Prior to 2009 I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I had bought into the argument that we should not trust what one scientist says but that we should trust what an international team of scientists says after years of careful deliberation. That all changed for me in November 2009 following the leak of the Climategate emails that illustrated the sausage making and bullying that went into making the consensus. I started speaking out saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reach conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives.

The response of my colleagues to this assessment is summed up by the title of a 2010 article in the Scientific American. “Climate Heretic Judith Curry turns on her colleagues. I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of Group-Think. I had accepted the consensus based on second order evidence. The assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of all topics in climate science that had the most relevance in terms of policy. Here is what I concluded from that assessment.

Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood but the magnitude is highly uncertain. No one questions that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880 or that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, or that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. However there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues. These issues are (1) whether the warming has been dominated by human caused drivers versus natural variability. (2) How much the planet will warm in the 21st century, (3) And whether warming is dangerous.

The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent and future warmings are caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research focus and funding has focused on understanding human causes of climate change. However we have been misled in our quest to understand climate change by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate variability in particular from the sun and from long term oscillations in ocean circulations. Why do scientists disagree about climate change? (1) Historical data are sparse and inadequate. (2) There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. (3) There is disagreement about the appropriate logicfal framework for linking and asse3ssing the evidence. (4) And scientists disagree over assessments in areas of ambiguity and ignorance.

How then and why have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties. Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate that has polarized the scientific community.

As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called “THE DENIER” by other climate scientists and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Griolva in a recent letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.

There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians but from Federal funding agencies, universities, professional societies, and from scientists themselves who are also green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.

In this politicized environment advocating for carbon dioxide emission reductions is becoming the default expected position for climate scientists. This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences.

Policy advocacy when combined with understating the uncertainties risks destroying the reputation of science for honesty and objectivity without which scientists become merely another lobbyist group. I thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in the issue of improving the integrity of climate science.

THE SOURCE YOUTUBE VIDEO

A selection of comments posted on Youtube under this video.

that will benefit from so called “climate change” which used to be called “global warming ” until stats showed there has been no warming over the last 20 years.

Climate change is NORMAL.

The ex-prime Minister for Australia has millions invested in carbon credit schemes, so what policies and industries do you think he will subsidise with tax payer money to enrich himself.

Politicians NEVER do anything for the PEOPLE who pay their salaries … they are driven only by self interest.

And guess who the people are who approve the government “research” funds to universities to prove that global warming, climate change and CO2 being the cause is real … Politicians and their elite masters and lobbyists of course … it is one big scam.

Remember this “global warming” scam was started by a politician NOT a concerned group of scientists … they came afterwards when the research money flowed.

I have personally sat in meetings in the pharmaceutical industry where the same crap goes on. The universities are given a brief of what outcome the pharmaceutical company wants and hey presto that’s exactly what they get back … you get what you pay for.

There are some truthful scientific people alive. Well done, the science and numbers have been doctored to Suite the government narrative of the UN, follow the money.

Anyone who believes it’s a forgone conclusion that the vast majority of climatologists/meteorologists believe that climate change is substantially anthropogenic, harmful, and that we have a comprehensive understanding of the mind-boggling multivariate mechanisms involved is lazy and non-critical-thinking. Once one really digs into the data and thoroughly investigates the arguments on both sides of this aisle, they will come to resoundingly conclude that the preponderance of evidence doesn’t even remotely support this viewpoint.

Further, they will have to grapple with the truth that many of these “scientists” aren’t scientists at all. A fundamental and mandatory characterological trait of being a scientist is to follow the data wherever it leads, even if it directly contradicts your pet hypotheses and you have to completely reverse your view. Anyone not drawing conclusions on a well-reasoned, fair, and non-overstated/non-redacted treatment the data alone is not a scientist at all, regardless what school or level of degree they’ve attained.

Is “climatology” a recognized natural and geo-physical science? I would posit that it is a pseudo-science like psychology and environmental science.

It is TOO late to worry about the climate!
No need for climatologists to TRY to CONVINCE narrow-minded, stubborn-minded, self-deluded politicians!

I don’t know when this was recorded, but to hear her say that bad climate science is the fault of politicians and interest groups is beyond laughable. The “scientists” are the liberals who have been shoving this bad science down our throats since 1970. Politicians picked up on it later after the “media” made it a headline. It is lousy scientists who are responsible but I guess this woman doesn’t want to put the blame where it should be…on her own profession. Everyone wants to point a finger somewhere else.

All you got to do is read the Bible, it’s going to get warmer the water’s going to dry up and all that’s going to be left is blood to drink.because of the sins of man !

The poorest of scientists will not examine conflicting evidence or debate other approaches or opinions. The IPCC is packed with poor scientists.

The reputation of today’s science has already been destroyed since it has been proven that the moon landings were fake and the shape of the earth has now been proven to be flat. These so called “scientists” have warped and twisted the institution for personal and governmental agendas and alot of people are now waking up to the global warming scam.

We can sit around and speculate if global warming is real.But the delayed effects are in the pipe and are going to come out.Can we risk thermal runaway.If the scientists would just get cold fusion to work it would totally end global warming problems.Please do it.

There’s never being any climate change or anything, it’s all a fabricated lie to extort money 💰 from people lots and lots of money 💰

This is what it looks like when you’re getting blackmailed or paid off.

Stop paying carbon tax. Anyone with a brain knows it’s a con job. Planet earth has to produce more and more food as the population increases and therefore it needs more CO2 to make it grow. The best description I’ve heard about the effects of human producing CO2 is: it’s like a fart in the breeze.

IF CLIMATE CHANGE WAS REAL THE BANKS WOULDNT BE BUILDING WATER FRONT AND BEACHFRONT PROPERTIES ALL THE TIME AS RISING SEA LEVELS WOULD BE A RISK TO THERE INVESTMENT , AND SINCE CLIMATE CHANGE STARTED IN THE 70S AND BY NOW WE SHOULD BE UNDER WATER ITS BEEN ALMOST 50 YEARS , AND THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY GETTING COOLER WHEN IS THIS GLOBAL WARMING GOING TO KICK IN !!!!!

This is Maria, it was already been proofed that due to greed and not caring of consequence the humans losing their houses, their belongings even their lives. When the had cut so many trees that caused the lands to go dry and farmers could not run their farms because they were cutting so many trees. The government had to replant trees.. So please don’t try to cover the true with your finger.

Everyone needs to get behind this woman and the others challenging this cult like consensus.
She would really be feeling the weight on her shoulders right now, cos she’s going with the truth over the security of her job.

Unfortunately, this IS the history of “science”. Though the Galileo case is blamed on the Church, it was actually the traditional Aristotatilian “scientists” who refused to accept an alternative view. Aristotle had been “SETTLED SCIENCE” for 2000 years.

Denialist, heretic and consensus are not scientific terms, they are marketing terms

The reason why I reject the claims of climate evangelicals is because of 1 reason only. The proposed “solution” is centralized power decisions, increased confiscation of wealth, and social control of daily activities by a political body that is unaccountable to me or my elected officials. The solution if it were real would be more focused on actual polluters and less on consumers.

Still waiting for a scientific study that states
“50yrs from now the earth and the climate will be fine.”

Deforestation causes global warming that creates climate change.
Its not the Co2. It’s the lack of trees absorbing Ci2 and giving off oxygen.
There is an unequal balance between trees and the ocean basin.
Yes the ocean also absorbs Co2 and gives off oxygen.
Our oceans are also polluted.

All scientists need to do is stop taking money for lying.

So humans do not have to change what they are doing it is business as usual in fact we should be building more coal fired power stations as this woman has just blown the lid !

So what if you got lt wrong.

Stop drilling up there in Alaska and at north pole …hot water doesnt help….climate change is normal it a seasonal changes there a diffrence in climate change and global change …some of us remember botney…

The climate is changing because those in power are changing it. They use chemtrails, HAARP and by starting wild fires and feeding and directing hurricanes. They blame all of humanity when they are manipulating us from behind the curtain. C02 is a requirement for plant life. Research and you will see this is correct.

This is all you need to know about “Climate Change” (if you know how to read a chart). https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

It is self evident the whole thing is a scam, the only time governments come together isn’t for the benefit of their people but to line their own pockets. Welcome to the age of liars and open corruption!

Only those who rely upon government funding support the narrative of climate change, thereby continuing to receive funding and misleading the population, against geoengineering, weather modification being used to further agenda 21/30

It’s fairly logical that carbon fuel use creates pollution which can also create conditions for over-heating. It’s also becoming clearer that estimates of future damage have been greatly under stated – in the matter of coastal erosion for example and localised flooding events from increasingly extreme weather

Is global warming happing ; is global warming not happening ? Is not the issue , the real issue around global warming is ; is global warming being used for social control ? , is the real issue

The science world …their theories and facts are soon to be melted in a pot of unbelief. ..the world will be shaken this year and the waves will be roaring….l soon wonder how their theories will stand

Mmm. This looks interesting. “Climatologist Breaks the Silence on Global Warming Groupthink”
Wait: isn’t that Judith Curry, the well known conspiracist blogger? In what sense is this “breaking the silence”? Oh well

How about the prediction there will be no more ice on the North Pole ? Or in Greenland ? Or in the North Sea? The satellites show more ice, hasn’t anybody been keeping up with current events ?