Judith Curry: Climate Scientists Can’t Intimidate Me | Stories of Us 

So REAL science is whatever agrees with your beliefs, rather than what agrees with how the world works?

@@jamiedodger1235 Obviously you're the sort who never lets facts get in the way...

@@jamiedodger1235 The "science" once said the earth was the centre of the universe, you need to make a distinction between Science and $cience.

@central3425 Ironically the previous belief that the earth was the centre of the universe was mostly based on religious beliefs and had nothing in the slightest to do with money.

​@@central3425Yeah, that science was paid for by corporations (Aka the Catholic Church) so you are right we to need to stand up to $cience...Hey Isn't PragerU funded by like 7 Oil families and recives millions from Oil and tracking barrons? No, it's the IPCC who is the real $ciencests? It's certainly not the spokesman who is renowned by Skeptics and I'd constantly used to talk down to people about the climate who is on a show funded by the Mike's family.

Agree 100%. Every scientist knows the earth is warming - we're in an interglacial warming period. Using that to condemn humanity is reprehensible.

YT censoring any comments supporting your claim. Guess which side they come down on...

YT heavily censoring this topic...

@@bills5009 yes, just more proof that it is the scam that many know it is. Jordan Peterson talks a lot about the psychological drivers behind the scam, referring to "them" as haters of the human species, which is of course antihumanist.

If smoking is sooo bad, then why are there doctors that keep smoking????

What clubpenguin said plus the fact that developed nations can afford coastal defences for areas with high property value

@@jamiedodger1235 first off, it would be under water doesnt matter how high the wall is, second.....loloolololol iam pretty sure marthas vineyard isnt gonna get a coastal wall....

@@clubpenguin13531 personal choice. huge difference there bud. lololol the fact they say the coasts will be 3 or such miles from what it is now is a wee bit different.

I was banned from my Facebook because I have exposed the Demoncrats Party's professional hypocrite professional double double standards biggest LIES about Climate Change pollution when Each Demoncratic Party's mayors and governors and sentors of their own STATES and City and county and Congress and globalist leaders millionaire and billionaires have many $13 to $20 millions dollars mansions at the Pacific Ocean Beach front property and Atlantic Ocean Beach front property and Mexico Beach front property in spring time in 2019 and was banned and in summer time and banned again from Facebook and in December 2019 and was banned from Facebook again.

Agreed. At this point in science (especially climate science) it's the people who attack you that prove your point the best.

To many scientist are following the funding and not the science.

Noticed that. Used to read it regularly until the articles kept gradually creeping into stuff that common sense refuted then just realized their articles were propaganda. Haven’t touched it in years.

A badge of honor, even!

@@TheSaintFrenzyThere’s way more money on being a fossil fuel stooge than a climate scientist. Source: Dennis

interestingly, the supposed sea level rise data at New York City has been found by geologists to be caused by a settling of the land mass, thus the recording instruments show a rise in sea level. This is a very basic error of omission of the complete science of measuring sea level.

@@robertjanicki5906 Plus it is totally absurd to predict what the earth and the atmosphere will do over any given period of time. Just ridiculous!!

I live near Miami, Gore told us we would be under water 20 years ago. Meanwhile all the elites continue to buy property on the coast. Check out the mansion Obama bought on Martha’s vineyard. Let’s think about this for a second. The same people that are telling us the world will end in 12 years and the oceans are rising at an alarming rate and will consume our coast lines are buying property there.

You SAW not seen.

18,000 years ago the World's Sea Level was 400 feet Below today's. Long before SUVs or coal burned for Power ever started. Rise since 1750 about two feet.😮

Yes

There are actually quite a few. Sadly, they are buried by the propaganda machine. The simple truth is that none of the proponents can answer even the most basic questions on climate. If it is a crisis, what is the correct temp and CO2 level supposed to be?............... crickets!!

Do you know about Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda? Lie big and lie often and people will believe it, just because we've heard it so often. Listen to Patrick Moore and his lectures on CO2, and perhaps William Happer. But Moore's arguments about plants abd CO2 are difficult to counter. Bjorn Lomberg has a different take, he doesn't argue back against the climate alarmists, he just proposes better ways of spending the money. And as someone else said here, but in other words, the climate has always been changing, ice ages to tropical, and there's j/s we can do about that.

Medieval warming and cooling periods. Approximately 1,100 years ago during the 9th century the climate entered what is called the Medieval Warming period. During this warming period the global climate warmed enough that a large part of Greenland was actually green and was colonized by the Viking people who grew crops and tended herds of grazing animals (Hancock and Brian 613-617). Agriculture in Europe thrived as the growing season grew longer and crops could be grown further north (Hancock and Brian 666). Humanity's standard of living steadily improved for centuries as the food supply continued to increase with the warming climate. Global warming continued until sometime in the 13th or 14th century when the Medieval Warming period transformed into the Medieval Cooling Period (also know as the dark ages). When the climate started cooling, agriculture production started to fall and there was not enough food to feed the people or their herd animals. The Vikings were forced to abandon their Greenland colony and turn to raiding to survive (Wallace 16-24). In Europe, people starved and diseases were rampant. A plague was responsible for the death of nearly 25% of the known population of the earth (Hancock and Brian 613-617). Hancock, Paul L., Brian J. Skinner. The Oxford Companion to The Earth. Chicago: Oxford University Press, 2000. Wallace, Birgitta. “Viking Farewell.” Beaver December 2006/January 2007 Volume 86 Issue 6 Page 16-24. 8 April 2009. There is a good reason why "human caused" global cooling/ warming/climate change alarmist always start their measurements in the 1880's. That is when the world was just starting to warm up from the depth of the Medieval cooling period. That way they do not have to explain that modern temperatures are just now getting back to the height of the Medieval warming period. Makes it much more dramatic that way.

The climate is changing, it always has. It's also warming (as part of the normal cycle), but by a tiny amount. Prof Richard Lindzen said, "Climate change due to man is trivially true, and numerically insignificant."

​@@richardmortimer81471 degree in 100 years is not "Normal"

@@winstonchurchill5892 No, that's right. It's normally a lot more than that...!

Exactly. Well researched and factually correct.

Doesn't matter if it's early or late. It will be because they willed it so by spending money

1950s average temperatures were much cooler than now, and the temperature increase from then to now has been exponentially faster

​@@clubpenguin13531 Anyway, the earth's climate changes by itself.

@@C_A65 forest fires can happen by itself, too

They are not scientists but science fiction writers.

Crazy.

Hear! Hear!

She has faced little to no scrutiny from anyone in the scientific community besides the 4 people whe wrongly criticized in the university of east anglia ipcc email scandal.

@@winstonchurchill5892 Where have you been? She's been vilified by the "establishment" scientists for simply suggesting that contrary data should be examined. The climate change cult will not allow heresy and those in it can't see the problem of their beliefs overcoming truth.

Yeah they want to scary every one to use for a purpose to get money to lau dry for their climate emergency.

Al Gore has made a lot of money off of the paradigm of climate change speculation.

Scientists want to be admired and feel like they're part of the club. It feels like an incestuous relationship between scientist, policy maker, and media pundit.

Dr Peter Ridd, I believe you are referring to. Yes, he was sacked for speaking out against the alarmism. And yes, it appears that the Great Barrier Reef is doing well. Then again, when talking about something that covers 133000 sq miles, you can, and will, find places where it's not doing so well. Not exactly something you can cover in a rowboat in a day or two. Ditto Dr Susan Crockford and her work on Polar Bears. Seems the Polar Bears are doing fine. The bears were certainly in big trouble and in danger of extinction but, that was down to unregulated hunting up until around 1970. Funny, I don't recall ever seeing that mentioned before. Since the ban on hunting, they have recovered in numbers. How many should there be anyway? Is 30-50000 enough?

You're referring to Dr Peter Ridd, an honest scientist. The most recent survey of coral cover in the GBR, show that coral cover is at the greatest extent since records have been kept.

@@shanecollie5177Yes, but there are also high amounts of stress hormones reported in polyps. Plus, the reef had some of its biggest heatwaves in 2022. In addition, simple cover may not be the best metric. Fast-growing corals have taken over slow-growers due to the fact that they can easily grow back from starfish predation, so even though there’s cover there isn’t t a lot of biodiversity.

they allow lies and censor truth I know bc I speak it and get censored all the time.

I know! PragerU pretends like they're actually reputable and fact-based!

Lucky you haven’t seen the actual effects of climate change, unlike me whose family has a farm where we have measured the drop in average rainfall over decades.

@@NearQuasar the average precipitation has increased slightly over the past 120 years. But weather has changed in cycles since the beginning of the time

@@roar6428 Maybe on average, but not everywhere and more often than not, the extra precipitation comes from large storms, which cause damaging floods and why is there a decades long trend at my family’s farm of decreasing rainfall and an increasing frequency and severity of droughts, there are cycles and we can see that, but the overall trend has been the same since at least the 1970’s at my family’s farm.

@@NearQuasar ever heard of the dust bowl weather in the 1920’s. Weather changes, just a fact of nature

@@roar6428The dust bowl lasted for years, not decades wasn’t natural and it was limited to the United States, unlike the decades long global trend of intensifying storms, increasing severity of droughts and the increasing severity if existing climate cycles like El Nino and La Nina.

They can stick their context box. They don't give you the opportunity to say what you think, they just shove your comments into their prescribed corner.

That is a good question. The only thing I can say right now is that depends how many apply and meet the requirement. Speaking as a retired first responder -- medic - there are certain people you don't want doing certain things. You don't want a person with a limited intelligence to be a medic. But they may make a good EMT. You don't want someone who struggles to carry 110 lbs on their back and be able to carry a downed partner. You don't want a dumb old retired medic deciding what you should think about climate change. In short the answer depends on the number and type of people you are dealing with. Just my opinion

While mortalities from such events have reduced by over 90% For me, at least, there lies the key: It is better to adapt and prepare rather than follow the hubris-driven idea that we can change the climate.

@@PhilJonesIII yes we can make homes safer, but we also need to know as much as we can about the climate. I don’t think we have a catastrophic problem with the weather. And it may be more cyclic than a bad trend and it would be better to know than not.

Trolls and bots

Lucky you haven’t been affected yet

And that is why you are called a climate denier if you bring up evidence opposite of their belief. THe other thing they do that is frustrating is if we have a cool year and say anything about there not being climate change they come back with this is weather we are having not climent. Yet if we have a warm year they start screaming climate change or gorebull warming.

So the tropics must be sacrificed for colder nations’ benifit?

It would be fair to say the science of understanding how our climate system works was in it's infantcy 20 years ago, much has been learned in that time (Though it would be fair to say the more we've learned, the more we've come to understand how complex the climate system is, so now we know that we know bugger all!) Hence it is entirely reasonable that she would change her position over the confluence of time, based on the evidence evolving

@@shanecollie5177 20 years ago, I knew man-made global warming was BS. You didn't need MORE science to prove it. Climate change is the same thing, only with a different label.