Asked about solutions to climate change, Judith Curry, president and co-founder of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said the cure might be worse than the disease. “We just have to learn to live with any climate we get, and to the extent, we can control it is probably futile,” Curry said. ...
Though organizers said the event was a conversation, not a debate, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, said he believed Mann and Titley painted him as dishonest, and he “took umbrage” with the portrayal. He agreed with Curry — there’s a lot of uncertainty surrounding climate change, and it’s good to disagree on issues. A consensus, he said, refers to the political and social world. “A consensus is not about how many people will jump off a bridge with you,” he said.
For Judith Curry, one of the two climate science skeptics on the panel, the idea that an increase in carbon automatically increases the earth’s temperature is too simplistic. She said earth has many complex systems and there could be other factors playing into climate change that we don’t yet understand. “The madhouse that concerns me is the one that has been created by some climate scientists,” Curry said. “The madhouse is characterized by rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic view of climate change, enforcement of a politically motivated and manufactured consensus, attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates, activism and advocacy for their preferred policies, self-promotion ... and public attacks on scientists who don’t support the consensus.” Moore, the former Greenpeace official, attributed climate change to natural changes in the earth and suggested that humans should even be happy there’s more carbon dioxide in the air because it helps plants grow.
Dr. Judith Curry: 'If you assume that carbon dioxide is the control knob for the climate than you can control climate by reducing CO2emissions. If you assume that climate change primarily occurs naturally, then the Earth’s climate is largely uncontrollable, and reducing CO2emissions will do little or nothing to change the climate. My personal assessment aligns with the right-hand side, emphasizing natural variability. However, the IPCC and the so-called consensus aligns with the left-hand side. About 10 years ago, I also aligned with left-hand side, because I thought supporting the IPCC consensus was the responsible thing to do.'
In 2010, I started digging deeper, both into the science itself and the politics that were shaping the science. I came to realize that the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse.
"There were clear statistical variances that suggest a characteristic neuropathology. In the case of the deniers, counter to the normal pattern of activity, significantly activated regions included the left caudate, bilateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) and para-hippocampal gyri. Activations in the putamen and the globus pallidus were significant at p<0.005 (uncorrected), but no activation was found in the nucleus accumbens.”
"Subjects who had declared varying degrees of skepticism were confronted with images totemic of climate change evidence and were asked to offer their personal assessment whilst undergoing functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI).”
"Deniers were simply unreceptive to the evidence presented and, instead, were activating brain regions associated with memory recall in order to entrench their preconceived ideas."