Climatologist Exposes Fallacy of Consensus that Climate Change Is Entirely Caused By Mankind

Written by on December 16, 2015 in Climate Change, Environment with 35 Comments

Video Source: corbettreport

Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The above video shows the testimony she delivered to last week's US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing on “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate Over the Magnitude of the Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”
Here’s a transcript of her testimony:
I thank the Chairman and the ranking members for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this 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 groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.
What have I concluded from this assessment?
Human caused climate change is a theory in which the basic mechanism is well understood, but whose 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: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether warming is ‘dangerous’.
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by humans versus natural climate variability. Research effort 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 change, in particular from the sun and from the long-term oscillations in ocean circulations.
Why do scientists disagree about climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of 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 a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. My motives have been questioned by Representative Grijalva, 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 and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests.
In this politicized environment, advocating for CO2 emissions 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, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity – without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.
I would like to thank the committee for raising the issue of data versus dogma in support of improving the integrity of climate science.
This concludes my testimony.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

35 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. 1096699527009704@facebook.com' Brian Mcfarland says:

    Climate change is a natural occurrence not man made

  2. 1096699527009704@facebook.com' Brian Mcfarland says:

    Even though our government manipulates our weather constantly

  3. 409782735883183@facebook.com' Marsha Creary says:

    “I starting speaking out, saying that scientists needed to do better at making the data and supporting information publicly available, being more transparent about how they reached conclusions, doing a better job of assessing uncertainties, and actively engaging with scientists having minority perspectives. The response of my colleagues to this 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 groupthink. I had accepted the consensus based on 2nd order evidence: the assertion that a consensus existed. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy.”

  4. 409782735883183@facebook.com' Marsha Creary says:

    “Prior to 2009, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on climate change was the responsible thing to do. I bought into the argument: “Don’t trust what one scientist says, trust what an international team of a thousand scientists has said, after years of careful deliberation.” That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.”

  5. 1510953532534099@facebook.com' Machel van der Merwe says:

    Wonderĺik

  6. 409782735883183@facebook.com' Marsha Creary says:

    Looking not only at the evidence, root causes and assessments but how they were obtained. Look carefully at how these overall held beliefs came to be and how those beliefs shape policy, strategies and procedures. Be willing to do your due diligence.

  7. 1336189349740299@facebook.com' Jorge Hernandez says:

    She has to define natural variability. And if “natural variabilty” influences or magnifies the man made climate effect?

  8. 10153336786292507@facebook.com' Sancho Fasco says:

    Either way you slice it, soil erosion and water pollution are man made by malpractice. Nuclear radiation is natural in certain parts where it is found naturally, but the nuclear waste from a reactor is man made and those are just as real as it being 50 degrees in Iowa in december.

  9. 10153330054448661@facebook.com' Pedro Santiago says:

    Oh the cheque…

  10. 10153180550150636@facebook.com' Nick Mather says:

    Now find a scientist who hasn’t publicly admitted to receiving funding from the petroleum industry to say the same thing. Curry is an agent of misinformation who is bought and paid for in an attempt to manufacture doubt.

  11. 10153884252934273@facebook.com' Frank Lesko says:

    For some reason that I find hard to fathom, it seems easier for some people to believe that the overwhelming consensus of the world’s scientists, over mutiple decades, across all the countries of the world, with free and open sharing of information to anyone who wants to research it, are all part of some large groupthink conspiracy . . . than it is to believe that the oil & gas industry is pumping lots of $$ into a denial campaign, because, you know, they have a vested interest in making a quick buck for themselves and avoiding accountability. Even Exxon itself has admitted as much. Climategate? You’ve got to be kidding me.

  12. 1519945904997867@facebook.com' Christopher Witehira says:

    Its energies also

  13. 1519945904997867@facebook.com' Christopher Witehira says:

    Transparency.

  14. 1509939922639251@facebook.com' Becky Dowell says:

    So we are going to wake up. Alittle to late might I say I guess she’s trying

  15. 10103637247653443@facebook.com' Charlie Lawton says:

    What Curry doesn’t expose is the fact that she’s got significant conflicts of interest. She also doesn’t expose earlier research that contradicts her own conclusions, by failing to cite them. She’s a crappy scientist with a politics hobby, and her testimony was riddled with errors, both of comission and of omission.

    • 10205632565594740@facebook.com' Jifu Baba says:

      The scientists claiming there is climate change and doing the research also have a conflict of interest.

    • 10103637247653443@facebook.com' Charlie Lawton says:

      Not under any reasonable or specific understanding of that phrase, they don’t. That accusation is typically an attempt to invalidate the science when the accuser doesn’t understand the science well enough to directly attack it, not a justified concern about specific ethical lapses by specific researchers.

  16. sorgfelt@protonmail.ch' Sorgfelt says:

    My thoughts on the matter come from a little experiment I read about in which a paper clip on a string was made to rhythmically hit a large steel I-beam. After a very long time, the I-beam began to move in concert with the paper clip. Think about that while also realizing that many millions of vehicles are using up oxygen and belching CO2 into the atmosphere daily. The probable effect of CO2 on the atmosphere and temperature of the Earth was noticed in experiments over 100 years ago, and repeatedly confirmed.

    So far, every “scientist” who has denied AGW has been found to receive major funds from the oil industry. I don’t know about Judith, although a poster above has said she has serious conflicts of interest. Also, see this: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm

    I personally like to buck the status quo, because the majority has been so often wrong and often it is because scientists have too much invested in the status quo. Regarding AGW, though, I so far agree with the consensus. One problem with all of this is that, with the oil industry attacking the consensus and making a political mess of the issue, it is very difficult for any scientist to engage in any reasonable debate about the details. Say one thing that seems critical of the majority opinion and that person is immediately jumped on. That is the only reason I would have to give any quarter to people like Judith Curry. Scientists need to reclaim their ability to challenge each other.

  17. 10153692642248771@facebook.com' Deb De Vito says:

    I dont think it takes a scientist to figure this out … if it were true it would have happened quicker and more significantly ..
    Mankind in unison with the natural occurances of the earths cycle is more realistic to believe .. there are occurances and cycles we know nothing about that have happened way before documentation of anything ..as well as the possibility of new cycles forming that may have no blame attached to them at all.

  18. 10153806707204674@facebook.com' Stefan Đenić says:

    I’m glad to see america in a lot of problems.. 1999. never forget

  19. 1067793093260636@facebook.com' Phyllis Nyquist says:

    Climate change is cyclical…..but that is no reason to destroy our water and air that we need to survive. Pollution is man-made and as long as we need to breathe the air and drink water, it behooves every single human being to keep it clean!!! What other animal dirties its nest and sustenance?!?!!

  20. 10153100254165922@facebook.com' Robert Smith says:

    really!! Do they think we are a bunch of idiots, of course the climate change comes from the galaxys`central sun !!

  21. 1206148322734154@facebook.com' Wade John Valleau Lyman says:

    The IPCC may not have an explanation for why the antarctic ice sheet has been growing in a warming world, bus NASA does. Excessive melt (though still negative on net) has reduced the salinity of surface water – making it freeze at higher temperatures and expanding the overall extent of sea-ice, while increased snowfall due to a warmer, moister atmosphere has increased ice volume.

  22. its.not.co2@gmail.com' ItsNotCO2 says:

    All the obvious confusion about the Greenhouse Effect, the Second Law and the required heat flows needed to explain the ocean surface temperature need be no more, for all is explained here* with correct physics. Solar radiation reaching the ocean surface does not explain the surface temperature. Back radiation does not penetrate oceans by more than a few nanometers, so it does not explain the temperature either.

    I have, and I predict it will be common knowledge within 10 years.

    * https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top

Send this to a friend