roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Alleged:

“Why do some scientists like Judith Curry and John Clauser agree that CO2 increases temperature but still question climate action plans?

Curry is a climate “obfuscator” who has been paid to minimize the facts, although she has also been careful not to lie outright.

Clauser is a Nobel Prize winner in an unrelated discipline who fell for Richard Lindzen’s false and disproven cloud iris theory, about thirty years ago.

These are not climate scientists. They are the same sort of scientists as the 31,000 geologists, nuclear physicists, and Mickey Mouse and Spiro Agnew who signed the disinformation petition about thirty years ago.

In 2017 utility scale wind and utility scale solar generation became cheaper than all fossil and all nuclear power everywhere in the world.

This “debate” is funded by the dying fossil and nuclear industries. There is no serious question among real qualified scientists about the importance of climate change and the threat it presents to our future.”

and my question is: is Judith Curry really “a climate “obfuscator” who has been paid to minimize the facts”?

I don’t recall seeing that allegation before.

A search could not find anything related to that question.

Yet searching Judith Curry came up with: Judith Curry also talks admiringly about the wave of “gentleman scientists” who doubt the seriousness of climate change.

From a quick review of TATE, the only suggestion that her opinions are based on personal financial gain was:

“Curry retired in 2017 from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology at age 63, because of what she called “the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming”. Michael Mann said climate science would be stronger without her because of her “confusionism and denialism”. In an interview with eenews.net at the time of her retirement, she argued for more focus on reducing climate change vulnerabilities. After leaving academia, Curry shifted to running the Climate Forecast Applications Network, a climate-risk consulting company whose clients include federal agencies, insurance companies, and energy companies.”

I doubt that her position on climate change was intentionally created to make money from the fossil fuel industry, although no doubt such income is a welcome side effect.

I also think it likely that her principal claim that the uncertainty on future climate changes is greater than suggested by the mainstream mob is correct.

The problem is, that increases the probability of worst-case developments, as well as the probability of best-case (or least bad case) developments. So it is a reason for more action on reducing GHG emissions, not reduced action.