Sure. Judith Curry is a publishing climatologist. She has about 200 publications most recently in 2014. She's a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology where she was the chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences from 2002-2014. You want a quote? Go to her website and learn about what a real climate scientist thinks about the climate: http://judithcurry.com/
If Curry were an option trader, she would have been bankrupted many times over already, EVEN IF SHE CORRECT: http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/judith-curry/
And if your aunt had testicles she'd be your uncle. Well, maybe not anymore, LOL. But she's not an option trader. She's a climate scientist. And by changing the subject to risk, you're basically admitting the point of my post to futurecurrents, that indeed, there does exist a publishing climatologist who does not believe global warming is alarming. In fact, let me quote from her testimony to the US House of Representatives from April 15, 2015: STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Hearing on "The President's U.N. Climate Pledge" Major points: Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change: ... https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/house-science-testimony-apr-15-final.pdf Maybe you can argue the point as to futurecurrent's claim that she doesn't exist with him. I don't think he listens to any reasoning. Certainly he never adjusts or adapts his arguments. So let's look at your post: You're quoting "The Rational Pessimist". Who's that? Is he a climate scientist? In the article you linked in, The Rational Pessimist examines a paper by Judith Curry and concludes that the risk is too great. In other words, he claims to understand Judith Curry's paper better than Judith Curry does. And who is he? From the "about" page on his blog, he is: "an ex-hedge fund manager, equities analyst and economist steeped in a neo-classical analytical tradition that sees progress as almost a certainty". I see no reason to suggest Judith Curry and I should bow to his understanding of science. Since I am in science, and do understand science and do understand these papers, let me explain his error to you. Climate sensitivity is the number that indicates how "bad" CO2 is as far as increasing the temperature of the earth. The larger it is, the warmer the earth is expected to be in 2100. The smaller, then the colder. Of course this is "all other things being equal" which they never are. The Rational Pessimist's claim is that even Curry's paper shows that there is a "5% risk" that climate sensitivity could cause temperatures above 2.5 degrees C. Here are his words from the article: http://therationalpessimist.com/2015/03/06/marching-against-a-tail-and-all-those-who-dont-get-risk/ In other words, he has analyzed the climate sensitivity as if it were an "outcome", that is, as if it were a random variable with a distribution defined by the errors given in the published estimates. No! Climate sensitivity is not a random variable. It is a number that is too difficult to calculate and so can only be estimated. If you had a revolver with only one loaded chamber, pulling the trigger on it would give a 1/6 (or 1/whatever) chance of firing. That *is* a random variable and his analysis of risk for *that* example is correct. This is the comparison that The Rational Pessimist makes with climate sensitivity, but climate sensitivity is *not* a random variable. Its value does not depend on random chance. Instead it is just a number. It doesn't have the excitement and chance of a random variable. Climate sensitivity is not a random variable. It is a number that is difficult to calculate. Hence every paper that estimates it can only give a range estimate for it. What is going on here is not "risk" but instead "ignorance". The way he's done his analysis, the crappier our estimate of climate sensitivity, the more we should be afraid of global warming. So if we completely stopped funding of climate science, and burned all the old papers, by his analysis of risk, we'd have to stop using fossil fuels immediately and completely because these activities would increase the tails on our estimates of climate sensitivity, LOL. And you can see where this is going, can't you? The crappier the estimates of climate sensitivity made by the climate scientists, the more we should be afraid of the "tails", and therefore the more money we should give to the environmental movement and the climate scientists. It is a self-licking ice cream cone. No! If you want to ban fossil fuels, it is you who needs to prove that they are dangerous. The rest of us do not need to prove that they are safe. If we followed your (typical, stupid, cowardly, safety-seeking, left-wing) logic, everyone would have to prove that everything they do is safe. That's not possible. And such a rule, if accepted, would have to apply to the many, many possibly dangerous things you do as well. No! Safety is assumed until danger is proven. And as The Rational Pessimist admits, the danger is *not* proven. Your comparison with options traders applies to this. If you stop trading options from the point of view of ignorance, well, that means you either stop trading or eventually the authorities put you in jail for insider trading. Living with ignorance is the human condition. The alternative to risk does not exist. And it applies to a lot more than just global warming. By the logic of The Rational Pessimist, no one would ever do anything. There are also risks to stopping the use of fossil fuels. And The Rational Pessimist ignores those completely. He doesn't even try to estimate them. It's like he thinks that giving up fossil fuels is a bet that can only be won. He seems to think that it's a free bet. And he doesn't bother to analyze the effect that "greater government action" will have on the climate. As Judith Curry notes: http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/05/follow-up-questions-re-my-recent-house-testimony/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm reminded of Pascal's wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager The above is an argument equivalent to The Rational Pessimist's argument for "greater government action to prevent climate change". Ignorance implies you should avoid risk. Do you believe in God now? Let me remind you that Blaise Pascal was a world famous mathematician, physicist, inventor and writer. No one has heard of The Rational Pessimist.
Fail, again. She does not even come close to denying man made global warming. lol. I think I see the problem here. A basic lack of reading comprehension.
The basic problem"I'm not gonna change.". Normally said or implied. There are two basic types of people those that can thing logically and those that can't.One group tries to understand and the other locks onto an idea and defends it come hell or high water. Best to keep an open mind until you are personally convinced. Do not lock the position but stay open to future changes or you will become uninformed and out of date. I graduated from Purdue University in 1950 as a simple Mechanical Engineer. Much of what I learned there has changed but what I learned there made logical sense at the time.If you are logically oriented don't argue with non logical people for it is just a waste of time.Logical people in both the physical and social sciences understand that actions have consequences. The rest of the world doesn't.
but heypa... I would completely agree except in last decade or 2 we run into an expanding class of logical people who no longer feel compelled to follow logical evaluations. In short they say and or do things for money or politics.
but jem, logic, as heypa said, means that a 40% increase in an important greenhouse gas will cause temps to rise. Do you understand that yet jem?