Curry on being a radical scholar
I guess being labeled a “heretic” and “turning on my colleagues” and taking to the blogosphere qualifies me for the title of “radical scholar.”
I suspect that my personal impact on the field of climate science has been greater over the past year than the preceding 30 years (although my impact during the past year would be diminished without the previous 30 years). And even if traditional scholars in the field want to ignore me, I am happy with “inspiring lay scientists and future academics. That is its own kind of professional impact.”
– Judith Curry
The “heretic” stuff is really old. It really seems like she desperately wants to be one and blows up any criticism of her ideas into persecution of her “heresy”. If I go to a blog to read about science and find its more about the blogger I tend to lose interest.
What novel contribution to climate science has Curry produced since her rebranding and unprecedented in 30 years impact? Regurgitating social science ideas in the name of “uncertainty” awareness? She’s only one of many people focused on the issue. Emphasizing an increased role for natural variability? Where’s the there there- she pointed me to research from her university that in no way supported the claim made on its behalf. Exposing problems with CMIP3 era modeling? She makes patently untrue claims that are easily refuted by actual modelers. Etc.
People don’t criticize Curry for presenting unconventional or counter-mainstream findings and data. They criticize her for making claims and failing to back them up, passing off nonsense from others as worthy of serious consideration, and so on.
It’s always so great when she has random guest posts from crazy people so that then there can be 1000 comment+ discussions about crazy stuff. Like the Sky Dragons, and Murray Salby’s “it’s not us wot’s adding the CO2 to the atmosphere!” whiff and various other nonsense she seemingly pointlessly tosses out. This helps move the debate forward because even crazier people come to defend these posts.
Is there still a debate on whether backradiation violates the laws of thermodynamics? Yes, at Climate Etc. there is! A vigorous and long and ongoing and long and unresolved and long debate! What about whether burning fossil fuels adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes, they’re having a debate about that at Climate Etc.!
Everything is so uncertain! Even that statement is kind of iffy, come to think of it. By definition. But wouldn’t that imply that if we are uncertain about the uncertainty, then it might imply certainty? I don’t know but it certainly would be good to discuss it. Where is David Wojick when you need him?
It is awesomeness. What an impact.