Good news.

Nice post.  But be aware, anyone Open the link may find a sent virus. Thanks  NigeF. 

V

Think the big Covid con has died a death.

Nige, an interesting read, as for the 1600 scientists that have signed the declaration they are indeed brave people.

... and have no idea what they have signed. Most of them have no expertise in meteorological processes.

John F. Clauser, for example, is a quantum physicist.

Agreed they are not all climate experts but you would agree they are brilliant scientists with at least some understanding of whats going on as opposed to the BBC etc that speak utter clap trap.

However if you want to read an article from a genuine climate expert then follow the below link.

https://reason.com/2023/08/09/this-scientist-used-to-spread-climate-change-alarmism-now-shes-trying-to-debunk-it/

"Not all" is good. Less than 1% are meteorology experts! Many more are engineers in the mining and oil industry (about 21%). These are not "brilliant scientists" but followers of a business lobby that feels threatened. This is about a lot of money and less about the truth.

"THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY"
CLINTEL DECLARATION DEBUNKED BY EXPERTS

The National

19 August 2022

EXPERTS have debunked a declaration from climate sceptics who have defied scientific consensus by claiming “there is no climate emergency”.

The declaration has reached 1107 signatures, many of which come from individuals who have ties to the oil and gas industries or dubious scientific credentials.

It was released by the group Global Climate Intelligence, which was founded by former geophysics professor and Shell engineer Guus Berkhout.

Signatories include Ukip peer the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a number of scientists with past and current links to the fossil fuel industry, including a former vice president of operations for BP based in Aberdeen.

Delphine Gray-Fisk, the Ukip and Brexit Party candidate, also signed the declaration.

Many signatories are scientists, though few have expertise in climate science, while others appear to have no scientific credibility at all.

Dr Simon Cook, a senior lecturer in environmental science at Dundee University, said the group’s claims, including that CO2 is good for the environment and not causing global heating, were “anti-science” and recommended the group was “ignored”.

DUBIOUS CREDENTIALS 

One signatory, Wolf Doleys, from Germany is listed as being a retired teacher who also writes poetry, novels and essays.

Another is Alexandre Krivitzky, from France, who is a psychoanalyst and appears to have no scientific background.

Dr Cook said: “It’s quite a lazy declaration. It doesn’t really have any supporting information. I would regard these views as fringe.”

Other claims include the assertion that global warming is not man-made but a natural reaction from the “little Ice Age” of 1850.

“They play on a veneer of credibility,” he added.

“You take that example – we’re coming out of an ice age, we’re in an interglacial period where it is definitely warmer than during the glacial period.

“But it’s the rate at which that warming is taking place and it’s going well beyond the temperatures experienced during the last interglacial period.

“What climate science denialists do, is they put their titles like professor so-and-so and say these sort of things like ‘CO2 is plant food – it’s not a pollutant’.

“Well, yeah, kind of but that’s not really what the situation is – the situation is that there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 is a known greenhouse gas – we’ve known about that literally for hundreds of years.”

“What they’re saying just flies in the face of what we can observe and measure as scientists – it’s anti-science.”

'HEADS IN THE SAND"

Professor Alistair Jump, dean of the faculty of natural sciences at Stirling University, said: “This declaration wilfully overlooks, over-simplifies and misrepresents basic facts, as well as the vast breadth of scientific knowledge on the interaction between atmospheric composition, climate and living organisms.

“The small group behind the foundation rails against the economic cost of action – but the economic cost of inaction is far, far, greater. 

“People sticking their head in the sand won’t make the global climate emergency go away –it will just remove the chance that we have to mitigate the impacts of the climate crisis and prepare economically and socially for the profound change that it is already bringing to individuals, communities and ecosystems across the globe.”

Credit:  Thenational.scot

August 2022

None so blind as those who will not see, seems apt.

Hi Ron,
So using your logic, if you had lung cancer, you'd be happy to consult a neurologist, because he would be a "brilliant scientist", even though he wouldn't be a cancer expert? 
 
I think you need to look deeper into the funding of those you believe give credence to your personal views and consider how that may influence their opinions and agenda.

Kind regards,
Kim

JUDITH CURRY
Credentials 

• Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago (1982)1
• B.S. Geography, Northern Illinois University (1974)2

BACKGROUND

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and professor emerita of the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she chaired the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002–2014. She is the president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, a consulting company. 3 4

Climate scientists have criticized Judith Curry for her climate outreach in the blogosphere based on assertions not necessarily supported by the evidence.5 Climate scientists have also criticized Curry’s “uncertainty-focused spiel,” as Sourcewatch has put it, for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence.”

Judith Curry resigned from her position at Georgia Tech on January 1, 2017,6 citing the “craziness” of climate science.

Judith Curry and Peter Webster founded Climate Forecast Applications Network in 2006, under Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute VentureLab Program.7

According to materials from Anthem Press, Judith Curry’s 2023 book Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response “…helps us rethink the climate change problem, the risks we are facing and our response. It helps us strategize on how we can best engage with our environment and support human well-being while responding to climate change. Climate Uncertainty and Risk provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the climate change debate. It shows how both the climate change problem and its solution have been oversimplified. It explains how understanding the uncertainties helps us to better assess the risks. It describes how uncertainty and disagreement can be part of the decision-making process. It provides a road map formulating pragmatic solutions that can improve our well-being in the 21st century.”

Curry has maintained a website and blog called Climate Etc.8 She has also participated in a variety of blogs in the climate science denial community, such as Climate Audit,9 and the Air Vent. .10

FOSSIL FUEL FUNDING

As reported by DeSmog, in a 2022 deposition Curry said that Climate Forecast Applications Network’s clients included petroleum companies, electric utilities, and natural gas energy traders, and that she charged $400 an hour for her consulting services.

In 2015, Climate Wire reported that “Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist who is often critical of dominant scientific views of climate change, is is being probed by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who wants to know Curry’s funding sources. Curry runs a weather-forecasting business that supplies information to oil companies, among others.” 11

In 2010, Scientific American reporter Michael Lemonick questioned Judith Curry about potential conflicts of interest. She responded:12

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

STANCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Judith Curry has become well-known since the mid-2000s for taking public stands that align with debunked climate change denial arguments, while not outright rejecting the fact of climate change or that burning fossil fuels contributed to rising temperatures.

In December 2015, Curry wrote on her blog Climate Etc. that her views on climate change were best summarized by her 2015 testimony to Congress on the President’s Climate Action Plan:13 14

“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.”

“THE DELAYER”

In 2010 Climatologist Michael Mann described Judith Curry as among “a new breed of climate change contrarian – the delayer.

“Examples of individuals occupying that niche in the media today are folks like Judith Curry of the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, former UC Berkeley astrophysicist Richard Muller, and “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. Rather than flat-out denying the existence of human-caused climate change, delayers claim to accept the science, but downplay the seriousness of the threat or the need to act. The end result is an assertion that we should delay or resist entirely any efforts to mitigate the climate change threat through a reduction of fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions. Despite claiming to assent to the scientific evidence, delayers tend to downplay the climate change threat by assuming unrealistic, low-end projections of climate change, denying the reality of key climate change effects, and employing lowball estimates of the costs of those impacts. When the cost-benefit analysis of taking action is skewed by a downwardly biased estimate of the cost of inaction, it is far easier to make the Pollyanna-ish argument that technology and the free market will simply solve the problem on their own. It is a backdoor way of saying that we do not need to pursue clean, non-fossil fuel energy sources, which are arguably the only real ways to avoid locking in dangerous climate change.”

CLIMATE "NEO-SKEPTICISM"

In an article published in the December 2019 issue of the journal Human Ecology Review, social scientists Brian Petersen, Diana Stuart, and Ryan Gunderson termed Curry’s position “neo-skepticism” because she has mixed acceptance of of climate change facts with elements of climate denial. For instance, Curry agrees that the Earth is warming, but claims that temperatures are rising more slowly than climate models have projected. She accepts that anthropogenic carbon pollution causes warming, but claims that it is uncertain how much warming can be attributed to human-driven causes. She also acknowledges that there is the potential for a catastrophic outcome to the climate crisis, but overstates the uncertainties in climate modeling, citing natural climate variation, and claims that these factors outweigh calls by climate scientists for urgent action.15

https://www.desmog.com/judith-curry/