Archive for August 2011
He is widely published and cited in applied mathematics.
Apart from his misunderstanding on this particularly topic, I can’t understand is why he would be hanging out with the skydragon group, and why he would pull a stunt like quoting me out of context after explicitly calling him on it here.
This kind of behavior is really destroying his credibility. Ignoring or insulting such people doesn’t make them go away. Identifying the flaws in their argument and then seeing them demonstrate untrustworthy behavior is the way to diminish any credibility they have.
– Judith Curry
h/t Rabett Run
I just finished listening to Murry Salby’s podcast on Climate Change and Carbon. Wow.
If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science. Salby and I were both at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the 1990′s, but I don’t know him well personally. He is the author of a popular introductory graduate text Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. He is an excellent lecturer and teacher, which comes across in his podcast. He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher. While all this is frustratingly preliminary without publication, slides, etc., it is sufficiently important that we should start talking about these issues.
– Judith Curry
Can you please state for the record what *specifically* you found “sufficiently important” about this “that we should start talking about” it?
Thanks in advance.
[T]his is another of Judith’s whole charade of “this is interesting! Maybe I will put it on my blog and reserve judgment to avoid any criticism of myself, but pretend it has validity.”
I pointed this out with Loehle’s piece too. It is a dumb game she plays and everyone else sees it.
– Chris Colose
The fact that Murry Salby is a former colleague of mine and definitely a scientific straight shooter initially caught my attention on this. If correct, his hypothesis has far reaching implications on both AGW science and policy. His presentation was extremely lucid and well done (even without availability of the plots.) The topic he addresses was one that I thought was squarely in the “what we know with confidence” category; this presentation synthesizes and opens up issues at the knowledge frontier on this topic. Fascinating stuff.
The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus. They seem to view their role as explainers of the consensus and arbiters of climate “truth.” I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.
– Judith Curry
This is crap.
People get upset because you promote, credulously repeat, or make on your own behalf, claims that sound at best far-fetched. When pressed for specifics, you frequently backpedal or move goalposts. When you get called on it, you play the victim, seeking (but never quite succeeding) to further promote your self-styled image as a rebel.
This Salby thread is a great example. On some level, I suspect you know that it’s ridiculous, but it’s “Not IPCC”, so what the heck- you put up a thread. You get pressed on specifics of why you support it, and **you cannot name a single concrete thing mentioned in the presentation you are promoting**.
JC: “I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.”
That humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 levels was at “the knowledge frontier” decades ago.
This “knowledge frontier” “e-salon” you describe sounds incredibly fascinating. Let me know when you trade in this dumping ground for “Not IPCC” for something remotely like it.