From Quadrant Online:
Doing science by consensus is not science at all, says the climatologist all the alarmists love to hate. Not that the enmity bothers Judith Curry too much — and certainly not as much as the debasement of impartial inquiry by which the warmist establishment keeps all those lovely grants coming.
When climatologist Judith Curry visited Melbourne last week she took the time to chat with Quadrant Online contributor Tony Thomas. The professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology is something of a stormy petrel in the climate-change community, as she has broken ranks with alarmist colleagues to question the articles and ethics of the warmist faith. This has made her less than popular in certain circles, even inspiring Scientific American, house journal of the catastropharians, to brand her “a heretic” who has “turned on her colleagues.”
Excerpts:
THOMAS: What empirical evidence is there, as distinct from modelling, that ‘missing heat’ has gone into the deep oceans?
CURRY: Basically, none. Observations below 2 km in the ocean are exceedingly rare, and it is only since 2005 that we have substantial coverage below 700 metres.
THOMAS: Are you supportive of the line that the ‘quiet sun’ presages an era of global cooling in the next few decades?
CURRY: One of the unfortunate consequences of the focus on anthropogenic forcing of climate is that solar effects on climate have been largely neglected. I think that solar effects, combined with the large scale ocean-circulation regimes, presage continued stagnation in global temperatures for the next two decades.
THOMAS: If the skeptic/orthodox spectrum is a range from 1 (intense skeptic) to 10 (intensely IPCC orthodox), where on the scale would you put yourself
(a) as at 2009
(b) as at 2014,
and why has there been a shift (if any)?
CURRY: In early 2009, I would have rated myself as 7; at this point I would rate myself as a 3. Climategate and the weak response of the IPCC and other scientists triggered a massive re-examination of my support of the IPCC, and made me look at the science much more sceptically.
Much more here: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/chatting-climate-heretic/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WOW.
Her regular readers will not be terribly surprised to read this.
Still – it is bracing to remember Professor Curry’s recent years of rethinking. And “rethinking the science” is something absent from worthy, accomplished scientists like Susan Solomon, or the less worthy Sir John Houghton. Their youtube presentations on global warming show really none at all through the years.
Climate science needs to be re-done, essentially from scratch. Professor Curry is one of the few existing climate scientists I’d wish to see involved in the task.
“Catastopharians…” Brilliant! However, the Rastafarians and Pastafarians may take exception…you know, like “deniers”…./sarc tag for safety
Not even Lindzen (And yes, he is the best) buys into “solar influence” these days. The meme that “something is causing something” seems to be contagious. Much related to politicians “must do something because of something meme….”
Sure, there are effects, like there is with the moon, but the reality is likely to be extremely close to this:
http://xanonymousblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/solar-is-garbage.jpg
Although I am not a Keynesian by any stretch, I’ve always liked this quote: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Seems to capture the point nicely.
We are lucky that Internet enables to keep trace of history in the making.
For those who were already here (meaning both interested and skeptical) 10 years ago, here the first steps of J.Curry on Internet : http://climateaudit.org/2006/10/08/currys-comments-on-klotzbach/
There were very few climate blogs back then and it is interesting that J.Curry dared to participate on discussions on Climate Audit (= father of all Climate blogs governed by science) which was anathema to the Holy AGW Church.
You can measure J.Curry’s evolution by reading what she was saying in 2006 and what she is saying today. Directly relevant to one question asked in the interview linked in the main post.
Tom Bowden says:
May 21, 2014 at 2:14 am
Although I am not a Keynesian by any stretch, I’ve always liked this quote: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Seems to capture the point nicely.
Of course Keynesianism as currently practiced has a LOT in common with the Gaia Watermelon Cult if you ponder it.
Paul “Krugaton” Krugman for example.
1) we’re in a recession we need to unleash the Xerox cannon and presses boys
2) Porkulous I the largest stimulus ever executed on Earth outside of war
3) when Porkulous fails(as it did) “we need MORE stimulus spending”
I reject out of hand any discipline in “science” that has as a cornerstone of its experimental paradigm that any failure of said theory can only be remedied by increasing the active ingredient, and refuses to examine the underlying structure of an attempted action.
Keynesianism’s current stepchildren and climate “science” both fit the above.
Galane says:
May 21, 2014 at 2:31 am
“…solar effects on climate have been largely denied.” Fixed that for you.
When even Lindzen (who is, by the way, the best) doesn’t buy into the solar argument, I think it’s fair to say he and I both deny solar influence, and unashamedly so, since the argument is so poor in the first place. To be sure, the question can be asked “what are we denying?”
Same goes for CO2 (although the argument here is stronger)…
Apparently “new research” from Oxford university shows Climategate only had a “fleeting” effect.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/20/climategate-longterm-level-climate-change-scepticism
Fleeting as in scupper COP15 in Copenhagen?
Still , if you’ve lost the battle , lost the argument and given up on objective science you can always try rewriting history.
While I was critical of her ambivalence in the 2009 period, I must say she is rock solid now, especially this – “Authority rests in the credibility of the arguments, which must include explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance and more openness for dissent.
Wonder how we shut up this incredible super hack: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kerry-if-were-wrong-climate-change-whats-worst-can-happen_793392.html
“R. de Haan says:
May 21, 2014 at 4:02 am ”
Why would we want to shut up a Frog-like, kept man, who BTW served in Vietnam, from exposing the vapidity and desperation of the other side? Freedom of Speech is crucial. It’s the quickest way to get the Hating Humans Crowd to expose themselves.
she restores one faith that there ARE some honest people in the enviro fields.
Well, she’s one smart, courageous lady. What’s not to like?
I wonder why more don’t join her lead.
Come on climatologists, be brave, don’t be the last alarmist in town!
R. de Haan says:
May 21, 2014 at 4:02 am
——————-
Just show him this,
page 17- http://reason.org/files/deaths_from_extreme_weather_1900_2010.pdf
Then she needs to find a solar scientist to work out any and all of her possible thoughts on avenues of mechanisms to explore. She needs a critical sceptical eye on this as much as she now does on the CO2 connection. If no direct observation can be seen, it is doubtful there is a connection. If she can’t observe it, why does it matter and whos money will she throw at something that under plain observation, demonstrates no connection? Not mine I hope.
richard says: May 21, 2014 at 5:26 am
I wonder why more don’t join her lead.
=======================
this —> Bengtsson and others reaction to The Times piece on the ‘damaging climate view’
When the USA & Euro governments follow OZ’s lead in scuppering the research money, the entire edifice will collapse on the weight of it’s lies. It was ALWAYS about the money.
xanonymousblog
“…When even Lindzen …doesn’t buy into the solar argument, I think it’s fair to say he and I both deny solar influence, and unashamedly so, since the argument is so poor in the first place”.
Doesn’t this all rather depend on clouds?
Until we can do the physics/modelling of clouds (and either confirm or disconfirm the role of solar) isn’t all the rest rather pointless?
Solar isn’t just TOA w/m2; theres the UV component and the Svensmark component to consider.
I think Judith Curry will be remembered for her courage and honesty long after Mann, Cook, Jones, etc have been forgotten. She is a true heroine and role model for aspiring scientists everywhere.
Judith Curry exemplifies the true scientists who has been willing to examine her beliefs. She offers a prediction that will determine who the real deniers are. She says “I think that solar effects, combined with the large scale ocean-circulation regimes, presage continued stagnation in global temperatures for the next two decades.” I couldn’t agree more.
OMG! Now it’s going after our history! Good thing we probably aren’t causing it…:
http://news.yahoo.com/climate-change-threatens-30-u-landmarks-science-advocacy-231215427.html
Excerpt:
Climate change threatens 30 U.S. landmarks: science advocacy group
(Reuters) – Climate change is threatening U.S. landmarks from the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the César Chávez National Monument in Keene, California with floods, rising sea levels and fires, scientists said on Tuesday.
National Landmarks at Risk, a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, highlighted more than two dozen sites that potentially face serious natural disasters. They include Boston’s historic districts, the Harriet Tubman National Monument in Maryland and an array of NASA sites including the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
“The imminent risks to these sites and the artifacts they contain threaten to pull apart the quilt that tells the story of the nation’s heritage and history,” Adam Markham, director of climate impacts at the union, a non-profit organization for science advocacy in Washington D.C. and the study’s co-author, said in a statement.
It really is sad the way so many people are eager to jump from “not proven” to disproven and can safely be ignored from here on out.
Let’s wait for the rest of the experiments that will test the linkages proposed by Svensmark to actually be run before we start declaring with such certainty that the sun plays little role in climate.
Like most leftists, Kerry is convinced that there is no downside to more taxes and regulations.
(And for him and other elitists, there usually are none. The rest of us aren’t so lucky.)