Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

Archive for January 2011

Curry on debunking cranks

with one comment

If Montford’s arguments and evidence are baseless, then you should refute them. They deserve an answer, whether or not his arguments are valid. And stating that you have refuted these issues before isn’t adequate; the critical arguments have not hitherto been assembled into a complete narrative.
– Judith Curry

And that is all I have heard from RC on the subject of the “Hockey Stick Illusion.” It hasn’t been reviewed by the “mainstream” because I don’t think that they are able to refute the main points.
– Judith Curry

Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black­board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”
– Judith Curry quoted by Michael D. Lemonick

The fact that such papers [Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Claes Johnson, etc] are being written by scientists who take themselves seriously and are being published implies to me that scientists have done a poor job of explaining and making the case for warming of the planet by gases such as CO2. Its easy to roll our eyes and mutter “cranks” when we see something crazy such as the sophistry in the little pamphlets put out by various anti-AGW advocacy groups. But these arguments refuting atmospheric warming by CO2 are being made by scientists that take themselves seriously on this issue.
[…]
We need to raise the level of our game in terms of explaining the planetary warming by infrared absorption of CO2 etc. The missing area of understanding seems to be the actual physical mechanism. Lets target an explanation at an audience that has taken 1 year each of undergraduate physics and chemistry, plus calculus. Once we have something that is convincing at this level, we can work on how to communicate this to the interested public (i.e. those that hang out in the climate blogosphere). Willis Eschenbach’s help is needed in translating this for the WUWT crowd.
– Judith Curry

2 months later:

I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.
– Judith Curry

Claes, I have read and considered your arguments. To rebut/refute them would take more time than I am prepared to spend on this. I have to use my time where I think it is best spent.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

January 31, 2011 at 2:04 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on Michaels’ testimony

leave a comment »

Here is further explanation why I think Michael’s testimony is significant, and why I think the issue of the attribution since 1950 will be the battleground in U.S. CO2 policy.
[…]
While it is my understanding that this temperature correction has not yet been applied to the CRU data set, Michaels’ application of this seems consistent with what Thompson et al. recommend.
[…]
I have no idea whether these adjustments to the temperature record are correct, but they certainly reflect the overall uncertainty in the data.
– Judith Curry

So basically concerning his claim about temperature trends you say

” I have no idea whether these adjustments to the temperature record are correct,”

And on his second point

“So technically, Michael’s argument has not refuted the foundation of EPA’s endangerment finding “

Other than “Interesting if true” where you apparently have no idea if it’s true, why is his testimony “significant”?

“And those defending the science the behind the EPA endangerment ruling (which is basically the IPCC) need to shore up their arguments. “

Shore up their arguments against what? A temperature correction of unknown quality and an attribution of warming you’re not convinced by?
– sharper00

Written by cquo

January 3, 2011 at 9:56 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry gets branded, again

leave a comment »

I’ve mentioned these general ideas a number of times before, and the “mainstream” has declared me to be dotty, and not understanding that the equation ΔTs = λRF was carved in stone on Mount Sinai.
– Judith Curry

Can you point to where you’ve mentioned these general ideas and you’ve been declared “dotty” for doing so or is this another “It’s in my personal email” sort of thing?
– sharper00

many locations, no time to search now, see stoat, rabett run, tobis. i recall the word “dotty” being used by Eli Rabett, you can probably search for Curry dotty on google blogs.
– Judith Curry

A google search for “judith curry dotty” returns this post as the top result with nothing else of relevance I can see.

A full search of both Tobis’ blog and Eli Rabett’s returns no instance of the word “dotty” at all. Stoat’s has one instance from 2007 unrelated to you.

This is of course irrelevant to the no-feedback sensitivity issue which only makes it all the more odd that you raised it in the first place. I’m sure Oliver K Manuel and others are in full agreement with you that the scientific community reacts poorly to the mere questioning of basic principles and responds with pseudo-religious rhetoric about them being carved in stone.
– sharper00

I am removing the “dotty” sentence from my original post, no further discussion on this topic on this thread, pick it up on one of the other threads if you like. If i have time (and I am insanely busy today preparing to leave for the AGU meeting), I will cite instances where my statements on this subject have been criticized.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

January 3, 2011 at 9:47 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on anecdotal evidence

leave a comment »

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.
– Judith Curry

Many of your readers will no doubt ignore this because of my association with RC, but my personal experience as a relatively young person in this game just doesn’t jive with what you are saying. I was highly critical of IPCC AR4 Chapter 6, so much so that the Heartland Institute repeatedly quotes me as evidence that the IPCC is flawed. Indeed, I have been unable to find any other review as critical as mine. I know — because they told me — that my reviews annoyed many of my colleagues, including some of my RC colleagues, but I have felt no pressure or backlash whatsover from it. Indeed, one of the Chapter 6 lead authors said “Eric, your criticism was really harsh, but helpful — thank you!”

So who are these brilliant young scientists whose careers have been destroyed by the supposed tyranny of the IPCC? Examples?
– Eric Steig

With regards to Eric Steig’s point, it is a nice statement, but it is an anecdote, the experience of one person. There are hundreds of contrary experiences.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

January 3, 2011 at 9:40 am

Posted in Uncategorized