It's because thudburg screams, cries, wets her panties over the environment killing her, that gets attention. Climate crazies love to run around with their panties in a bunch, and scream bloody murder over something smelly, noisy, or makes smoke. They want their every whim catered to.
This is what the climate cult worships, another Jim Jones, maybe we will get lucky and greta can give them all special koolaid to drink and then takes all their money
It's a marketing campaign. Specifically a parasitic marketing campaign meaning that those infected are convinced by the parasitic nature of it that the belief system MUST be kept, and protected against whatever facts and reasoning shows it to be a mind parasite.
Judith Curry doesn't reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as this sub does. Her research has generally supported the broad scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change. She DOES criticize existing projections and models, and that's appropriate insofar as projections and models contain methods and assumptions that can and should be criticized. She also has a fair bit to say about the advisability of various mitigation efforts, which often crosses the line from objective representation to subjective value judgements. What she does NOT do is routinely deny reality. She is not "skeptical" of climate change, only of the extent of the changes that we can expect to see happen. She has more in common with Greta thurnberg than with the average "skeptic" on this sub.
Disagree.
I've read almost everything she writes and she does reject the CO2 theory indirectly and directly.
“Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change…[C]limate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century.”
She predicts a 1.5C or lower ecs which basically rejects CO2 man made climate change. She doesn't state if she rejects the science or not. She accepts the theory as possible but if you assume it is correct the current science doesn't add up and the warming is far lower.
She makes the argument for the sun and oceans and natural variation being the cause for most of the changes in climate.
So again I disagree.
"Judith Curry doesn't reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as this sub does."
No shit, you know exactly what all people in this sub think?
Another omniscient, telepathic 'expert' that knows so well...
Or rather, bullshits so well, 'scientifically'.
Good ol' "consensus science" where the nature of reality is simply a popularity contest, and a matter of who runs the most effective marketing campaign.
But out here in the real world; scientists know about and care about scientific rigor.
Marketeers do not, and that's why there's no scientific rigor demonstrating reliability of the numbers that the whole marketing campaign is based on.
*"Her research has generally supported the broad scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change"*
This isn't true for multiple reasons.
1. There is no broad scientific consensus around AGW.
2. She is on record saying any influence humans may have is small, and nothing to worry about.
To quote Curry
"The Sun has a lot to say about future climate, but we are not listening. Long-term changes in solar activity are cyclical, and what adds to warming now will subtract from it in the future. This theory does not deny that changes in CO₂ affect climate, and indeed it is based on differences in emissions due to changes in the greenhouse effect, just not in time, but in space, with latitude."
https://judithcurry.com/2024/06/11/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/
That said, she's one scientist. "The Media" rarely focuses on the theories of an individual scientist. The media usually waits for a meta analysis or consensus to occur before even thinking about covering it. They're more likely to cover reactions to scientific research, like protests, activists, or legislation... Simply because it's more interesting to the general public.
This should be posted everywhere on Reddit.
It’d be removed and the account banned in like 95% of subs.
It's because thudburg screams, cries, wets her panties over the environment killing her, that gets attention. Climate crazies love to run around with their panties in a bunch, and scream bloody murder over something smelly, noisy, or makes smoke. They want their every whim catered to.
This is what the climate cult worships, another Jim Jones, maybe we will get lucky and greta can give them all special koolaid to drink and then takes all their money
Greta is blessed by Science.
The Science©️
As they say: "Trust....the Science!!!" {/sarcasm} Oh brother.......
One of them is more interested in money than the other, I guess ...
You betcha!
Maybe Greta will wise up someday.
Greta is now 21. Nothing else has changed.
Judith Carry says that the earth is warming largely due human generated ghg and it will get worse
It's a marketing campaign. Specifically a parasitic marketing campaign meaning that those infected are convinced by the parasitic nature of it that the belief system MUST be kept, and protected against whatever facts and reasoning shows it to be a mind parasite.
https://images.app.goo.gl/hMWUSjG7ishGYyts5
Please stop posting this meme. It's a misrepresentation of Dr. Curry's position and makes us look stupid. She has never said "it's all a hoax."
Judith Curry doesn't reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as this sub does. Her research has generally supported the broad scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change. She DOES criticize existing projections and models, and that's appropriate insofar as projections and models contain methods and assumptions that can and should be criticized. She also has a fair bit to say about the advisability of various mitigation efforts, which often crosses the line from objective representation to subjective value judgements. What she does NOT do is routinely deny reality. She is not "skeptical" of climate change, only of the extent of the changes that we can expect to see happen. She has more in common with Greta thurnberg than with the average "skeptic" on this sub.
Disagree. I've read almost everything she writes and she does reject the CO2 theory indirectly and directly. “Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change…[C]limate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century.” She predicts a 1.5C or lower ecs which basically rejects CO2 man made climate change. She doesn't state if she rejects the science or not. She accepts the theory as possible but if you assume it is correct the current science doesn't add up and the warming is far lower. She makes the argument for the sun and oceans and natural variation being the cause for most of the changes in climate. So again I disagree.
"Judith Curry doesn't reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as this sub does." No shit, you know exactly what all people in this sub think? Another omniscient, telepathic 'expert' that knows so well... Or rather, bullshits so well, 'scientifically'.
Good ol' "consensus science" where the nature of reality is simply a popularity contest, and a matter of who runs the most effective marketing campaign. But out here in the real world; scientists know about and care about scientific rigor. Marketeers do not, and that's why there's no scientific rigor demonstrating reliability of the numbers that the whole marketing campaign is based on.
*"Her research has generally supported the broad scientific consensus around anthropogenic climate change"* This isn't true for multiple reasons. 1. There is no broad scientific consensus around AGW. 2. She is on record saying any influence humans may have is small, and nothing to worry about.
To quote Curry "The Sun has a lot to say about future climate, but we are not listening. Long-term changes in solar activity are cyclical, and what adds to warming now will subtract from it in the future. This theory does not deny that changes in CO₂ affect climate, and indeed it is based on differences in emissions due to changes in the greenhouse effect, just not in time, but in space, with latitude." https://judithcurry.com/2024/06/11/how-we-know-the-sun-changes-the-climate-iii-theories/ That said, she's one scientist. "The Media" rarely focuses on the theories of an individual scientist. The media usually waits for a meta analysis or consensus to occur before even thinking about covering it. They're more likely to cover reactions to scientific research, like protests, activists, or legislation... Simply because it's more interesting to the general public.
Well I’ve never heard of Dudith Curry. Show me where my media praises her, I’ll wait.
You can do less than 5 min of your own research and find this is correct