarious. They're ridiculing the "skeptics" who know nothing of how science is vetted, and lamenting the bad papers that very rarely get through. Within a 6 days the "conservative news" enterprise had integrated the new stories into its larger climate narrative. Just over twelve years have passed, and the well paid well staffed organized political opposition to climate science never found that smoking gun they were so sure was in there. More of a washout out than a scoundrel. She washed out of climate research decades ago, and went into administration when she couldn't reconcile her scientific findings with her strong political beliefs. She retired from academic administration, to become a full time political activist, on behalf of fossil fuels investors. She often lies about what expertise and consensus are, because her purpose is to convince folks that there is no consensus and that scientific expertise is an excuse for corruption. Such is the realty with her political agenda. She needs you to think that the research scientists are the ones who are political, not the fossil fuels interests that pay the salary of the "skeptics." She is also known for lying about Oreskes, Conway, Flannery, and Schneider because those authors identify the conflicts of interest that drive the "skeptic" attacks on mainstream climate science. At least she Curry doesn’t think that AGW or the enhanced greenhouse effect is a lie; she just thinks it is overstated.
THINK! Think with your brain. Do not people tell you what you should believe. Educate and inform yourself from different opposite sources. Don't stop at one bubble.
Check Curry's track record before putting your trust in her. She told us in 1995 that global warming was over. She was wrong. She said the same thing in 1998. She was wrong. She then tried again in 2002, 2007 and 2010. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Instead of hitting the pause button, she doubled down and then predicted that we would very likely be cooling through the 2010s all the way through the 2020s to 2030. So far she's batting .000. Is this someone we should give our trust to, when she not only has been consistently wrong but when the scientfic consensus disagrees with her?
@@wheel-man5319 Mann's track record is excellent. Are you thinking of Climategate? He and the other Climategate scientists were fully exonerated by seven independent investigative panels. No fudging of data was found. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. But fossil fuel industry propaganda fights to keep his demonization alive. Attack Mann's credibility and you attack the credibility of climate science. Alas, Mann's hockey stick data has been confirmed and replicated by over 30 studies by other scientists and is affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences. Michael Mann has been psychologicaly pummeled not only by death threats, but by demands for his arrest and criminal prosecution, in addition to calls for Congressional investigations into his work, and requests that he commit suicide. All fueled by the fossil fuel industry's marketing departments and their Congressional acolytes on their payroll.
get a real climate scientist on there to debate! she is an outlier on this topic. and why the hell would we risk climate change! also we have past peak oil- so we need an alternative anyway! and then we also have the 6th great extinction which is maybe even a worse emergency and it is linked to climate change!
Curry told us in 1995 that global warming was over. She was wrong. She said the same thing in 1998. She was wrong. She then tried again in 2002, 2007 and 2010. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Instead of hitting the pause button, she doubled down and then predicted that we would very likely be cooling through the 2010s all the way through the 2020s to 2030. So far she's batting .000. Is this someone we should give our trust to, when she not only has been consistently wrong but when the scientfic consensus disagrees with her?
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Once again all you ever have is slander and invalidation. swiftlytitlingplanet says "My source all good, your source all bad". Repeat, post after post after nauseating post.
@@anthonymorris5084 Slander is making FALSE STATEMENTS about someone. Nothing I posted is false. See CLIMATE MISINFORMATION BY SOURCE: JUDITH CURRY. If you're nauseated, it's likely from your own cognitive dissonance. Being fact-checked is uncomfortable. Curry continued to bash the Climategate scientists years after they were fully exonerated by seven independent investigative panels. No fudging of data was found. NONE. NADA. ZILCH. She freely admits a business relationship with the fossil fuel industry, the common denominator of many other contrarian scientists, always important to keep in mind. She also defended the deeply flawed Wegman report, which bashed Michael Mann's hockey stick data, but she later admitted TO NEVER HAVING READ IT. The hockey stick has been confirmed and replicated by over 30 follow-up studies and is affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, by the way. Curry has been a climate denier going all the way back to the early 1990s, even though she was on the Berkeley Earth team that verified global warming. (Koch Industries paid for the research, which was intended to DEBUNK global warming but inadvertently accomplished just the opposite.) Here are a few more reasons why I rebut Curry, and why it's important to do so. I encourage you to Google them: CORRECTIONS TO CURRY'S ERRONEOUS COMMENTS ON OCEAN HEATING at the Skeptical Science website WHY CURRY, MCINTYRE, AND CO. ARE WRONG ABOUT IPCC CLIMATE MODEL ACCURACY THE PACIFIC OCEAN FILLS IN ANOTHER PIECE OF THE GLOBAL WARMING PUZZLE, AND PUZZLES CURRY ROSE AND CURRY DOUBLE DOWN ON GLOBAL WARMING DENIAL BAKED CURRY: THE BEST WAY TO HIDE THE INCLINE The thing about climate contrarians is that, unchallenged, they appear reasonable and well-informed. On a video presentation absent rebuttals, it's easy to be convinced of their credibility, which is why it's so important to see how they've been debunked in the scientific literature before giving them your complete trust.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Fact checking? You don't cite facts. This is your modus operandi. Invalidate anybody who challenges your predisposition. "Me right, you wrong". "We're all doomed" blah blah blah. ZZZZZZZ
@@anthonymorris5084 Everything I posted is fact, which you can easily check, but you won't. When I fact-check I always give my sources, but I notice exactly the opposite from you. Where are your citations of sources and studies debunking anything I post?
She's correct. Unfortunately the marxian religion which has infested the UN probably will not be deterred from their bloodlust to murder at least 7 billion people.
