First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

Thank You

First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

Thank You

First of all, I’m sorry that all of your comments were not approved immediately. Our internal system has just changed and everything does not work like it used to.

It seems that comments with links sometimes get sent to spam automatically. I had this happen with my own comment & it took me awhile to figure out what was happening!

I just fished your comments out of spam & will try to keep my eye on that as well as “pending” comments.

In response to the CRU and GISS data being wrong: The data used from CRU, GISS, NASA, NOAA and others has been found to be quite accurate. If anything, CRU data underestimates climate change! So, it is really a moot point from that angle.

Secondly, the link you provide (in that comment) does not undermine the science of climate change at all. It discusses how climate experts should communicate and deal with climate skeptics (including those who are just trying to jam up the wheels of progress by repeating the same claims over and over no matter how many times they are refuted). It is one perspective, but still does not undermine the science (and the fact that this science has gone through extensive independent review because of the political and cultural backlash to it).

The scientific community heavily supports what climate scientists have found and what methods they are using. Continued improvement is welcome, but the key findings (that accelerated climate change is happening and it is human-induced) need to be addressed in the real world now.

If people cannot accept the science, they will have to accept the droughts, floods, extreme storms, widespread agricultural challenges, and increase of diseases that are more than likely to occur.

I will keep an eye on the comments of this post for awhile longer, but cannot do a back & forth on every article I’ve ever written continually — and cannot even view all of the comments. If you want to learn more about climate change, get into the scientific discussion on it. Your views will quickly change on where our attention (most people’s) needs to be put if you do — on addressing the issue not debating if 97% of climate scientists are right or wrong.

Thank You

However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

However, I do have a few points: Why did you edit my post before that one? It had a link to a very important description of what unfolded at CRU, and how many scientists scientists feel about it.

The link I posted is directly relevant to the discussion.

Also, I think it would be important to acknowledge the fact that the institute of physics (comprised of 36,000 PhDs in physics) think there are serious problems with climate science as a whole, from peer review to data collection: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Is there a reason you are censoring my posts?

The letter from my deleted post: http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/27/%C2%AD-climategate-judith-curry-open-letter-to-graduate-students-young-scientists-climate-research-hacked-cru-emails/

Rajit, good catch. Pew apparently has two press releases announcing that report. I changed it to the correct link. If you want to compare the difference in press releases, here you go:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

http://people-press.org/report/528/

Rajit, good catch. Pew apparently has two press releases announcing that report. I changed it to the correct link. If you want to compare the difference in press releases, here you go:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

http://people-press.org/report/528/

Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

Did you just make that up? Where is the actual study that gives those numbers?

BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

BTW I realize there’s a degree of ‘groupthink’ to be expected from this website, but you cannot ignore the fact that both the CRU and GISStemp datasets have glaring errors.

Just because there’s an entire PR industry surrounding sloppy fad science, that doesn’t mean it should be granted automatic credibility.

Have fun with your cognitive dissonance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day .)

Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day .)

Papers are sent out for external review before publication. If you’re writing drivel, they won’t pass review no matter what your department’s politics are. The politics involve people being snooty about how significant your work is, not how true it is. The scientific rules of evidence set the bar so high that it’s possible to miss some truths, but next-to-impossible for most scientists in the field to show a finding is valid and yet have it be false.

So the real kicker is that 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS are in agreement about anthropogenic climate change. At those levels of consensus, there’s no hope that it’s all just departmental politics. We’re knackering the planet, and if you’re younger than 40, you’re probably guaranteed to suffer some serious effects.

What scientists in general have to say is less important. I’ve known physicists who are creationists. (And as a biologist and science fiction fan, I’m convinced we’ll have faster than light travel some day .)

http://www.good.is/post/prominent-climate-change-skeptic-getting-paid-by-oil-coal-companies