Holy crap you are confused .......this is the second time I have posted this. You just don't learn do you? It's like your brain can't process info that conflicts with your delusions. When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: [2] “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. .......... http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
Why don't you quote the entire quote. "“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.” As I stated she has never been paid by fossil fuel interests for climate research.
So then you disagree with Judith Curry. And virtually every climate scientist on the planet. Why are we even arguing with you? It's like arguing with the crazy shopping cart lady.
I agree with Curry that in AGW theory the earth should warm as CO2 increases. I also agree with Curry that AGW theory is unproven, and the sensitivity of temperature to C02 is greatly over-estimated in climate models.
Yeah, I sort of feel sorry him. He's backed himself into a corner and the only way out is a huge blow to his ego. Oh well. I suspect this is the problem with most of the deniers. Cognitive dissonance.
She has stated repeatedly that the "climate research" process is completely off the tracks and must be fixed. She states that the reform is only likely to happen in 2030 when wide-spread recognition arrives that the world is cooling and all the models are completely wrong.