Andrew "Crazy Ass" Cuomo: ‘We Didn’t Have Hurricanes’ Before Climate Change

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Gasp! You mean her company actually works for the gas and oil industry!! Oh my!

Again, listing to someone who is funded by the oil companies about AGW is like listening to someone funded by the tobacco companies about lung cancer.

It is simply amazing how gullible and stupid people can be. Simply amazing. And the fact that the oil companies are using the EXACT SAME tactics the tobacco companies used.

But yeah, keep on thinking she's a valid, unbiased source of information. It only goes to show your own confirmation bias and does nothing to prove any case you're trying to make.

It is amusing how identical your arguments, propaganda and hyperbole are to flat earthers and anti-vaxxers.

"Sorry that i'm not a member of your Global Warming religion and your anti-energy coalition."

"Sorry that i'm not a member of your scientism religion and your anti-bible coalition."

"Sorry that i'm not a member of your vaccine religion and your anti-truth coalition."

"Sorry that i'm not a member of your Globe religion and your anti-flat-earth-truth coalition."

Cultists who believe everyone is lying to them always project their own intellectual weakness onto others. They accuse the consensus of fact of being a belief based cult and claim their own counter-factual beliefs are "truth."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Yes, yes it is.

So, I suppose the question is....why are you so gullible?

And again, where's anything written by her that's current (beyond 2007) that's been peer reviewed vis a vis her criticism of climate science? That's all I asked of you, yet in response, instead of linking her current research, you cry about things that do not in any shape or form answer that simple request. Why?

Can't do it?

Why not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Yes, yes it is.

Please explain to me how an oil industry funded scientist contradicting a clear consensus on climate change is any different from Wakefield contradicting the consensus on vaccines? From a tobacco company doctor contradicting the consensus on tobacco related lung disease? From Dr. Peter Duesberg denying AIDS is caused by HIV?

What makes her different from the other quacks/shills?

Nothing. She simply confirms your own belief bias... which is a denial of scientific consensus. She holds no further credibility than any other scientist contracting any other consensus in science, from vaccines to germ theory to the shape of the planet.

Science denialism is science denialism. The subject is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Please explain to me how an oil industry funded scientist contradicting a clear consensus on climate change is any different from Wakefield contradicting the consensus on vaccines? From a tobacco company doctor contradicting the consensus on tobacco related lung disease? From Dr. Peter Duesberg denying AIDS is caused by HIV?

What makes her different from the other quacks/shills?

Nothing. She simply confirms your own belief bias... which is a denial of scientific consensus. She holds no further credibility than any other scientist contracting any other consensus in science, from vaccines to germ theory to the shape of the planet.

Science denialism is science denialism. The subject is irrelevant.
Where have I or Dr. Judith Curry for that matter ever denied science? Unless you're talking about the 12 years to the end of the world as we know it mentioned earlier in this thread along with AOC.


Are you part of this extinction/end of the world/ armageddon cult ?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,602
8,508
136
So you ask for her peer reviewed articles and when i give them you move the goal posts and then complain that i provided you what you asked for. Sorry, but i'm not going to keep playing that game.


You mean the "game" of defending your arguments and claims? Yes, I get you don't like that 'game'.

You were asked for her peer reviewed articles, you responded with a list of her jobs. I think you are the one trying to move the goalposts.

I'd say that the request ought to be for a list of her peer-reviewed articles that actually relate to the topic of climate change and the stance she takes on it.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
You mean the "game" of defending your arguments and claims? Yes, I get you don't like that 'game'.

You were asked for her peer reviewed articles, you responded with a list of her jobs. I think you are the one trying to move the goalposts.

I'd say that the request ought to be for a list of her peer-reviewed articles that actually relate to the topic of climate change and the stance she takes on it.


And that's exactly what I've been asking tajjy for......links to Curry's peer reviewed and published papers that discuss her current views on climate change and why the papers written/views of damned near every other sentient scientist working in the discipline is wrong. I'm willing to give him a decade of time...from 2008 to present. Seems rather easy to me.....Curry's been vocal about climate change on her blog. So where are the peer reviewed and published research papers that buttress her contentions?

Crickets so far.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
You mean the "game" of defending your arguments and claims? Yes, I get you don't like that 'game'.

You were asked for her peer reviewed articles, you responded with a list of her jobs. I think you are the one trying to move the goalposts.

I'd say that the request ought to be for a list of her peer-reviewed articles that actually relate to the topic of climate change and the stance she takes on it.
No i responded with a link to her many peer reviewed articles, you didn't click it i guess. Here it is.


He then changed what he'd requested by asking for "recent" papers. So yes, i'm not playing his game of changing what he asks for.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Luna1968

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Where have I or Dr. Judith Curry for that matter ever denied science? Unless you're talking about the 12 years to the end of the world as we know it mentioned earlier in this thread along with AOC.


Are you part of this extinction/end of the world/ armageddon cult ?

Wow. Using yet another politician to debunk science.

Why are you even replying here anymore?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,971
13,488
136
Where have I or Dr. Judith Curry for that matter ever denied science? Unless you're talking about the 12 years to the end of the world as we know it mentioned earlier in this thread along with AOC.


Are you part of this extinction/end of the world/ armageddon cult ?

We get it, you are old, like Trump, the planet is not your problem so flippin the bird to everyone else. Everyone gets a vote, even the ..... rules.
Lets see TAJs calculation on the subject, how much can the water rise before nations start to destabilize? How much over how long? Give us a number?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,102
14,440
146
We get it, you are old, like Trump, the planet is not your problem so flippin the bird to everyone else. Everyone gets a vote, even the ..... rules.
Lets see TAJs calculation on the subject, how much can the water rise before nations start to destabilize? How much over how long? Give us a number?
Well the science says if we hit the Paris Treaty targets by 2030 or about 12 years we’ll still be guaranteed a 40cm rise by the end of the century and over a meter by 2300 depending on how conservative the assumptions are.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/11/in-2300-sea-level-will-be-at-least-1-meter-higher/
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
*cough @imported_tajmahal

Dr. Judith Curry does nothing to address the scientific consensus. The only people who would listen beyond that are only interested in politics, not science.

Name dropping a single person who, at best spreads FUD, and offers ZERO scientific theories to explain the observed CO2 increase, resulting in an expected AND observed increase in solar energy reaching the ground, resulting in expected AND observed increase in Ocean Heat Content... which periodically belches out the observed increase Atmospheric heat...

The scientific consensus is the only theory left standing. You got nothing to substitute it with. And you never will.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
*cough @imported_tajmahal

Dr. Judith Curry does nothing to address the scientific consensus. The only people who would listen beyond that are only interested in politics, not science.

Name dropping a single person who, at best spreads FUD, and offers ZERO scientific theories to explain the observed CO2 increase, resulting in an expected AND observed increase in solar energy reaching the ground, resulting in expected AND observed increase in Ocean Heat Content... which periodically belches out the observed increase Atmospheric heat...

The scientific consensus is the only theory left standing. You got nothing to substitute it with. And you never will.



But....but......but.....but.......SECOND HAND SMOKE!!!!!
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Pohemi and cytg111
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
*cough @imported_tajmahal

Dr. Judith Curry does nothing to address the scientific consensus. The only people who would listen beyond that are only interested in politics, not science.

Name dropping a single person who, at best spreads FUD, and offers ZERO scientific theories to explain the observed CO2 increase, resulting in an expected AND observed increase in solar energy reaching the ground, resulting in expected AND observed increase in Ocean Heat Content... which periodically belches out the observed increase Atmospheric heat...

The scientific consensus is the only theory left standing. You got nothing to substitute it with. And you never will.
No of course Dr. Curry has done nothing to address the "consensus" . Tell you what Jaskalas try reading.





 
  • Like
Reactions: Luna1968

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
No of course Dr. Curry has done nothing to address the "consensus" . Tell you what Jaskalas try reading.





Those articles are super wordy, and aren't really providing a whole lot of actual personal commentary aside from defining some terms and saying 'this stuff is pretty hard /shrug'. The one that I could tell she had the most commentary on was 'The 52 consensus' which mind you, was written in 2013. She drills really hard on that 52% number, and seemingly fails to point out that the survey was put out to meteorologists only, whereas the cited 97% references all sciences (I assume, she doesn't state). She also kinda leaves out that a full half of the remaining 48% just say 'not enough information' rather than 'natural only'.

Truth be told, all of those articles are just bloggy navel-gazing, she doesn't offer what most would be called 'data' to defend 'a point', she's just jibbering about definitions and her personal opinion of $stuff.

Was there something of substance I was supposed to derive by reading that? Or are you just trying to find data points to back up your pet theory that the science isn't as settled as everyone says it is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Those articles are super wordy, and aren't really providing a whole lot of actual personal commentary aside from defining some terms and saying 'this stuff is pretty hard /shrug'. The one that I could tell she had the most commentary on was 'The 52 consensus' which mind you, was written in 2013. She drills really hard on that 52% number, and seemingly fails to point out that the survey was put out to meteorologists only, whereas the cited 97% references all sciences (I assume, she doesn't state). She also kinda leaves out that a full half of the remaining 48% just say 'not enough information' rather than 'natural only'.

Truth be told, all of those articles are just bloggy navel-gazing, she doesn't offer what most would be called 'data' to defend 'a point', she's just jibbering about definitions and her personal opinion of $stuff.

Was there something of substance I was supposed to derive by reading that? Or are you just trying to find data points to back up your pet theory that the science isn't as settled as everyone says it is?
The science isn't as settled as SOME say it is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
The science isn't as settled as SOME say it is.

It really is amazing how you sound JUST like an anti-vaxxer. You use the same exact arguments and tropes.

download.jpg

And your cherry picking of data and "experts" is as bad as anti-vaxxers using mortality rates rather than morbidity rates to claim VPDs were disappearing before vaccines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Okay, well, that's a strong assertion. Care to elaborate? Care to explain why you feel the science isn't settled? Be sure you bring credible citations because you're trying to jump a very long distance with a very short ramp.
Science is NEVER settled. It can't be and still be regarded as "science". We are not usually discussing the science, but the policy and politics surrounding the science. The Green Raw Deal, Carbon Taxes, Fracking Policy, etc. etc.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,002
136
No of course Dr. Curry has done nothing to address the "consensus" . Tell you what Jaskalas try reading.

I think you misunderstand the concept.

The consensus is regarding the facts on the table, and the prevailing theory as to why they are. This has nothing to do with rabble rousers and voting among the general public, or even other professionals or scientists in other fields. This is specifically about Climate science and the people who work on it or, perchance, study it.

No one, scientist or otherwise, offers a single credible theory to contest the consensus on Climate Change. All those posts from Dr. Curry are either off topic, speaking of people and politics, or simply predate the latest Super El Nino which blew out and obliterated the "pause" along with any and all comparisons to the 1930s warming. The science is clear and unequivocal, no matter how much FUD is thrown around for politics.

I stand by my statement:
The scientific consensus is the only theory left standing. You got nothing to substitute it with. And you never will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,258
13,555
146
Science is NEVER settled. It can't be and still be regarded as "science". We are not usually discussing the science, but the policy and politics surrounding the science. The Green Raw Deal, Carbon Taxes, Fracking Policy, etc. etc.
So you're stating that anthropomorphic climate change is unsettled, as in, it's still up for debate?