Curry Quotes

Bits of wisdom and denialist chum from Judith Curry

More consistency

leave a comment »

Do Judith Curry and Richard Muller disagree?

Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:
In recent days, statements we’ve made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not.

We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.
-Judith Curry and Richar Muller, mid-November, 2011

Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.
– Robert Rohde, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard A. Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele, “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process”, mid-October, 2011

In our data, which is only on the land, we see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down.
– Richard Muller, October 21, 2011

This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
– Judith Curry, October 30, 2011

I mean, what they have done is an old trick. It’s how to lie with statistics, right? And scientists can’t do that because 10 years from now, they’ll look back on my publications and say, ‘Was he right?’ But a journalist can lie with statistics. They can choose a little piece of the data and prove what they want, carefully cutting out the end. If I wanted to do this, I could demonstrate, for example, with the same data set that from 1980 to 1995 that it’s equally flat. You can find little realms where it’s equally flat. What that tells me is that 15 years is not enough to be able to tell whether it’s warming or not. And so when they take 13 years, and they say based on that they can reach a conclusion based on our data set, I think they’re playing that same game and the fact that we can find that back in 1980, the same effect, when we know it wasn’t warming simply shows that that method doesn’t work. But no scientist could do that because he’d be discredited for lying with statistics.
– Richard Muller, October 31, 2011


The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: “The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism — There were good reasons for doubt, until now.” But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were “Cooling the Warming Debate – Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why.” The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
-Judith Curry and Richard Muller, mid-November, 2011

But I’ve never said you shouldn’t be a skeptic. I’ve never said that.
– Richard Muller, October 31, 2011

Without good answers to all these complaints, global-warming skepticism seems sensible. But now let me explain why you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer.
– Richard Muller, October 21, 2011

Written by cquo

November 14, 2011 at 11:01 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry has a quiz

leave a comment »

How many of these disinformation tactics are used by JC?

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.

“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.” [source]

“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.” [source]

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.

“Gavin, the post I made in #167 was a summary of Montford’s book as closely as I can remember it, sort of a review. I did not particularly bring in my personal opinions into this, other than the framing of montford’s points.” [source]

7. Question motives.

“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.” [source]

8. Invoke authority.

“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.” [source]

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.

The whole point of my remarks to David Rose of the Daily Mail is that the BEST data has very little to say about GLOBAL temperatures, since it is a land only data set that covers ~30% of the earth’s surface. That is the context for my statements to Rose.” [source]

17. Change the subject.

“I’m hosting a guest post for the authors of two recently published papers, on a topic that everyone seems to want to discuss at the moment: the BEST data set and interpreting the temperature record.” [source]

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.

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. [source]

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
20. False evidence.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.

Written by cquo

November 8, 2011 at 10:48 am

Posted in Uncategorized

A retroactive context

leave a comment »

This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.
– Judith Curry

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the BEST data that says there is no lag/slow down in the warming during the past decade or so.
– Judith Curry

Applying our analysis over the interval 1998 to 2010, we find the land temperature trend to be 2.84 ± 0.73 C / century, consistent with prior decades.
– Robert Rohde, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard A. Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele, “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process”

When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.”
– Judith Curry, posted on October 30, 2011

I have dug into my memory. Rose brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me. The hide the decline discussion was in this particular context.
– Judith Curry, updated on October 30, 2011

Joshua, this whole issue was particularly in the context of discussion of a graph that used a 10 yr running mean.
– Judith Curry, October 30, 2011 at 2:57pm

However, a week later…

The whole point of my remarks to David Rose of the Daily Mail is that the BEST data has very little to say about GLOBAL temperatures, since it is a land only data set that covers ~30% of the earth’s surface. That is the context for my statements to Rose.
– Judith Curry, November 7, 2011 at 9:09am

Written by cquo

November 7, 2011 at 8:58 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Guest M&M Quotes

leave a comment »

But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
[…]
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
– Richard A. Muller

BEST’s slicing methodology, in effect, implements a variation of Menne’s methodology on the larger GHCN data set. (It also introduces a curious reweighting scheme discussed by Jeff Id here.) With a little reflection, I think that it can be seen that the mathematics of Mennian methods will necessarily slightly increase the warming trend in temperature reconstructions from surface data, an effect previously seen with USHCN and now seen with GHCN.
– Steven McIntyre

Written by cquo

November 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

A broader conversation

leave a comment »

[T]he blogosphere, with its diversity of venues and perspectives, is fostering a much broader conversation that has the potential to send climate science and its applications on a more useful track.
– Judith Curry

LL demonstrates that the 20th century’s global warming was predominantly a natural 100-year fluctuation. The leftovers are caused by UHI, the warming effect by increasing station elevation, changes to the screens and their environments in the 1970s, variations in the sun’s magnetic field that could influence the amount of clouds, warming caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2, and further unknown effects.
– Guest Post by Lüdecke, Link, and Ewert

Written by cquo

November 7, 2011 at 12:50 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry gets her words out there

leave a comment »

At the moment, I’m feeling manipulated by both Rose and BEST. This is one reason I started a blog, to get my words out there and minimize my personal exposure to manipulation.
– Judith Curry

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me.
– Judith Curry

It’s true I did ask you in the second conversation whether you thought this affair had to be compared with the leaked CRU emails. But having been asked, you said that it did, hence the paraphrase in my piece.
– David Rose

Judith
Have you replied to the comment made by David Rose at 4.57?
tonyb

David and I have conducted an email exchange, which I am keeping private. The issue of the data plot was his issue not mine, so I cannot conceive that I was the first person to mention hide the decline in that conversation.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

October 31, 2011 at 10:59 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Curry on being teased and misleading graphs

leave a comment »

Figure 5. Result of the Berkeley Average Methodology applied to the GHCN monthly data. Top plot shows a 12-month land-only moving average and associated 95% uncertainty from statistical and spatial factors. The lower plot shows a corresponding 10-year land-only moving average and 95% uncertainty. This plot corresponds to the parameter in Equation 5. Our plotting convention is to place each value at the middle of the time interval it represents. For example, the 1991-2000 average in the decadal plot is shown at 1995.5.
– Robert Rohde, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Robert Jacobsen, Richard A. Muller, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Charlotte Wickham, Jonathan Wurtele, “Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process”

I did not say that “the affair had to be compared to the notorious Climategate scandal two years ago,” this is indirectly attributed to me. When asked specifically about the graph that apparently uses a 10 year running mean and ends in 2006, we discussed “hide the decline,” but I honestly can’t recall if Rose or I said it first. I agreed that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.” There is NO comparison of this situation to Climategate. Muller et al. have been very transparent in their methods and in making their data publicly available, which is highly commendable.
– Judith Curry

I have dug into my memory. Rose brought up hide the decline in our first interview, in the context of the plot that ends in 2006. He called me back specifically to discuss this and teased the “hide the decline” out of me.
– Judith Curry

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled.
[…]
It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.
– Judith Curry

Written by cquo

October 31, 2011 at 9:38 am

Posted in Uncategorized