Skip to content
Advertisements

Climate scientist retires in order to keep her ‘scientific integrity’

January 7, 2017

 For years we have been told that global warming was settled science, but this has been based on the 97% lie. The consensus is not what it appears to be, just follow the link above to learn the truth about the lie. Now one climate scientist has grown tired of trying to navigate the waters between science and politics when it comes to global warming and has decided to retire to keep her “scientific integrity.”

  Here is more:

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. While he resignation is technically “a retirement event,” and she is “cashing out” to get her pension, Curry explained that “the deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists.”

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. In a cruel sort of irony, the universities — ostensibly the bastion of academic freedom — have become unsafe for those who, using good scientific methods, are skeptical of the received wisdom on climate change.

  Here is more still:

“A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science,” Curry wrote. “Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.” (emphasis added)

Curry frankly admitted that “how young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists).”

  That is quite a damning statement: you either are rewarded if you push a direction which is approved by academia or risk career suicide! It is either scientific integrity or career suicide and this woman of integrity chose the former. Many of us so-called deniers have been making the claim that global warming is no longer a scientific study but rather a political agenda and here we have a climate scientist verifying what we have known for years.

  If you still do not believe this is the case you must have missed this post where we learned Barack Obama fired a top scientist for failing to toe the line.

A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

 The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.

“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
6 Comments leave one →
  1. Dr. Jeff permalink
    January 7, 2017 7:33 pm

    This is very familiar to me.

    My Father was a very prominent professor at a very prominent university. He and a very few others like him set the standards for academic acceptance in their fields. This applied nationwide.

    Without their approval, explicit or tacit, no one would receive the money to fund their research. So great was their power, that no PhD candidate had much of a chance without their backing or at least their acquiescence.

    If 97% of scientists approve the idea of AGW (a disputed number, it is probably closer to 40%) it is because they value their jobs and will prostitute themselves to continue the cushy life of an academic. Without the approval of the powerful, a minor position at a minor school would be the best any candidate could hope for.

    All that would be required to declare AGW “settled science” would be for a very few well placed people, like my Father, to pass the word and that would be the end of the discussion.

    Questions?

    Liked by 2 people

    • January 7, 2017 8:44 pm

      No questions here, thanks for sharing that!

      Like

  2. January 7, 2017 8:24 pm

    A lie is only as good as the liar’s, I guess.
    There are many who excel at that ‘ability’ and have no remorse at all about it! Benefit in the material realm giving no heed to the spiritual.

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 7, 2017 8:45 pm

      And they are pretty good at lying! It is good to see someone with a little integrity for once.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Dr. Jeff permalink
    January 8, 2017 9:21 pm

    Here’s another independent mind, a Nobel Prize winner in quantum physics no less. He’s 87 and completely independent of the usual academic politics.

    Dr. Ivar Giaever won the Nobel in 1973. He is also Professor Emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Professor at Large with the University of Oslo.

    The nicest thing he says about Global Warming is that it’s “all wet”.

    http://linkis.com/www.climatedepot.com/MuI25

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 9, 2017 6:22 am

      Thanks for sharing that, I don’t have time to watch it before work but I will tonight,

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: