Archive for November 2010
The people slagging off on McIntyre, Watts et al. have probably spent no time over at their blogs or made an effort to get to know them personally and understand what makes them tick. Or to talk to the scientific skeptics like Christy, Michaels. Or talk to the libertarian think tanks, like CATO and CEI. Well, i’ve made that effort, and therefore I think I know alot more about the what the “deniers” are really like than the people accusing me of naivete, who have drawn premature conclusions because somebody found some sort of obscure link to an oil company. Well, if any medical researcher who got funds or otherwise engaged with pharmaceuticals was demonized like those linked even in some obscure way with an oil company, well medical research would come to a screeching halt.
So do people really think that the likes of Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Fred Smith, etc. just roll over and slobber all over me because i post on their blog or send them an email? Hardly. It wasn’t exactly easy to convince them that i wasn’t say a Gavin Schmidt equivalent. But the barrier can be breached (and I have breached it with a number of skeptics, i certainly haven’t tackled morano), they sort of trust me at this point as someone who is honest, and I am making a much more informed assessment of these people and what makes them tick than the people that accuse me of naivete.
– Judith Curry
Judith, why are you constantly making such false and wild claims?
it doesn’t take more than a couple of minutes over on wattsup, to discover that Anthony’s blog is mostly making false claims.
and the vast majority of us have wasted hours, if not days reading that rubbish.
Deepclimate accuses Wegman of plaigarism. A very serious charge, that would constitute scientific misconduct. So what is the actual accusation? They accuse him of plaigarizing the definition of “social network” from the Wikipedia, and then complain that the word changes that Wegman made pervert the original meaning of the wikipedia definition. Huh?
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.
Let me say that this is one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen, and the so-called tsunami of accusations made in regards to climategate are nothing in compared to the attack on Wegman.
– Judith Curry
On comment regarding my comments on Wegman (not the Wegman report per se). The whole host of issues surrounding whether or not he is biased, the plaigarism accusation, and whatever else, are issues that I have not investigated in any detail (and don’t intend to). So my comments on this should not receive any undue consideration; they were made when i thought my mention of the Wegman Report was going to be hijacked by the plaigarism issue being raised at deepclimate. This is last word on that subject, and request that Keith not allow any more comments on this topic of plaigarism.
– Judith Curry
Mauri, I am not making any further comments on Wegman, I have remarked on my relative ignorance on the other thread, and for my regrets at being baited into commenting (it pushed one of my “buttons”, usually I don’t let this happened) and my comments were uncharacteristically unmeasured and unproportionate (in other words “bad move”).
– Judith Curry
Wegman’s name came up in the context of alleged process violations of the IPCC. I should have left it at that. But I rose to the bait provided, regarding plagiarism accusations of Wegman. This pushed one of my “buttons”, which is the relentless attacks on persons that are in any way favorable to the skeptics, rather than on the arguments they are making. So I rose to Wegman’s defense, without being anywhere near adequately informed to get involved in a discussion on this. It proved to be a big red herring in the discussion, I admitted my inadequate knowledge on this, and people eventually moved on.
– Judith Curry
DC’s analysis of the Wegman Report was brought up in response to Judith’s implication that the Wegman Report was a well-reviewed quality scholarly effort that deserved recognition on par with any other academic effort, and one the “warmists” don’t like simply because of the conclusion. She even confused it with the NRC report, an entirely different effort. It’s not a “red herring” at all in that context, unless Judith is making it. Rather than accusing others of “baiting” her (if anyone was “baiting”, it was her), she might be better served simply apologizing to DC.
I think many take issue with Judith’s quick and often uninformed defense to criticism of skeptical efforts. DC, for example, who certainly has addressed Wegman’s arguments as well (his understanding of proxies for example), in this case was examining how the research was conducted. Isn’t that Judith’s primary case against climate science in a nutshell? That the process is corrupt?
Dr. Curry’s handling of the Wegman issue her illustrates the problem that I think a lot of people have with her treatment of this subject.
So she introduces Wegman’s critique of the IPCC, calls a detailed case for serious misconduct on Wegman’s part “reprehensible”, defends him at length and then finally admits her ignorance of the subject (to her credit — the parties she want to build bridges to are rarely so gracious). Now, Dr. Curry calls it all a “red herring” and the rebuttal “bait provided”, like she was provoked, and the critiques are supposed to go in one direction only.
It is hard to see what’s annoying in this?
I bring it up not to rehash Wegman per se, but as an illustration of why Dr. Curry’s MO alienates many who have been following the public face of climate science. She starts with vague “problems” with climate science, avoids getting specific, and then when she does provide specifics that can be critiqued, she seems to think that the critiques are part of the problem (”tribalism”), even while those she defends (McIntyre, Watts, etc.) regularly imply or outright accuse malfeasance on the part of climate scientists, to say nothing of the scientific content of their arguments (particularly with Watts). It’s a double standard par excellence.
Why would any professional willingly engage with that? Is it too much to ask that somebody with any stature be damn well informed before they demand respect for people who accuse so freely? Is there nothing additional she would like see from the naysayers? Or is the onus completely on scientists to give ground? Because that’s the impression I get from looking at the whole. Does she provide any specifics to believe otherwise?