Deniers are getting antsy. Judith Curry is complaining about a letter from leaders of prominent scientific organisations in the USA to US Congress (archived here). She is framing it as a political stunt. She just wants to rail against science and climate science in particular, again. Boringly predictable is Judith.
Judith doesn't think much of the knowledge of scientists. She claims that scientists who study fish and amphibians don't know or care that climate change is changing the world's fisheries and frog habitats. She's wrong.
Those in Congress that disagree with Obama’s plan have clearly shown themselves not to be susceptible to pressures from scientist/advocates and their consensus enforcement.Those words are telling. Judith is effectively saying she rejects mainstream science, with her use of the words "consensus enforcement". She goes a lot further. Judith claims, wrongly:
They claim the science is settled; in that case, they are no longer needed at the table.No they didn't. Nowhere in the letter does it say "the science is settled". Judith just made that part up, just like she makes up a lot of stuff.
Judith also wrote about "dogmatic statements", again implying that she doesn't "believe in" climate science. Here is the letter. Tell me which of the "dogmatic statements" would climate scientists disagree with?
We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change.Judith Curry blogs for science deniers. The weather isn't being kind to her, with the massive floods all around the world these past few weeks, the disastrous droughts (eg India, California), the hottest ever record temperatures and more. So she changes the subject hoping no-one will notice. Not only that but she twists the meaning, and her denier fans don't care. Judith wrote, for example:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1
To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.
We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate.
This statement is a blatant misuse of scientific authority to advocate for specific socioeconomic policies.Tell me - where in the letter is there mention of even one single socio-economic policy? All that was mentioned was the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the need to adapt to climate change. There was no mention of any socio-economic policy. There was no mention of any specific policy for how to achieve these two obvious needs.
It seems that the primary motivation of this is for the leaders of these professional societies to be called to the big table to engage in the Congressional policy deliberations about climate change. So, if you are Lamar Smith or Ted Cruz, would you be calling any of these people to participate in Congressional hearings?Of course Ted Cruz and Lamar Smith wouldn't ask climate scientists to "participate in Congressional hearings". They only ask right wing shock jocks and science deniers like Judith, because they aren't interested in science. Compare what Judith wrote about "primary motivation" with the letter:
We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate.There's no point getting upset with disinformers like Judith Curry, whose answer to global warming is: let them buy air-conditioners. It is worth pointing out that Judith is a science denier who would clearly rather see the world's population perish than do anything to mitigate global warming. She and other deniers want the sixth major extinction to hurry up.
PS Going by Judith Curry's stance on scientists writing to Congress about the dangers of climate change, she would also rant and rail about the AMA advocating for immunisation programs.