Georgia Tech Climatologist Chooses 'Career Suicide' to Keep Her 'Scientific Integrity'

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wildchild, Jan 7, 2017.

  1. wildchild

    wildchild

    Global warming is about grants and funding and has nothing to do with science. It's good to see we still have noble people exposing these frauds and hoaxsters.


    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...er-suicide-to-keep-her-scientific-integrity//

    A climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology resigned from her post because she could no longer navigate the stifling political orthodoxy on climate change.

    Former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech Judith Curry announced her resignation in a blog post on Tuesday. While he resignation is technically "a retirement event," and she is "cashing out" to get her pension, Curry explained that "the deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists."

    Curry is known for her scientifically astute explanations of the uncertainties in climate science. Indeed, she has been attacked as "anti-science" by other researchers who repeat the rote "scientific consensus" that man-made global warming is a catastrophic threat to humanity. In a cruel sort of irony, the universities — ostensibly the bastion of academic freedom — have become unsafe for those who, using good scientific methods, are skeptical of the received wisdom on climate change.

    "A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," Curry wrote. "Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc." (emphasis added)
     
  2. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    Judith Curry is one of few climate academics who demonstrate scientific integrity. 30 years from now when "climate change" is reviled as a huge fraud, she will be hailed as a hero for her integrity.

    The climate alarmists have been trying to force her out of a job for several years. First they forced her to step down as department head, now she is resigning. I expect the climate alarmist cabal is celebrating today. It is sad they celebrate forcing out one of the few climate scientists with any integrity. History, in time, will show all of her assertions were correct.
     
    traderob likes this.
  3. Still waiting for one of you denier idiots to post a quote, paper summary, anything from a publishing clinate scientist denying man made global warming. We already know that when asked, 97% of them agree man is causing global warming.

    Holy shit you deniers are fucking stupid. Except for piezoe, who is getting paid to spread doubt and knows better.
     
  4. jem

    jem

    what a troll.. by fraudcurrents...


    not one peer reviewed paper says man made co2 causes warming yet we have over a thousand skeptical papers...

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html








     
  5. WeToddDid2

    WeToddDid2

     
  6. Judith Curry agrees with the 97%. She knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which the dumb fuck deniers still don't get.

    Besides, she is an ugly cunt looking for attention.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
     
  7. wildchild

    wildchild

    Dickhead, science is governed by consensus. It is governed by the scientific method. Consensus is not mentioned anywhere in the scientific method. That it Curry's point.


    [​IMG]
    The scientific method according to a global warming hoaxer.

    Make scary claim about how the Earth is doomed.

    Ask for more funding.

    Repeat process until you retire.
     
  8. achilles28

    achilles28

    It's not 97%. It's 97% of 33%.....

    stop lying.
     
  9. Yes, and when 97% of them accept the hypothesis it means more than if 0.1% reject it.

    And you haven't a clue how the vast majority of scientists are paid. It is not dependent on how scared they make everyone. Besides, if a scientist could disprove it they would have gobs of money thrown at them and they would be famous. There aren't any.
     
  10. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    #10     Jan 8, 2017