Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

This has convinced me to start researching the data, I have yet to really dig in on this issue. This woman should have stayed and fought in my opinion. There is such a lack of ideological diversity on campuses precisely because professors like her are fleeing in droves, if they are not being fired.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

Foreign Language courses not being needed?? The cognitive benefits of language learning are so beneficial they should be compulsory from grade school on. Then Americans could actually culture themselves while traveling and open their eyes. In an increasingly global world knowing more languages is essential, and it's naive to think English will always be the lengua franca of the world.

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: snchrnct

It wasn't pushed by the UN but by different organizations. For example, check out the NAS.

It would be good for the discussion if you would actually back up your statements with some sources. Give me something to read that challenges what I previously wrote so we can have a proper discussion. Not just one line of text without any substance.

So correct me if I'm wrong, the IPCC is a UN body, that stands at the very top of the "climate change science pyramid", and it is THE biggest pusher of the catastrophic man made global warming theory.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

IPCC assessments provide a scientific basis for governments at all levels to develop climaterelated policies, and they underlie negotiations at the UN Climate Conference – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The assessments are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.

Furthermore, I think I have to highlight again that the IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, so it is concerned with policy making and achieving it's political goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. Also know that the IPCC's scientists are appointed by governments. Meanwhile the IPCC keeps claiming that it has the creme de la creme of top climate experts working on the Climate Bible, which is simply not true. It turns out that these scientists are often selected based on the UN's equality ethics, rather than on their expertise on a specific science field. Meaning: equality in gender, race, country of origin etc. is more important to the UN than actually selecting the best scientists in the field. This is just one of the many inconvenient facts surrounding the IPCC and it's process. I urge you to read Donna LaFramboise's full exposé of the IPCC if you're really interested to get to the bottom of it. It's truly disgusting once you know how far this organization (and others) are willing to go to achieve their political goals.

Now it's your turn again.

a reply to: edithinthesky

And "consensus" or the "claimed consensus" isn't proof either that AGW is real... After all, Hitler put 100 scientists against Einstein because they didn't want to believe in his theory of general relativity. Oh, and btw the NAZIs rejected Einstein's theory of relativity "because he was of Jewish descent". Kind of like how the AGW religious brigade want to claim "everyone who rejects AGW is a shill for oil companies"... Which means this is just an excuse to ignore and dismiss any evidence that disproves AGW.

Then there is the fact that observation of our climate has shown AGW to be a farse. The majority of the GCMs (Global Circulation Models or computer models used to claim the ongoing climate change is man-made) have been wrong...

Then there is the fact that our sun itself has been acting very strangely. The fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since around the1840s. The fact that global seismic and magmatic/geothermal heating events have been increasing. The Earth, and the entire Solar System are changing, but the AGW brigade want to ignore all of this and instead blame it on a basic element needed for life on a planet like Earth. You do know that the majority of life on Earth is carbon based right?... CO2 is needed by most lifeforms on Earth, yet the EPA labeled CO2 "as a pollutant"...

I'm a AGW skeptic (it's mostly the doomsday talk that gets to me) but after reading the OP it seems like she has come to the belief that she's big enough of a name to make money in social advertising through regular social media channels (twitter, friendface).

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I rarely find people doing things for the honor of it.

One person spouting bitterness to tie in with her agenda. There's more thsn meets the eye to this. It means absolutell nothing. Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of scientists globally are in agreement.

Oh and lol at the ignorance of the 'we need co2!!!11' comment. Quantity is the issue here.

a reply to: snchrnct

Yes, the internet is good. You can learn college-level material for free nowadays. People being able to share open source material is probably better in many instances.

As for groupthinking I think it's dangerous. It's true that it's hard to convince people of the truth when people succumb to herd mentality.

Absolute reality is absolute reality and some people just can't handle it. Part of the reason why so many people can't handle academia is because the subject matter is too challenging to their belief system. I still think there is SOME propaganda in schools but it's not black and white. Trying to get people to believe in evolution is hard in itself.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: edithinthesky

And "consensus" or the "claimed consensus" isn't proof either that AGW is real... After all, Hitler put 100 scientists against Einstein because they didn't want to believe in his theory of general relativity. Oh, and btw the NAZIs rejected Einstein's theory of relativity "because he was of Jewish descent". Kind of like how the AGW religious brigade want to claim "everyone who rejects AGW is a shill for oil companies"... Which means this is just an excuse to ignore and dismiss any evidence that disproves AGW.

Then there is the fact that observation of our climate has shown AGW to be a farse. The majority of the GCMs (Global Circulation Models or computer models used to claim the ongoing climate change is man-made) have been wrong...

Then there is the fact that our sun itself has been acting very strangely. The fact that Earth's magnetic field has been weakening since around the1840s. The fact that global seismic and magmatic/geothermal heating events have been increasing. The Earth, and the entire Solar System are changing, but the AGW brigade want to ignore all of this and instead blame it on a basic element needed for life on a planet like Earth. You do know that the majority of life on Earth is carbon based right?... CO2 is needed by most lifeforms on Earth, yet the EPA labeled CO2 "as a pollutant"...

The environmental concerns are justified. Our green house gases is depleting our protective ozone layer. That's why every year the average temperature gets hotter and hotter.

Our tectonic plates is shifting partly due to fracking and erosion.

Believe me our activities is having a negative impact on our eco-system.

Hi. I'm one of the few people here who has worked in academic research and am familiar with a few climate scientists and this person is clearly a fraud. The only people who are held back from positions are those with conflicts of interest...just like this person.

Sorry. She's just upset that her students are getting beat out by those doing better science. Pointing the finger the way she has is the end to an embarassing academic career filled with questionable work. That's a very bad legacy to leave behind. I'm sure the ATS rubes will lop her work right up though. Because you know...conspiracies are almost always right (jk they've been proven wrong time and time again).

a reply to: fencesitter85

Quantity is the issue here.

Absolutely!

What, by the way, do you believe the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be?

TheRedneck

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

For someone "of the few people here" who has worked in academic research you should definitely know that you have to back up such slanderous claims with some proper referencing.

Right now this rant of yours proves, means and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion! Try harder and come back again when you actually have something worth sharing...

originally posted by: snchrnct

originally posted by: monkeyluv
a reply to: snchrnct

It wasn't pushed by the UN but by different organizations. For example, check out the NAS.

It would be good for the discussion if you would actually back up your statements with some sources. Give me something to read that challenges what I previously wrote so we can have a proper discussion. Not just one line of text without any substance.

So correct me if I'm wrong, the IPCC is a UN body, that stands at the very top of the "climate change science pyramid", and it is THE biggest pusher of the catastrophic man made global warming theory.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

IPCC assessments provide a scientific basis for governments at all levels to develop climaterelated policies, and they underlie negotiations at the UN Climate Conference – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The assessments are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take.

Furthermore, I think I have to highlight again that the IPCC is a POLITICAL organization, so it is concerned with policy making and achieving it's political goals as efficiently and effectively as possible. Also know that the IPCC's scientists are appointed by governments. Meanwhile the IPCC keeps claiming that it has the creme de la creme of top climate experts working on the Climate Bible, which is simply not true. It turns out that these scientists are often selected based on the UN's equality ethics, rather than on their expertise on a specific science field. Meaning: equality in gender, race, country of origin etc. is more important to the UN than actually selecting the best scientists in the field. This is just one of the many inconvenient facts surrounding the IPCC and it's process. I urge you to read Donna LaFramboise's full exposé of the IPCC if you're really interested to get to the bottom of it. It's truly disgusting once you know how far this organization (and others) are willing to go to achieve their political goals.

Now it's your turn again.

Never heard of the NAS or the other organizations mentioned here?

climate.nasa.gov...

As for the claim regarding what is "political," would you like to name one that isn't and that supports your view?

Well, we know that global warming is real, but it is not caused, at least alone, by human activity. It is utterly unscientific to believe so. First off, the Earth is so big that most people can't even comprehend how big it actually is, and Earth is actually a small planet, compared to others. The real cause of global warming is, point blank, the Sun.
As far as corruption in research ... I figured that out a long time ago. I used to here professors talking about it. One has to side with government to get grant money; otherwise, one has to join some kind of private club that generates research to support their own endeavors, e.g., big pharma.

a reply to: rxh0272

It is utterly unscientific to believe so.

Right. And the vast majority of climatologists do not think that is the case. They do, however, think that human activity is the major cause. Specifically, the combustion of fossil fuels which causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations which causes an increase in radiative forcing. That increase in radiative forcing increases heat content (both atmospheric and oceanic). That increase in heat content leads to other positive feedback effects like increased atmospheric water vapor content (and, at this point to a minor degree, increased CH4 concentrations) and decreased albedo in polar regions.

The real cause of global warming is, point blank, the Sun.

What aspect of the Sun has changed over the past 70 years?

a reply to: monkeyluv
Hello:
The UN is a corrupt organization supported by and which supports the banks. The entire global warming issue as being caused by humans was a fabrication. Al Gore should be jailed for creating all the hysteria, but I suppose he is protected by the 1rst amendment. No human activity could ever stop the Earth from warming/cooling, and our idiotic belief that we can proves how dumb our leaders have become. And, their playing around with the climate will only have negative consequences on the atmosphere and weather patterns, which morons will then blame on humans, at which point it likely would be. Entropy is entropy; there is no way around it.
People who lack training or knowledge look around and see/sense entropy increasing and then conclude that there is an increase alone, which is a false conclusion. The sun heats the Earth. The Earth then cools via radiation back into space. It then heats up again when the Sun light hits it. The Earth is constantly heating-cooling. It then has larger phases of heating-cooling, which is mostly caused by the sun, but can be influenced by global events, e.g., supervolcano.

But herein lies one common illogical conclusion: that the Earth will keep getting hotter as due to "Pollution" gasses that cause it to "Trap" more "Heat" (for emphasis). See, the problem is that, as the Earth gains more heat, it also radiates more heat back into space. This is common sense physics.

If the Earth continually kept heat is received from the Sun, we all would have never existed in the first place, as the Earth would have boiled away. If the Earth radiated out more heat than it received, it would be a frozen ball.

CO2 is actually good for the Earth. The last time CO2 levels were much higher, the Earth was much better off for plants and animals. Again, this is common sense.

Also, one last point: The Earth doesn't just go around the Sun in a perfect orbit, and the Earth wobbles. These are called precessions. The orbit has a 26,000 year precession; the axis has a 41,000 year cycle during which the Earth's axis changes from about 22 degrees to about 24.5 degrees, which, by the way, can change by astronomical bodies affecting Earth. These cause a rise and fall of temperature and changing weather patterns, i.e., ice ages, times when polar caps melt (water world), etc.

The UN then appoints morons to "Lead" (for emphasis) the world on "Climate change." The truth of the matter is that there is an agenda to control people by classifying us all as pollution creators, e.g., tax on cows' farts.

a reply to: rxh0272

See, the problem is that, as the Earth gains more heat, it also radiates more heat back into space. This is common sense physics.

You have the basic idea but don't seem to understand that CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) cause some of that radiation to return to Earth instead of escaping to space. www.abovetopsecret.com...

If the Earth continually kept heat is received from the Sun, we all would have never existed in the first place, as the Earth would have boiled away. If the Earth radiated out more heat than it received, it would be a frozen ball.

Indeed. There is a somewhat delicate balance. Not enough radiative forcing, too cold (Mars). Too much, too hot (Venus). Rapid change in forcing, rapid change in climates.

CO2 is actually good for the Earth. The last time CO2 levels were much higher, the Earth was much better off for plants and animals.

Right. When was that (because CO2 levels are higher than they have been in about a million years or so)? How much human civilization was there? How many humans were there? How many humans in cities? How much agriculture? See, if humans didn't have cities and stuff, there wouldn't really be any problem, hunter gatherers can move around quite easily. That's what they do. Of course, they don't dump billions of tons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere each year either.

These cause a rise and fall of temperature and changing weather patterns, i.e., ice ages, times when polar caps melt (water world), etc.

Milankovich cycles? Yeah. According to that, things should be cooling, not warming. How come?

a reply to: Phage

Milankovich cycles? Yeah. According to that, things should be cooling, not warming. How come?

I dont accept that the planet is warming...as in average global temperature. Even if it is...the period of observation is far too short on a global scale to prove any long term trend. And as we all know...short term trends of temperature spikes have always existed, but are insignificant for a long term curve.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I dont accept that the planet is warming...as in average global temperature.

Yeah. Confirmation bias is funny that way. Gives you all kinds of reasons to reject data which doesn't conform with your paradigm.

Even if it is...the period of observation is far too short on a global scale to prove any long term trend.

So you don't understand the physics of radiative forcing? You don't think that increased CO2 concentrations have any effect on heat content?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah. Confirmation bias is funny that way. Gives you all kinds of reasons to reject data which doesn't conform with your paradigm.

Indeed it does....but bias is not wrong in itself. We are all biased. And some bias has to be right. And yes...I dont trust your institutions that present this data. Since we're all aware there is a real political agenda tied to CC...I simply can not trust them to present me with pure truth. They have not proven to be trust worthy. That's my bias.

So you don't understand the physics of radiative forcing? You don't think that increased CO2 concentrations have any effect on heat content?

I understand very well the principle proposed. My stance is simply that there are too many unknown variables in the entire climate process to hang on to any theory with your dear life.

I'm scientifically skeptical about this scientific process of proving man made climate change. It's beyond our ability to comprehend it fully or to predict it's long term trends. The best we have is predictions based on historic records and trends...which are ultimately against the AGW conclusions.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

They have not proven to be trust worthy.

Why do you say that? Because you believe the myth of "climategate?" Because you think that "hide the decline" meant to distort data? If so, you may want to review the facts.

My stance is simply that there are too many unknown variables in the entire climate process to hang on to any theory with your dear life.

Fair enough. Ignore the sign that says "Sharp Curve Ahead" and keep driving at 65.

a reply to: Phage

Why do you say that? Because you believe the myth of "climategate?" Because you think that "hide the decline" meant to distort data? If so, you may want to review the facts.

It's not just about the climatgate. Public trust in world institutions is at an all time low in recent decades. US elections, Brexit and this fake news thing is certainly one sign of times. Ultimately...it's about money...and I know people (scientists are people too)...we cant be trusted.

As long as scientific research is dependent on funding...we can not trust it blindly. You know when I knew there's a problem ? When 97 % number came up. That was the deal breaker.

There is no such consensus in any of the branches of science on any scientific theory. If there was...there would hardly ever be any progress in science.