A true expert fights to take climate science back from the cultists.
As I noted in my previous posts on the East Coast heat wave, the term “heat dome” is part of the language manipulation being embraced by the mainstream media and climate cultists to gin up fear about weather and enforce ecoactivist policies.
For quite some time, I have been taking our language back and countering the global warming inanity by using the term “pseudo-science.” I am grateful to see that a growing number of scientists and analysts have begun to label the theory of human-caused global warming as “pseudo-science.” This perspective enforces the reality that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is not settled, and that the evidence supporting it is flawed or insufficient.
To my profound delight, I have noted that one of the most preeminent scientists in this field is using the term. In a recent interview published on “Watts Up With That” blog, Curry argues that climate science has become “pseudo-science.”
Interviewer: What’s the state of science under these conditions, or climate science in particular?
Dr. Judith Curry: It’s not science anymore; it’s become a pseudoscience. You know, the hardcore, physics-based climate dynamics, you know, such as what we had in the 1980s or whatever, I mean, that’s just a small sliver of what we now define as climate science.
I mean, what the students are getting their PhDs in—they analyze the output of these climate models, looking for some sort of catastrophe that they can identify and write a paper on, without ever even, you know, critically evaluating these models or how they should be used. I mean, it’s just sort of nonsense, and it’s received so much funding. And also, the journalism has been—you know, like 15 years ago, there were only a handful of journalists who specialized in climate or even the environmental beat, so to speak.
Now, you know, until recently, you had, like, 35 people in the climate bureau at a major media outlet, and there were some that were funded by these billionaire donors—Carbon Brief and some of these other things—that were publishing, had huge staffs, and publishing a lot of material, and it was funded by activist donors. It’s not what I would call honest or investigative journalism; it’s journalism that’s designed to advocate for a particular political position.