There is no point in arguing with these liberals because they believe everything Al Gore said about global warming.
We now know that his predictions have been proven wrong, and so will the predictions of these other crackpots on global warming.
This is your only ally Sivad. You are in great company.
So you assert the models are wrong but post no support other than Judity Curry's blog.
I am disinclined to attack someone with Curry's background. There is no doubt that she has the academic chops to have a strong opinion. Nevertheless. She has been overwhelmingly criticized by those who are qualified to either agree with her or not. Sivad seems to rest his entire hope in her calculations (which are actually suppositions) and, as he did with the antivaxers, hitch his wagon to the iconoclasts.
Climate myths by Curry: What the Science Says Usage
Curry has claimed that "Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010. Of course we know that:
Global temperature is still rising and 2010 was one of the the hottest recorded.
She claimed that : "Scientists tried to 'hide the decline' in global temperature"
We know that: The 'decline' refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports.
She claimed that: "IPCC is alarmist"
We know that there are:
"Numerous papers have documented how IPCC predictions are more likely to underestimate the climate response."
Curry claims: "There is no consensus"
We know that 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
So this is the background against which we are to take her assertions as fact. I am not inclined to agree with someone so clearly out of the mainstream.
Most telling is this:
She said: "what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more? The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%."
What we know: the scientist self-ratings survey included in Cook et al. (2013) found a 96% consensus that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming, among papers that explicitly quantified whether or not humans were responsible. (This was not originally stated in the paper, but can be seen in the anonymized raw data of The Consensus Project.)
The contrarian Roy Spencer did claim to be part of the "97% consensus". The number 97% was produced with different criteria but The Consensus Project database shows that his claim is false. (Judith Curry herself did have two old papers among the 97%, but has published no papers stating whether or not humans cause most of the observed warming.)
So I put that together with her obvious attempt to discredit the entire IPCC report with only the decline in northern tree rings as her citation and she gets pushed out of the credibility box. She retired basically claiming that everyone else is crazy.
Dr. Michael Mann, a leading (if not the leading person in this field said)
"She has played a particularly pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign, laundering standard denier talking points but appearing to grant them greater authority courtesy of the academic positions she has held and the meager but nonetheless legitimate scientific work that she has published in the past," he said. "Much of what I have seen from her in recent years is boilerplate climate change denial drivel."
So I am disinclined to believe her assertions. (I refuse to grant that they are evidence without the collaboration, which she fails to present.)
In short, she is a populist denier. She is the darling of industry looking to protect profit. I do not even assert that industry is deliberately sabotaging climate science as so many do but rather simply grasping at straws to maintain they profitable but dangerous behavior. But that is bad enough.
I have taken unpopular positions before and survived the criticism. She is doing the same. The difference is that she appears to be intransigent in the face of new and old evidence. She has staked her reputation and livelihood on her denial point of view and can't move from it.
So this is the source against which we are to balance 97% of the climate science community. She looses. So does Sivad.