Posted on 01/06/2017 7:56:23 PM PST by Leaning Right
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.
*snip*
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
If anyone doesnt think thismis how it is for just about evrrything else, they are crazy.
All the nutrition info at these very same places have destroyed the careers of researchers who didnt affirm the hypotheses their grants were supposed to support.
PC radicals destroy another career.
I've recently read that string theory is a dead end. Is that wrong?
Correction: Steve McIntyre’s trip was in early 2008.
https://climateaudit.org/2008/02/06/off-to-georgia-tech/
Soon after this invitation to Steve McIntyre,Professor Curry began to be vilified by prominent activists in her field and essentially shunned. The way funding works around the NSF and other funding agencies is that prominent activists can influence what work gets funded and who gets funded. The field of climate science is best described as Lysenkoist - with minimal tolerance of those with contrary opinions.
That Professor Curry fought for so long in this environment is to her credit. May she prosper and prevail.
Climate Change bump for later....
I'm no string theory expert as my primary training is in chemistry. But the article I mentioned earlier said that there is no hard evidence supporting string theory. And, furthermore, due to the nature of the theory there can never be any such hard evidence.
So I guess it all depends on how well string theory explains what is observed in the lab. All I know is that string theorists keep inventing more and more dimensions to try to explain things. I think they are up to 26 dimensions now. Sounds like a very weak theory to me.
But here's the kicker. Big Bang's Sheldon Cooper has given up on string theory. So I guess that settles it.
“Hopefully she will have a bright future, after Trump is sworn in!”
Trump should appoint her head of NOAA, NASA, or the EPA. She’d be a major asset in any of the three.
Trump cabinet position. global warming czar.
>I’ve recently read that string theory is a dead end. Is that wrong?
It’s been a dead end for 30 years but since Physicists no longer produce real break throughs they need something as complicated as String Thorey to keep thier jobs and funding. Thus it lingers on.
OOH, I’m sorry to see her go and sorry she is abandoning the fight.
OTOH, I completely understand.
Rummyfan
Georgia Tech EE 1981
....and then they claim that if you work in the private sector instead of government or academia, then you’re just a whore, and any anti-AGW research you do is just for money and you’re to be ignored. See how neatly that all ties up?
....and then they claim that if you work in the private sector instead of government or academia, then you’re just a whore, and any anti-AGW research you do is just for money and you’re to be ignored. See how neatly that all ties up?
I saw the interview also. It’s worse than you described. Professor Curry put herself among the “98%” of scientists who acknowledge global warming and conclude that human activity has contributed to it. Her sin was to emphasize the imprecision of the estimates of the extent of warming and the fraction contributed by humanity, as well as to challenge the wisdom of extreme and costly policy interventions that might alter future warming by, at most, less than one degree centigrade over the next century.
The same attitude exists in biomedical research. If you work for Big Pharma or even get research funding from Big Pharma, you are considered a corporate sellout. Never mind that most of the major medical breakthroughs in recent years have come from privately sponsored research rather than government funding through NIH, NCI, etc. Tom (not John) Stossel from Harvard has written a revealing book about the conflict-of-interest myth in corporate-sponsored pharmaceutical resarch.
Are you a Ramblin Wreck from Georgia Tech and a helluva engineer?
She was probably fighting people like O'Leary (underlines mine):
"O’Leary said that Larsen A and B’s breaks were 'unequivocally climate change-related,' but so far researchers aren’t linking global warming to Larsen C’s split.
The team says the break in Larsen C has likely been caused by natural geographic patterns marked in their research for decades.
That last notwithstanding, you can bet the hype will be that "climate change" caused the calving.
Apply to Liberty University.
Indeed I am. And I drink my whiskey clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.