Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Archive for November 2010

Curry doesn’t see anything loony

leave a comment »

I am Sceptical about ‘Skeptics: make your best case’.
Of course the top tier of the ‘sceptics’ is not going to participate. It sounds like carefully set up ‘bear trap’ for bunch of so called ‘loonies’, whose ideas, right or wrong, can be quickly deconstructed by the academia’s climate establishment.
– vukcevic

Well I’m sorry you view it this way. And I would have viewed this as a good opportunity for your to lay out your arguments for serious consideration. By “top tier”, no I do not expect Richard Lindzen to show up here. Nor do I expect loonies will expose themselves in this way. So far, we don’t have anything loony, and the posts are all deserving of a look. ‘m hoping for a good showing.
– Judith Curry

First, listen to former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s forewarning about the danger from a government-funded “scientific-technological elite” on 17 Jan 1961
[…]
Then hear and see documented evidence that this tax-feeding “elite” distorted experimental data to give tax-payers misinformation about:
a.) The Sun’s origin
b.) The Sun’s composition
c.) The Sun’s source of energy, and
d.) The Sun’s dominant control of Earth’s climate
Finally, read the new book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ (Amazon, etc.), that debunks the basic theory of man-made global warming and exposes some of the filth that the UN, world leaders, Al Gore, science journals, research organizations, UEA, NASA, NAS, FRS, NOAA, etc. are still trying to hide.
– Oliver K. Manuel, 8 hours earlier

Written by cquo

November 30, 2010 at 6:45 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on plagiarism

with one comment

So even if Wegman did copy his definition from the wikipedia (which is extremely unlikely, since the meaning of his definition is slightly different), this is not regarded as plaigarism and as per the wikipedia’s own entry on plaigarism, such commonly held knowledge (i think 18M definitions qualifies as common knowledge) is not something that can be plaigarized.
– Judith Curry


“Actually fairly shocking,” says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. “My own preliminary appraisal would be ‘guilty as charged.’ ”
“If I was a peer reviewer of this report and I was to observe the paragraphs they have taken, then I would be obligated to report them,” says Garner of Virginia Tech, who heads a copying detection effort. “There are a lot of things in the report that rise to the level of inappropriate.”
“The plagiarism is fairly obvious when you compare things side-by-side,” says Ohio State’s Robert Coleman, who chairs OSU’s misconduct committee.
– Plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY

Written by cquo

November 23, 2010 at 1:42 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry doesn’t have any knowledge of this situation beyond what is reported

leave a comment »

Once the UNFCCC treaty was in place, there was pressure on the IPCC to back this up with science. Hence the “discernible” in the SAR. Ben Santer has taken huge heat for that, but look at where the pressure was coming from. The whole UNFCCC treaty wouldn’t make sense unless there was at least “discernible” evidence that this was actually happening.
– Judith Curry

Moderation note: no discussion of emails or individual scientists on this thread (keep that on the other thread, if you haven’t had enough yet.)
– Judith Curry

I now understand what caused such a blogospheric fuss over my post. People can’t seem to get away from the narrative of individual scientists, and think the whole climate issue can be boiled down to Mann vs McIntyre. Not even close: this is noise, a symptom of much deeper and more fundamental and more important issues.
– Judith Curry

Judith,

Can you elaborate on your points about the SAR, Ben Santer, and the “discernible” claim a little more?

Are you claiming that there was no justification made in the SAR WG1 for the “discernible” claim?

In the main post you say “Once the UNFCCC treaty was in place, there was pressure on the IPCC to back this up with science. Hence the “discernible” in the SAR. Ben Santer has taken huge heat for that, but look at where the pressure was coming from.”

By “heat” do you refer to the Seitz WSJ article? Or are you referring to wider criticisms from the scientific community?
– Paul H

Paul, see the wikipedia page for Santer, points you to the basics of the controversy. Others can chime in.
– Judith Curry

I’m well aware of the of the publicized attacks made against Santer i.e. the ones mentioned in the wikipedia article. I’m interested to hear if there were any criticisms made within the mainstream climate community at the time. Perhaps you can provide some comment on this? I’m only interested in this because you seem to be alleging the motivation for the “discernible” comment is political not scientific. Therefore, I’m interested in whether Santer and the “discernible” statements are out on a limb scientifically. The presence of mainstream scientific criticism would support the politically motivated narrative.

Continuing on the scientific vs. political motivation for the “discernible” claim, you say that the discernible statement was made in the SPM of the SAR and that it was not supported by the other lead authors. Can you provide evidence of this? I can see that the WG1 of the SAR concludes with the statement that:

“The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.” With a following qualifying statement that due to uncertainties the magnitude of this effect is limited.

Therefore it’s not just the SPM that is suffering from the alleged political interference and lack of support from the other lead authors. Given the wider presence of the “discernible” claim and its apparent justification in the WG1 I would really appreciate your comment on this; are you claiming that there was no justification made in the SAR WG1 for the “discernible” claim made in the SPM?
– Paul H

I do not have any knowledge of this situation beyond what is reported in the standard sources. This issue has been widely discussed and disputed. There is no particular reason to rehash it here, i brought it up as a key issue in the history of the IPCC and the debate surrounding it.
– Judith Curry

“I do not have any knowledge of this situation beyond what is reported in the standard sources.”

I thought you might have been aware of other criticisms, oh well.

“There is no particular reason to rehash it here, i brought it up as a key issue in the history of the IPCC and the debate surrounding it.”

Based on the letter written by Santer endorsed by 3 lead authors of chapter 8 your “key issue” appears to be founded on baseless accusations. I’m surprised that you’re not willing to discuss this issue since it formed an important part of your narrative that the politics was driving scientific statements in IPCC reports. Surprised because if the premise is a false one, as the letter indicates, then the argument you put forward falls down. Consider me un-persuaded.
– Paul H


The facts remain that when you make broad and unspecific statements alleging ‘corruption’ or a ‘lack of integrity’ you simply feed the blog-chorus, while the people involved, or those who know the people you appear to referring to, are just left puzzled about what you are talking about. Because of course, no-one with integrity would make such serious allegations without some evidence.

However, when you have brought up specifics, they are generally warmed over talking points without any actual substance. Your latest comment about Ben Santer’s role in SAR is a case in point. There is a very readable account of what happened available on RC, and indeed in Steve Schneider’s last book (chapter 5). Neither account supports your, frankly, defamatory, claim, which instead appears to be based on the letter from the late Fred Seitz, someone who wasn’t there, and who invented a whole conspiracy out of the whole cloth on the op-ed pages of the WSJ. There is no question in mind who, between Fred Seitz, Ben Santer and Steve Schneider had a problem with integrity. Hint, his name doesn’t start with Ben or Steve.
– Gavin

Written by cquo

November 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry didn’t want to start a flame war there

with 2 comments

[A]t the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC. These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy. Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC? Some are mid to late career middle ranking scientists who have done ok in terms of the academic meritocracy. Others were still graduate students when they were appointed as lead authors for the IPCC. These scientists have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers. This advancement of their careers is done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science. Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative.
– Judith Curry

Who are these priests of the IPCC?

Who indeed?

Broad-brush character assassination against a host of unnamed (but readily identifiable) scientists: is this really the way you plan “to get the public perception of climate science back on track?”
– PDA

Well i could start a flame war and name names, but there is little point to that.
– Judith Curry

The point would be that without naming names, you are implicating every scientist on all the Working Groups.
– PDA

I absolutely do not name any individuals here, for many reasons. The primary one being that the problem is with the SYSTEM. That some people used the system to for their own personal advantage is not surprising or particularly problematic (who can blame the graduate student appointed to be a lead author for the IPCC from using this to their advantage). The problem was the positive feedbacks and lack of checks and balances in the system, and how the whole thing snowballed.
– Judith Curry

I am not indicting the scientists, I am raising concerns about the institutions of scientists.
– Judith Curry

I’m surprised that people thought I was attacking climate scientists in my original post. Climate scientists have been pawns in all this; some have been victims and others have benefitted. If anyone can be labeled as a “villain” in all this, it would arguably be the UNEP/UNFCCC; but in a way that begs the question of how all this started and who started it.
– Judith Curry


Your original post was about “a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC [and] used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy.” These scientists, you tell us, “will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC” and “have used to IPCC to gain a seat at the “big tables” where they can play power politics with the collective expertise of the IPCC, to obtain personal publicity, and to advance their careers.”

Today, you claim to be “surprised that people thought I was attacking climate scientists in my original post.” Today, you claim to be “tired of the endless debate over who is hero and who is villain in the scenario unfolded in the CRU emails.”

I’d actually have less of a problem if you stood your ground and had the courage of your convictions. Instead, you threw bleeding red meat to the psuedoskeptic ideologues who dominate these comments, and left town for a couple of days, professing to have no idea what caused all the fuss upon your return. Now you’re attempting to shift focus to “the system,” which is nothing other than climate scientists plus a handful of professional administrators.

You’re attempting to create a narrative of an earnest reformer, who tried to change the system from the inside, but who was driven out when she dared to question climate “dogma.” I see someone who was never on the inside, whose beliefs are far closer to those of Anthony Watts and Willis Eschenbach than she ever lets on, and who is jockeying for a position of power and influence with the new Congressional majority.

It gives me no pleasure to say this. I think I’ve made a genuine effort to meet you half-way, engaging with you on the substance of your posts, and offering my personal blog as a venue for a dispassionate debate of issues with the Italian flag. No more. I feel like I’ve been duped.
– PDA

Written by cquo

November 20, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry branded as a drama queen

leave a comment »

People don’t like me saying this, but none are defending me from the label of heretic for talking about overconfidence in the IPCC and concerns about treatment of the uncertainty (which stimulated the heretic label). Which seems to support my dogma argument.
– Judith Curry

Boris, the story is how my concerns about uncertainty resulted in my being regarded as a heretic, which implies the existence of dogma.
– Judith Curry

Gavin, how is my raising the issue of uncertainty and integrity of climate science grounds for branding as a heretic?
– Judith Curry

PDA, the heretic thing is not my narrative. See the Sci Am article. The issue of IPCC dogma was one of many elements of what I wrote. Call it something else if you want, the issue doesn’t go away.
– Judith Curry


It really strikes me as odd that you keep using that article as justification for your rhetoric. I’d never heard of that journalist before so why am I supposed to care what he thinks? Why is anyone supposed to care whether he thinks you’re a “heretic” or not?

Coming from an entirely blank perspective about the guy his article read like a standard “lone maverick challenges the consensus and they just might be right” story I’ve read countless times in relation to scientific topics.

I really find it very difficult to believe that the chain of logic is “Journalist labels you a heretic in the title of an article”–>”The existence of a heretic requires the existence of dogma” –>”You therefore feel happy labeling the output of the IPCC has dogma and its participants as priests”.

I also find it odd that in your own blog post about that article you remarked several times that this sort of behavior would move you from “heretic” to “apostate” but then you proceed to write a highly inflammatory piece of your own perhaps with an eye to realizing your own prophecy.
– sharper00

There is a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether the one word inserted by an editor to the title of one article in one publication represents Curry being “labeled a heretic” in any meaningful way.
For what it is worth I reject the label, whether used by an anonymous editor or self-applied by Curry. It’s meaningless. Curry is a gadfly with some good critiques, and a stealth advocate in my estimation. Heresy and apostasy are melodramatic terms to use for what she does, and I reject them.
– PDA

Judith, you have it completely backwards. It is your unsupported insistence that ’some scientists’ think the ‘IPCC is dogma’ that draws criticism. But no-one actually thinks this (please cite some examples if you disagree). No-one thinks there is no uncertainty (likewise). And no-one thinks that you are a ‘heretic’, precisely because there is no dogma.
All anyone wants from you is clarity, evidence and logical thinking instead of vague, unverifiable, broadbrush attacks on (unnamed) people’s integrity.
– Gavin

Written by cquo

November 20, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Why Curry thinks she’s right

leave a comment »

If what i said was utter nonsense, why is anyone here talking about it, I have 440 comments in 24 hours.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

November 20, 2010 at 11:39 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on surfacestations.org

leave a comment »

Watts’ surface stations.org deserves credit. Credit where it is due, anyone?
– Judith Curry


The surface stations project led to this report:

… leading meteorological institutions in the USA and around the world have so systematically tampered with instrumental temperature data that it cannot be safely said that there has been any significant net “global warming” in the 20th century.

In short, an accusation of career-ending malfeasance.
[…]
Does Dr. Curry stand by giving Watts credit for this? Or was she unaware of the background here as well? Or what?
– afeman

Written by cquo

November 20, 2010 at 11:36 am

Posted in Uncategorized