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

 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